כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֶךָ וְרָאִיתָ סוּס וָרֶכֶב עַם רַב מִמְּךָ לֹא תִירָא מֵהֶם כִּי יְדֹוָד אֱלֹקיךָ עִמָּךְ הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: (דברים כ:א)

“When you will fight a war against your enemies and you will see horses and chariots (literally, ‘a horse and a chariot’ in the singular) forces larger than yours—don’t be afraid of them because Hashem your God, the One who took you out of Mitzrayim is with you.” (Devarim 20:1)

Rashi explains, “Horses and chariots (literally, ‘horse and a chariot’): “in My eyes they are all as only one horse (in other words, powerless).” Similarly, it is written (Shoftim 6:16), ‘and you shall smite Midyan as if they are one man.’ And similarly, it is written (Shemos 15:19), “For the horse (not horses) of Pharaoh came into the sea.””

Zera Shimshon observes that these three occurrences aren’t the sole instances in Tanach where the singular form conveys a plural sense. In parshas Vayishlach, the Torah recounts Yaakov’s message to the messengers sent to appease Eisav, stating, “I possess an ox (singular), a donkey (singular), sheep, and both male and female slaves. I send this message to my lord, seeking your favor.” Rashi there, however, explains that it’s normal to refer to multiple oxen as an “ox.” This parallels how one might tell a friend, “Last night the rooster crowed,” instead of “the roosters crowed.”

Zera Shimshon asks: If it is normal to designate multiple oxen as a single “ox,” what substantiates Rashi’s claim that the singular “horse” in the Torah, though denoting the entire enemy army, serves as evidence of their weakness? Could the choice of the singular form merely align with common speech—as Rashi noted in parshas Vayishlach?

Zera Shimshon gives the following answer: there are two different reasons behind Yaakov’s mention of “oxen and donkeys,” when addressing Eisav and the rationale behind the Torah’s inclusion of these animals in our parsha. According to the medrash (Zohar Parshas Vayishlach 166a), the five items Yaakov sent to Eisav—“oxen, donkeys, lambs, male slaves and female slaves”—symbolize five distinct negative forces—klippos, present in the world. The act of sending five different things showed Yaakov’s governance over all these adverse forces. The fundamental message conveyed was that since Eisav’s own potency stemmed from these negative forces, Eisav should reconsider challenging Yaakov, since Yaakov possessed superior strength and could assert authority over every one of them.

Given that Yaakov’s purpose in mentioning these animals was to show his general dominion over the different types of klippos—rather than emphasizing the gift’s size—there was no need for Yaakov to specify the gift’s magnitude. The actual quantity of each one was secondary. Rashi’s explanation only serves to illustrate that the Torah sometimes uses the singular form for a plural, and, therefore, Yaakov’s statement about having “an ox etc.” wasn’t false since people often refer to multiple oxen as a singular ox.

However, the mention of horses and oxen in our parsha—cautioning the people not to fear when confronting other nations in battle, in Shemos’ description of how Hashem submerged all of Pharaoh’s horses at the Sea of Reeds, and in sefer Shoftim, where Hashem instructs Gideon to engage the Midianite army as a single entity, serves a wholly distinct purpose.

In these instances, the emphasis lies in demonstrating that despite the concept of “strength in numbers,” Hashem’s supremacy exceeds numerical might. Consequently, even though there is occasional use of the singular form to denote a group, it would have been more suitable to utilize the plural form in these contexts. This is primarily because the key theme of these verses revolves around Hashem’s immense power. Rashi’s clarification expounds that these verses adopt the singular form specifically to highlight the precise notion that Hashem’s strength is so overwhelming that Hashem perceives even the mightiest and greatest armies as a solitary individual.

To summarize, Rashi explains that the Torah employs the singular form when cautioning Bnei Yisroel not to fear the numerous enemy horses, because when Hashem engages in battle alongside them, His unparalleled might is such that all the horses in the enemy’s army are akin to a singular entity. However, this explanation isn’t so simple. Rashi’s commentary in parshas Vayishlach notes that the Torah often employs the singular form for a plural, mirroring colloquial speech. Given this, how can Rashi assert here that the singular usage is intended to exemplify Hashem’s immense strength, implying that He views one or many horses as equal? It’s plausible that the singular usage is a matter of common linguistic practice!

He answers that everything pivots on the fundamental purpose underlying the mention of oxen or horses. In parshas Vayishlach, the inclusion of various items sent to Eisav is intended to signify that these items pertain to distinct realms of negativity, over which Yaakov maintains authority (as evidenced by his sending them to Eisav
and they went). This strategic move ensures that Eisav—who derives power from these adverse forces—will refrain from initiating conflict. Consequently, as the emphasis rests on the diversity of items—rather than their individual quantities—Rashi explains that this as a commonplace usage.

Conversely, in the other instances, the spotlight falls on the number of animals, aiming to stress Hashem’s strength. Therefore, the plural form should have been employed to accentuate Hashem’s might. Rashi thus clarifies that paradoxically, utilizing the singular form amplifies Hashem’s strength even further; these forces, despite their multitude—when confronted with Hashem—are comparable to a single horse.

HaRav Shimshon Nachmani—author of Zera Shimshon lived in Italy—about 300 years ago, in the time of the Or HaChaim HaKodesh. The Chida writes that he was a great mekubal and wrote many sefarim—including sefarim about “practical Kabbalah”—and asked that all of his sefarim be buried after he passes away, except for Zera Shimshon and Niflaos Shimshon on Avos. HaRav Shimshon Nachmani had one child who died in his lifetime (hence the name “Zera Shimshon”) and in the preface, he promises for people who learn his sefarim after he dies, “ … And your eyes will see children and grandchildren like the offshoots of an olive tree around your tables, wise and understanding with houses filled with all manner of good things … and wealth and honor …