Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses an intriguing biblical figure: Ravshakeh. He was an agent of the King of Assyria, engaging in psychological warfare by speaking directly to the Jewish soldiers in Chizkiyahu’s army—in Hebrew, no less—encouraging them to surrender, as he claimed it was their destined fate to lose. Ravshakeh even went so far as to assert that God Himself approved of Assyria’s impending conquest (Melachim II 18:25). Some sources suggest that Ravshakeh was actually a Jewish turncoat, adding a layer of betrayal to his actions.  

The Mei HaShiloach (Shemos, Beshalach 7) raises an interesting question regarding divine intervention in military victories. Why is it that in some cases, such as the Splitting of the Red Sea, the Jews are entirely passive—even being told not to pray—while in other cases, such as the war against Amalek, they must actively engage in battle and fervent prayer for divine assistance?  

For example, before the Red Sea, God commands Moshe (Shemos 14:15):  

“Why do you cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward.”  

Here, no prayer or action is required beyond simply moving forward. However, in the battle against Amalek (Shemos 17:8-13), Moshe must raise his hands in prayer, and the Jews must physically fight for victory. Similarly, when facing Ravshakeh and the Assyrian king, Chizkiyahu must pray fervently for divine rescue (Melachim II 19:1).  

The Mei HaShiloach offers a profound explanation: The difference depends on how the enemy perceives God. Pharaoh outright denied God’s existence, declaring (Shemos 5:2):  

“Who is Hashem that I should listen to Him?”  

Pharaoh saw himself as a deity, relying on his own might, science, and sorcery. Since he completely rejected God, the confrontation with him was personal—God would intervene directly and reveal His power without any need for human involvement. Thus, the Jews did not need to pray at the Red Sea; God Himself was going to make His existence undeniable.  

In contrast, Ravshakeh and the Assyrian king, like Amalek, acknowledged God—but in a distorted and self-serving way. Ravshakeh even claimed that God was on his side. This is why our Gemara describes him as a mumar (apostate)—not because he was ignorant of God, but because he twisted his belief toward evil. Similarly, the Gemara (Kiddushin 18a) describes Esau’s descendants, including Amalek, as a mumar, implying that they too had some belief in God.  

Since both Amalek and Ravshakeh had a relationship with God—albeit a corrupted one—the Jews had to pray and intervene. We can explain the Mei HaShiloach’s idea with this metaphor: Two siblings are competing for a parent's favor. When both children have a relationship with the parent, one must plead their case to win preference. In the battles against Amalek and Ravshakeh, Israel had to "convince" God through prayer and effort to grant them victory.

However, when it came to Pharaoh, there was no "competition"—Pharaoh had no relationship with God at all. Therefore, no pleading or intervention was necessary; God acted directly to make His presence undeniable.  

This distinction teaches a powerful lesson: When faced with those who outright deny God, He may choose to reveal Himself without human effort. But when dealing with those who acknowledge God yet distort His truth, it is upon us to pray, take action, and demonstrate our own devotion to merit divine favor.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families as well male sexual health. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com