Jewish welfare

Parshat Ki Tetze

In chapter 24 we read a series of mitzvot that delineate aspects of a welfare society and social concern. The verses talk about leaving parts of your fields and crops for the downtrodden, the convert, the widow, etc.. We also find the Torah give reasons for these mitzvot. In verses 18, 19 and 22 we find the reason: You should remember that you were once slaves in the Land of Egypt, etc.. This is in addition to the multitude of mitzvot we find throughout the Torah that are to remind us of our days in Egypt.

A Jewish community is not meant to be purely capitalistic. Social rules must be built into society. We have to care for the needy and less fortunate among us. It is not only to be left for the philanthropic feelings – when a person feels like donating. The commandments tell us the rules of what we have to leave for the poor.

In Egypt we were the lower-class of society. We were the slaves. We were the people who were not taken care of. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to think back to Egypt – remember those times, imagine what it was like. Think back and understand how difficult it is for the widow, for the orphan, the convert, the poor, etc. By doing that, you will be sensitive to his needs and you will be able to treat him properly, with the proper care every Jew deserves.

Positive Chinuch

(this article has been cross-posted at DafNotes (in the sidebar and) directly here )

Masechet Yoma 82a

NOTE: no halachic conclusions should be drawn from this article. A competent Orthodox Rabbi must be consulted regarding any practical questions that might arise. The following is a discussion for hashkafic thought alone and has not been fully researched for the purpose of psak.

On daf 82a of Masechet Yoma we have a discussion in the gemara regarding what age a parent must begin training his child to fast on fast days, specifically Yom Kippur.

The Tosefos Yeshanim asks an interesting question: There is a rule in halacha that says if one sees a child eating neveilos (non-kosher food) one must not (or need not) stop him. So what is the big discussion on what age to train him to fast, we should be discussing what age to stop him from actually transgressing something assur!!??

The Tosefos Yeshanim answers the question by bringing the opinion of R' Eliezer from Mitz. R' Eliezer from Mitz is of the opinion that the two issues are completely separate. There is an inyan of "chinuch" which entails training and educating the child to do a mitzva - to do what is right. Then there is an inyan of abstaining from issur. Chinuch, he says, has no bearing on abstaining from issur, only doing mitzvos. That is why we are discussing training him to fast rather than stopping him from issur.

The idea R' Eliezer is telling us is mind boggling (to me). The mitzva of chinuch is only for positive mitzvos, not to stop him from doing something wrong (though that too might be admirable to teach a child when possible). If one sees the candy-man in shul give a child a candy with a questionable hechsher (or even no hechsher), one should talk to the candy-man about no longer providing those candies, but he should not take away the candy from the child! Let the child finish eating it. To me that is an amazing chiddush in chinnuch!

Why is that so?

I was thinking about it and considered this thought. We want to give our children a positive outlook on Yiddishkeit and mitzvos. The obligation of chinnuch incorporates that idea. The obligation to educate your child in mitzvos is, on the one hand, to train the child in the habit of actually doing the mitzvos. On the other hand, it is also to engender within the child the positive attitude towards doing mitzvos. We urge him to do mitzvos, but we do not stop him when he does issurim. We want to give over the positive aspect and not the negative.

Again, this should not be used as a halachic guide. It is simply a thought on an idea presented by R' Eliezer from Mitz in the Tosefos Yeshanim. If the question arises and you need to know whether to stop your child from doign something that is assur, you must consult with your Rav.

War and Peace

Parshat Shoftim

Starting with 20:10, the Torah describes the way the Jewish Nation goes out to war. It delineates how we fight, the terms we offer for peace, and how we settle things properly.

In 20:10 the Torah says “When you come to a city to wage war upon it, you first offer it peace.” Fighting is never meant to be the ideal solution to our problems. We are meant to first look for peaceful resolutions to our disputes.

In 20:11 the Torah continues by letting us know what peace is: “If they respond for peace, all the residents of the city will pay taxes to you and will have to serve you”. Peace is not a fictitious set of achievements that allow situations to continue and let resentment fester and build up. Peace is a method of achieving a situation without having to kill all sorts of innocent people. The only way to have peace with our enemy is by having them be subservient to us.

In 20:12, 13, 14 the Torah continues: “If they reject the peace with you, you shall wage war upon the city. You should kill every male by sword. Only allow the women children and cattle to live. All that is in the city will be yours as spoils of war, etc.”

The Torah tells us how to fight and it tells us how to make peace. The prerequisite for this to happen is that we must be coming from a position of strength, not weakness. If our goals are clear and the opposing people are in fear of our strength and unity, then we will be able to achieve our goals, even peacefully. If we are weak, they will not accept our terms and we will not resort to the appropriate methods of warfare, and we will end up paying the cost in lives of our soldiers and more.

 

The Executioner

Parshat Shoftim

This sounds like the title to a John Grisham novel, or a Harrison Ford movie. but it is not.

The passuk tells us in 17:7 that if one worships other gods, etc., we bring him t judgement with witnesses, etc., and when the death sentence is meted out, "the hand of the witnesses will be first to kill him, and then the hands of the ntion, You shall remove the evil from your midst."

Why must the witnesses get their hands dirty and also play the role of executioner? Why not have the executioner of the Beis Din perform the execution?

It is a fairly easy thing for two people to show up in court and testify against someone else (truthfully of course. I am not talkign about them possibly fabricating their stories). There would be no reprcussions and nothing for them to worry about. By making them follow through and carry out the execution, we are making it much more serious. They have to realize that they are not one small part of a process, but everything is hinged on them and they will be the ones up front getting their hands dirty performing the execution.

If that does not sober them up, nothing will.

They, and the rest of the nation if necessary, must be prepared to act on their findings and eradicate evil from amongst them.

Righteousness and the Land

Parshat Shoftim

In the beginning of this weeks Parsha, the Torah instructs the nation to appoint judges and police. to judge the nation properly, not to show favor in judgement or take bribes. Then in 16:20 it continues by saying, "Seek out righteousness so that you will live and inherit the land that Hashem has given to you."

The question is, and it is asked by many, what is the connection between judging righteously and inheriting the land?

Rashi, with the help of the explanation of te Sifsei Chachamiim, explains that ,"So you will ive and inherit the land" is not referring to the Seek out righteousness statement, rather it is going back on the appoint judges to judge properly and not take bribes. if you appoint such judges they will be worthy of bringing the nation to inherit and live in the Land of Israel.

I think that it is all one continuous flow of pesukim, and there is no need to relate this part back to the previous passuk.

If the judges act righteously and do not take bribes, there will be a sense of morality among the people. When the leaders are righteous it filters down to the regular people. They too will seek out to live righteously. When everybody is living properly with the proper moral and ethical codes, then the nation will be worthy of inheriting the Land of Israel.

The war and the parsha

The lessons in this parsha that weigh on the war are staggering. This parsha speficially talks about our attitude about Eretz Yisrael. Moshe warns the nation not to fall into the trap and think that they have inherited the land due to their own efforts and merits. Do not forget Hashem took you out of Egypt, the manna, the wars you won were directed by God, etc. He warns they should remember Hashem and not say "Kochi V'Otzem Yadi" (8:17) - by the strength of my hand I have inherited the land.

Many times throughout the parsha Moshe mentions this idea again and again, and says you are inheriting not by your own rights. Hashem wanted to destroy you a number of times, when you did x, y and z in the desert. In 9:5 Moshe clearly says, "Not by your merits do you come to inherit the land, rather because of the wickedness of the other nations Hashem promised to your father Avraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc..."

In the current war we (our government) have been declaring such things as "We will dictate the terms of the peace" and "We will make them fear us" and other things of the sort. Clearly we have fallen into the trap Moshe warned us so strongly against in this weeks parsha.

If we would be more humble in our attitude and give Hashem some of the credit, he would look more kindly upon helping us out of our problems and helping us live here peacefully.. The parsha concludes with Moshe saying, "Nobody will be able to stand before you. Hashem will place on you fear and trembling in all the lands you will tread upon."

If we would do our part, He will do His.

Israel (could be) better than Egypt

Parshat Ekev

In 11:10 Moshe tells the nation, “For the land to which you are going to inherit, is not like the land of Egypt from which you departed, that you would plant the seed and water the garden with your foot.”

Rashi explains that Moshe was saying it is not like Egypt, but better than Egypt. In Egypt you had to bring water from the Nile River, as there is no rain. In the Land of Israel it will be easier, as all you have to do is plant and then wait for the rains.

I don’t know about you, but last time I checked, there are always problems of droughts in Israel. There is usually not enough rain and the farmers are always complaining of crops dying from lack of water. The government is always working to find alternative sources for water, such as importing from Turkey, desalination, etc.. So what makes this land so much easier? Sure there is no water to take and we just have to wait for the rain, but there is generally not enough rain!!!???

I was thinking that Moshe’s statement must be dependant on the behavior and attitude of the Jews. Life in Israel can and will be easier and better than it was in Egypt. It will be easier to water your crops. But only if you listen to God and do what He wishes. If we fulfill our side of the commitment, He will make our lives easier and provide the water we so dearly need. Rain is even one of the items specifically mentioned in the “tochacha” section of the curses in the Torah, in the sense that if we do not keep the Torah, the rain will be withheld.

That is why Moshe continues and says ”The land is constantly being watched by Hashem… (and continues) and I will bring the rains on your land in their proper time, etc..”.

It is not simply an easier life in Israel. However, if we would fulfill our side of the deal with Hashem, it would be.

Teaching a lesson

Parshat Eikev

In Chapter 8 Moshe goes through many of the miracles that Hashem performed in the desert on behalf of the Jews. He mentions in verse 3 the Manna. He says, “Hashem made you hungry and then fed to you the manna that was not known to you or to your fathers.” Then he says something interesting. He says, “In order to let you know that not on bread alone does man survive, but on whatever Hashem dictates a man will live.”

The purpose of the manna was not to sustain the Jews in the desert because there was no other food to be had. Hashem could have provided for the Jews differently, as he did with the quail or bring some other seemingly natural type of food.

Moshe is telling Bnei Yisrael that when Hashem sent them the Manna, it was a means to an end. It was meant not just to sustain them but to teach them a lesson. To teach them that Hashem can, and will, provide for their needs.

As the Jews are about to go into Israel, they are at risk of forgetting all these lessons they had experienced in the desert. The desert was a magical place for them. All their needs were taken care of. They saw miracles openly.

As they are about to enter Israel, they are also about to lose that lifestyle. They are now going to have to begin working for their food and living basically normal lives. They could fall into the trap of thinking they are providing for themselves and they are earning their own way.. That is why Moshe says all this now. To remind them of who is really behind it all. That is why he continues by saying that Hashem is bringing you to the land and you will eat and be satisfied and bless Him for the good land that He has given you. And then he continues to warn them from falling into the trap of saying, “Kochi V’Otzem yadi” – that their accomplishments are because of their own efforts and they provided for themselves.

Remember the manna and all the other miracles and you will see that Hashem is really behind all the sustenance you have.

Kina 23

UPDATED - after adjusting the text a number of times, this is the adjusted text that indicates what I actually said.
Tisha B’av 5766
In my shul we have a program which has become quite common among anglo communities in Israel. Instead of reading all the kinot published as was commonly done, we select a number of the kinnot to read (a lot of them, but not all of them). Before each kina one of the members will give a brief introduction to the kinna, an explanation, some words of inspiration, etc. The idea is that instead of mindlessly reading a bunck of kinnot that nobody understands, we say less but it is more infused with meaning and understanding.
I was asked to give the introduction to Kinna 23, entitled “V’Es Navvi”. Below I am posting what I plan (more or less to say as the introduction.
Kina 23
In 23 we will be lamenting the story of the children of R’ Yishmael Ben Elisha. The paytan relates the tragic story of how these 2 children, a son and a daughter were captured by separate captors. The captors were bragging to each other about the special beauty each one saw in his respective captive. They came up with a plan to have the two captives mate and they would share the offspring, which they assumed would be tremendously beautiful children.
The paytan goes on to describe how they were put together in a dark room and they stayed apart the whole night ashamed that this is what could come of the child of such a great man. By daybreak they each realized who the other was and they held each other and their nashamos left them together.
Truly a tragic story. Bit it is difficult, at least for me, to relate to a story of a kidnapping from about 2000 years ago and be moved to tears.
If one has a hard time relating to a story from so long ago and crying about it and simply reads it as a tragic story, there is no lack of similar stories from more modern times.
If you must, think about Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev who are being held by barbaric captors under who knows what type of conditions. Think of Ron Arad whose daughter never had the opportunity of knowing him because he has been held captive for so long. Think of all the other MIA’s who we have no idea of their whereabouts. Think of their parents who have no idea if their children are alive or dead or what kind of condition they are in. Think of the turmoil these people are going through.
If that is not enough, think of the holocaust. Think of the children who were snatched away from their parents. Think of the families that were separated and decimated and destroyed.
The ArtScroll explains that we are not crying specifically about the capturing of these young adults, rather we are crying about the hillul hashem. We are including this story in the kinnos because they were less concerned with their personal fate and more concerned with the hillul Hashem of their being forced to such degrading acts.
But if you have a hard time crying about a hillul Hashem that took place 2000 years ago, think of the hillul hashem that we have gone through daily, throughout history, since the destruction of the beis hamikdash. All Jews are princes and princesses and we all come from great yichus of Avraham Avinu. Yet the blood of jews, the children of Jews, have been left for hefker for the pillaging of the goyim. We have suffered throughout history bloog libels and progroms and holocausts. Killing and kidnappings. Even to this day.
Think again to the holocaust. Think of all the children who were given refuge and protection by the church, only to never be returned to their families, but to be raised as Christians.
Think of what is perhaps the most famous of uch stories, the story of Edgardo Mortara. Edgardo was a young 6 year old child in Italy in the mid-1800s. he fell ill and was on his deathbed. The families youngle Christian maidservant was concerned the child would die without ever having been saved and he would remained damned for eternity. So she baptised him, without telling the family. Edgardo eventually recovered from his illness, but it did not matter. The church found out about the baptism, and despite it being unauthorized and illegal, he had been baptized. They came and removed him from his parents care. After all, it was illegal for a Jew to raise a Christian child. No amount of pleading and fighting with the church and with the courts was able to bring Edgardo back home to his parents. he later went on and became a Catholic priest.
That is something everybody can relate to. If thinking of children being kidnapped 2000 years ago creating a hillul hashem does not move you to tears, think of the more modern instances of the same events, and that should move you.
As Jews we are all princes and princesses with the great yichus of being children of Abraham. Every tragedy that has befallen us is a tragedy but is also a hillul Hashem. If you cannot cry about the tragedy and hillul Hashem of 2000 years ago, it is all too easy to think about more recent tragedies and let those move you.
The paytan says, - woe Hashem has such decreed, he says and he fullfills his word. אוי כי זאת גזר אומר ועושה . If we do not let these kinnos move us to be inspired to improve our ways, Hashem has promised what will happen, and we should know that He fulfills His word.

A test drive

Parshat Devarim

Moshe begins his review of the events of the travels through the dessert. He gets to the tale of the sending of the spies to Israel and he says that you came to me and wanted to send spies, etc.. In 1:23 Moshe says, “the idea was good in my eyes.”

Rashi aks if Moshe approved of the idea, why does he seem to be criticizing them? He explains that it is like a car salesman (he actually uses donkey instead of car, but I am paraphrasing). A guy is trying to sell a car. A customer comes in and asks questions. Finally he asks if he can take it for a test ride. The saleman says of course. Than he asks what about uphill? Downhill? In the sun? In the rain? Etc.. and the saleman keeps on responding in the affirmative.

When the buyer sees that the seller has nothing to hide and is willing to let him test it under any condition, he says I have no need for a test drive, I see from your confidence that nothing is wrong with it and I will buy it right now.

The same is true with Moshe. He thought that by his displaying confidence and agreeing to send the spies to Israel, they would say that if Moshe is so confident that everything there is ok that he is even willing to let us send spies, it must be fine and they would drop the idea of spies and just go in.

My question is, why would Moshe think his confidence would inspire them? What is the comparison to the car salesman – after all, the car salesman knows the specs of the car and where it works and has problems. His confidence really would inspire a potential customer. However, Moshe never saw the Land of Israel that he would have any reason to have confidence in what he was offering them? Why should his sales pitch inspire them when they knew that all his info was only second hand?

Moshe spoke directly with God and that is where his information came from. Moshe heard how great the Land of Israel is directly from the mouth of God. He was not trying to pass off bad information – he was passing on the word of God. He was so in tune with God and so in sync with God and Gods will that if God said the Land is great, Moshe can confidently say it as well, as if he had even seen it himself. Moshe had no doubts whatsoever of Gods intentions and sincerity.

That is why he assumed his confidence would inspire the buyer. However, he “forgot” that they were not on the same level as him. They were doubters. They found reasons to complain and doubt Gods words and abilities.

That is why he thought he would inspire them, but they refused to accept his inspiration.

The rallying call

Parshiot Matos and Maasei

When we conclude reading this weeks parshat hashavua, we will be concluding the chumash of Bamidbar and we will call out Chazak Chazak V’Nitchazek.

In the final book of Collected Writings of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch he concludes the book with a brief essay on the call Chazak. I will simply quote here a piece from the initial paragraph of that essay, as nothing more really needs to be said here.

“It is in keeping with the spirit of Judaism that we mark the successful completion of any good endeavor with the rallying call Chazak V’Nitchazek, thereby exhorting ourselves and our companions to muster continued strength and courage so that the work may go on. It is not the Jewish way to look backward and to bask in the glory of past achievements, to rest on our laurels, as popular parlance has it. Whatever a Jew has accomplished should vanish from his view; the memory of past attainments should serve only to give him confidence and courage so he may go on to new and, if possible, even greater achievements…

For arguments sake

Parshat Maasei

In chapter 46 the Roshei Avos and Nessim present their complaints to Moshe. Their complaint is that if the daughters of Tzlafchad are given the inheritance of their father, they potentially could marry out of the tribe and that land which was part of the tribal division will then suddenly belong to a different tribe. Eventually there would be chaos with different tribes possessing parcels of land in various tribal areas. Specifically they were worried about their tribe losing parcels of land.

Moshe responds with an answer from Hashem that such women who inherit because there were no sons to inherit should only marry within their own tribe. This would ensure that the lands would stay in the original tribal division.

In verse 10 the Torah tells us that as Hashem commanded Moshe, so acted the daughters of Tzlafchad. It then proceeds to tell us that they married their uncles, thereby keeping their lands in the same tribal division.

Why did the daughters of Tzlafchad have to go through the whole process of arguing for the inheritance if at the end of the day they were going to marry their uncles, who would have been next in line anyway to inherit the land had the daughters not stepped forward? What did the women gain that gave them reason to argue as they did?

The Seforno and Ohr Hachayim seem to be answering this question. They each suggest that the command of Hashem that women who inherit should only marry within the tribe did not apply to the daughters of Tzlafchad. They had already been given permission to marry whomever they so desired. The fact that they chose to only marry within the tribe shows they were doing so to set an example, even though they did not need to.

I would like to suggest a different answer. It could be that they did not need to marry in their own tribe and this was a selfless act to set an example. However, they could have married some other nice young men from their tribe. They did not need to marry their uncles. It seems to me that the fact that they married their uncles indicates that they originally intended to regardless of the fact that they did not have to. In fact it was very common then to marry relatives, uncles, cousins, nieces, etc.. So the chances are that this was the original intention anyway. So my question still stands, why did they have to go through the whole issue if they were planning anyway to keep it in the family?

I would like to suggest this answer. They were arguing the point purely for arguments sake. They felt it necessary to be the precedent. Sure, it did not really make a difference in their case, but they saw an injustice happening and that would affect many other women in the future, even if it did not really affect them. They were willing to stand up and put themselves in the line of fire, so to speak, to set the precedent for future scenarios similar to theirs.

Give a good impression

Parshat Matos

After the tribes request to be given their portion of land on the other side of the Jordan River, Moshe responds with a question: “Why do you dishearten Bnei Yisroel from crossing over to the land that Hashem has given them?” (translation by Tachash)

By requesting to stay on the East Bank of the Jordan because the grazing land was no good there, Moshe was concerned that they would leave a bad impression about going to Israel in the eyes of the rest of the nation. People would hear of the request and think that maybe other lands are better, maybe Israel is not so good, etc.. maybe, as Rashi says, they are afraid of going to battle and that would make others afraid and weakened as well, etc.. Moshe goes on and brings up the sin of the spies and makes a comparison of the impression they are leaving to what the spies did.

A person has to be very careful of his actions that they not influence negatively on other people. That is true in every issue that one should be careful from not giving a bad impression, but especially so when referring to the Land of Israel. Moshe was comparing the impression they were leaving to the act of the spies, who actively tried to dissuade the Jews from entering the Land!

David Shirel of Hebron told me a story last week, and this passuk reminded me of it.

David Shirel is the manager of the English department of Manhigut Yehudit. He and his family went to Safed last week for a few days of vacation. This was just before the Katyushas started falling. On their last day of vacation the katyushas began falling and the residents of northern Israel were beginning to clear out to find safer places. As they are getting ready to leave to go back home, his children said, “Abba, we cannot leave!” He asked why not?

The response from his children was, “If we leave, we will be giving people an impression that we are running away and that is wrong! We cannot give over that impression!”

That is exactly what Moshe is concerned about in our parsha. What you do must be done with concern over the impression you are leaving about Israel. Make sure it is a good one.

One nation coming together

Parshat Matos

In chapter 32 we experience the request of 2.5 tribes to receive their portion of land on the other side of the Jordan. They had dealt in cattle and sheep and the grazing land on that side of the Jordan was much better for their needs.

In 32:6 Moshe responds to their request. His initial response is to ask (rhetorically), “Will your brothers go to war, and you will sit here?” In other words Moshe was saying that it was wrong for them to take this land and begin to settle it while the rest of the nation goes to war.

After some discussion, in verses 16-19 we see they return with the response that Moshe was looking for. They say they will put their families into their land and they will continue on to help their brethren conquer the land and they will not go back until everybody else is settled each in his own parcel of land.

The message is clear. We cannot divest responsibility from acting on behalf of our brothers. We are one nation. We are all responsible for one another. When one part of our nation goes to battle, we all go to battle. When one is found in a crisis situation, we are all in the same crisis. We are all obligated to participate together and equally in our national struggle.

Looking at the current events, we can all be proud of the fact that we do feel this message applies to us. Even if at other times we fight and bicker and criticize each other. In the time of crisis we all come together and somehow find ways to help and support each other.

From the leadership down

Parshat Matos

In 31:14 we see Moshe taking the leaders of the army to task for failing to criticize and properly instruct their soldiers what to do in battle (regarding taking the booty and who to let live and who to kill). The passuk says Moshe got angry at them and Rashi explains that “This teaches that the entire corruption of the generation is attributed to the great men, since they have the power to rebuke.” (Translation by Tachash website).

This clearly shows that leadership is responsible for the general public’s attitude and behavior. We sometimes find situations in which criticism of leaders (be they Rabbonim or lay leaders) is defelected with the statement that they have other concerns and cannot always be the ones to lead the way on all issues. They say if it is right to do, do not wait for the Rabbonim.

I will not deal now with the issue of deciding on your own what is right to do or not. Obviously every case needs to be judged individually – sometimes it will be ok to do what you feel is right and sometimes it would be inappropriate without rabbinic approval.

However, this parsha seems to contradict that thought. The leaders are responsible at all times for instructing the people properly. If the great men do not rebuke, the people just don’t figure it out on their own, or even may extrapolate the wrong ideas from the lack of rabbinic response (e.g. if so and so did not say anything against it he must approve, etc..).

The leaders have an obligation to lead, all the time. No passing the buck.

Appointing a successor

Parshat Pinchas

Moshe finds out he will soon die. We find the unusual phrase of “And Moshe spoke to Hashem saying.” in 27:15. I say it is unusual because we usually have God speaking to Moshe, not the reverse. Here we see the reverse.

So what does Moshe tell Hashem? He goes into a speech in which he explains how important it is to appoint a successor to lead the Jews into Israel and that it should be somebody who has merits and can lead, etc.

Did Moshe really think Hashem would knock off Moshe and leave Bnei Yisrael without a leader? After everything Hashem had done the previous 40 years or so, taking them out of Egypt, through the desert, to the cusp of Eretz Yisrael and Moshe thought Hashem would now abandon them to their own abilities and forces? Moshe must have known Hashem would appoint someone, so what is the big discussion here?

Rashi tells us that the Torah is showing the greatness of the righteous (and Moshe in particular) that they are concerned with the welfare of the community even to the point that at the time of their deaths they are concerned with the public rather than closing their own affairs.

Of course Moshe knew Hashem would make sure the Jews were taken care of and had a leader. However, he felt it important to deal with the issue of appointing a successor while he was still alive, to ensure the smooth transition of leadership.

We see nowadays many organizations and groups who suffer from not planning the future leadership properly. The top brass leave or die and suddenly the whole organization is in turmoil. People do not know who to turn to. Oftentimes there is a split in the organization because of competing rivals looking to take the leadership role, etc. Other times there is a void as the competing rivals duke it out and the ones to suffer are the regular people who end up with no real leadership.

Yes, Hashem would take care of it. But a true leader makes sure his people are taken care of and does not leave it for other people to worry about. Moshe had to make sure his people would be taken care of. That is why Moshe spoke up now.

 

Who’s your daddy?

Parshat Pinchas

In 25:11 the passuk tells us “Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aharon Ha’Kohen”. Rashi tells us the reason the Torah felt it important o state the lineage of Pinchas back to Aharon (the grandfather) instead of just to Elazar (the father) was because people were talking about how hypocritical Pinchas was. After all, they said, Pinchas’ grandfather (Yisro) himself was a priest o Avoda Zaras who fattened the animals for sacrificing to all sorts of deviant gods. Who is Pinchas to preach to us??!! Therefore the passuk relates Pinchas to Aharon.

So what? What does relating him to Aharons side of the family do for anyone? Did people stop talking after that? It must have gone something like this: People were talking about Pinchas and then suddenly they read he was Aharons grandson so they stopped??!! I do not think so. They knew he was Aharons grandson to start with, so what was the purpose of writing this?

I think the passuk was not writing this fact in order to stop the rumors and lashon hara from spreading and to stop people from besmirching the integrity of Pinchas. People talk and nobody likes to be told they are acting inappropriately, so they spoke badly of Pinchas. The passuk is coming to tell future generations – us, that we should know that the intentions of Pinchas were honest and done with integrity.

Nothing unusual here..

Parshat Balak

Bil’am is heading out to curse the Jews on behalf of Balak. He is cutting through a field riding on his donkey, and the donkey veers from the path. It happens a few times and it upsets Bil’am. He threatens to kill the donkey. All of the sudden the donkey starts to talk and defends his actions. Bil’am responds and explains himself to the donkey.

Can you imagine this happening? I picture the story in my head and what do I see? How would I have responded if my donkey had started to talk to me? I picture myself falling off the donkey, extremely shocked and startled. Yet Bil’am reacts as if this is a perfectly normal situation.

I would assume that Bil’am must have always seen and experienced unusual things, in order for this not to have surprised him. Maybe that is part of the package of being a prophet.

And they call us a stubborn people!!

Parshat Balak

We have a very strange situation in Parshat Balak. Balak sends messengers to persuade Bil’am to assist him in bringing about the downfall of the Hews, via a terrible curse Bil’am would place upon the Jews using his calculations to figure out the moment God gets angry at the Jews. He would take advantage of the moment and curse the jews and in His great anger, He would allow Bil’ams curse to have the desired affect.

Yet Bil’am rejects the request a couple of times, saying he would not do it. Finally he is persuaded to attempt on the condition that Balak be aware that he provides no guarantees (and no money back guarantee) to being able to curse the Jews. He says very clearly that what he accomplishes regarding the Jews would be completely dependant on what Hashem wants to happen.

Balak accepts the pre-condition and they head out to try to curse the Jews. Bil’am tried once and it comes out as a blessing. When confronted by Balak, he responds that is what Hashem wanted and tough noogies, I told you inadvance it would happen.. Balak persuaded him to try again and he does. Again, it comes out as a blessing with some added stinging rebuke to Balak for even bothering to try.

This happens over and over again in the parsha with Balak attempting to curse and Bil’am giving a blessing.

Balak had a one track mind. He had to curse the Jews. He had to destroy the Jews. By hook or by crook. He did not care about anything else. He was extremely stubborn and ignored everything that was happening.

The passuk in 23:17 even tells us “The ministers of Moab were with him” and Rashi explains that earlier it had said “all the ministers of Moab” which indicates that some had left because they could tell it was a waste of time and there was no chance of success. I would venture to say that the ministers that remained with Balak did so out of respect to Balak’s position (and probably fear for their lives) rather than because they wanted to be there for the curse.

Only Balak could not see what was going on. He was so stubborn that he was blinded and could not see the reality of the situation.

It is worth taking a deep breath and reassessing a situation that is not working out rather than just driving on blindly. Don’t let your stubbornness lead you to the abyss.

Second nature

Parshat Balak

In 22:29 Bil’am responds to his donkey by saying if he had a sword he would kill the donkey. Rashi mentions that in the eyes of the ministers accompanying him it was an embarrassment that he had to threaten the donkey with physical violence, while he was on the way to supposedly destroy the Jews by using his sharp tongue. After all, why would he need a sword to kill the donkey, why not just say something that will cut short the donkeys life?

What is going on here? Why would they expect Bil’am to present a verbal attack on the pathetic donkey rather than a physical attack, which would clearly be considered normal?

In the original decision to hire Bil’ams services, Balak expressed the knowledge that he had no physical power to beat the Jewish nation and he knew he needed to beat the Jews at their own game – by verbal powers. He specifically pursued and hired Bil’am because Bil’am was unique among the nations of the world, whose strength normally lies in the physical realm, in that Bil’ams strength was similar to the strength of the Jews, by using his mouth.

The raison d’être of Bil’am was to gain advantage by curses and blessings. He could use any lowly servant to attack with physical violence. Now he sees Bil’am getting frustrated over a confrontation with a donkey (!) and he threatens the donkey with physical violence. When a person gets frustrated lie that, he generally lashes out, and usually will attack with what is second nature to him, in Bil’ams case he should have automatically cursed the donkey and felled it in its tracks. But he did not. He threatened it with violence.

That made the ministers think maybe we are bringing back a fraud to Balak. They were embarrassed they spent so much time and effort pursuing the services of somebody who clearly did not have the powers (or at least the level of powers) he claimed to have.

The gemora even says in many places one of the ways to know a person is to view him in his state of anger. At that time he reacts with a natural reaction and by watching him at that time you will see if he is really in control of himself, and if not you will see what comes naturally to him. The ministers witnessed Bil’am in his state of anger and frustration and they saw that he was not all he claimed to be..