Va'Eschanan: wanting to be in eretz yisrael

Parshat Va'Eschanan

This Monday is a very important day in the calendar. This Monday is Tu B’Av. The 15^th of Av. On the 15^th of Av we commemorate a number of events that took place in our history, and it is closely related to marriage and love.

In Israel Tu B’Av is celebrated by many Israelis as a form of Valentine’s Day. People will be giving their loved ones gifts and chocolates.

But there is another aspect to the significance of Tu B’Av. This Monday, Tu B’Av, is the first marker of the upcoming shemitta year. Tu B’Av is the first time one has to be concerned with shemitta. It is the cutoff date for planting new fruit trees. After Monday, in Israel, one can no longer plant fruit trees, until after the shemitta year is over.

In this week’s parsha, we read about how Moshe pleaded and prayed to Hashem to have his punishment rescinded. We know he was not allowed into Eretz Yisrael due to his having struck the rock rather than speaking to it. This was a terrible punishment for Moshe. He so desired to get into Eretz Yisrael that he tried everything he could to get Hashem to change his mind.

So he davens to Hashem. He says, “אֶעְבְּרָה-נָּא, וְאֶרְאֶה אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה, אֲשֶׁר, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן: הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה, וְהַלְּבָנֹן.” Let me cross the Jordan and see the good land, the mountains and the Levanon, referring to the Beis Hamikdash… But Hashem said “No. and I have had enough of this. I do not want to hear anymore”

Many of the meforshim say that Moshe did not just want to go into Eretz Yisrael. He desired to go in because of the Mitzvos Ha’Tluyos Ba’Aretz. The special mitzvos that only apply in the Land of Israel. Moshe knew he would never have an opportunity to fulfill these, as he would not be going in. He pleaded with Hashem to let him in so he could have such an opportunity. These mitzvos are a nice chunk of the 613, and he did not want to be deprived of the opportunity of keeping shemitta, and giving trumah and maser, leaving peah and the rest of them…

That is a wonderful explanation of the passuk. But I think there is also something to the simple reading of the passuk. The passuk tells us how Moshe wanted to go in and see the Land. He wanted to see yerushalayim, see the Mikdash, see its goodness. He wanted to tour Israel. He just spent 40 years in the desert leading the Jews to Israel, constantly telling them how good the Land is. He desired to actually see it. This was his goal for the past 40 years.

Moshe wanted to sign up for a Birthright trip, or join a Nefesh B’Nefesh flight, or even just to go in and go touring for a few days. He wanted to live in Eretz Yisrael, and of he could not then at least he should be able to see Eretz Yisrael.

A Jew might have great reasons for living in Chutz La’Aretz. But he should at least desire to live in eretz Yisrael, and if that is not feasible, then he should at least try to visit Eretz Yisrael. Even if he cannot, as Moshe could not, he should still make it his goal and objective. It should be at the forefront of his thoughts. He should do everything in his power to make it happen.

Tu B’Av is a good day to begin thinking about Eretz Yisrael, whether moving there or even just to come and visit. Tu B’Av is the first marker of shemitta. Think on Tu B’Av about all the mitzvos you cannot keep while living outside of Israel and how you really should be in Eretz Yisael. Think about how you should come for a visit and plan your aliya, even if right now you cannot do it. Make it a goal, or at least a consideration.

D'Varim: timely mussar

Parshat D'Varim

Moshe begins a brief review of all the events that transpired since leaving Egypt. During this review he takes the opportunity to chastise the people for their complaints and actions during the time period in the desert and he implores them to improve their ways and dedication to the service of Hashem as they enter into the Land of Israel.

Moshe waited for this 11th hour moment to give them the mussar, rather than do so all along throughout the 40 years of wandering through the desert.

Rashi tells us a couple of reasons why Moshe waited until now, the last possible moment, as they are on the cusp of entering into the Land and Moshe is about to die:

1. So he would not constantly be telling them off - just once at the end.
2. after giving someone mussar, the relationship is often then strained. The rebuked will often try to avoid the rebuker, from embarrassment.
   

Moshe had to lead the nation. He had to build the people into a nation. Many did not want to be there and found things to complain about at every opportunity.

If Moshe would have given them mussar all along, they would have thought of him as a pest and would have begun to ignore him. They would also have avoided him whenever possible. He would not have been able to build the nation like that. He wisely led them through the desert and only at the end gave them the mussar, when he knew he would no longer be making them uncomfortable, as he would no longer be with them.

When giving someone mussar, one has to consider whether the time is opportune. Is it really the best time right now, or maybe later it will be even more effective? Will my mussar now be accepted or will it just push him away further?

The only way to succeed in giving mussar is by considering these questions and making sure your mussar is timed properly. That is what Moshe did.

Masei: sphere of influence

Parshat Mas'ei

In 35:6-8, after Hashem and Moshe just appointed Yehoshua and some Nesiim to be the executors of the division of Eretz Yisrael, the Torah talks about the cities of refuge. It says the Levite tribe would not receive a portion but would be allotted the 6 cities of refuge, along with an additional 42 cities spread out among Israel.

Why did they not get a portion like every other tribe? If any one tribe was deserving of being given a portion, it would be them! They were completely dedicated to the service of Hashem. They were the ones who never strayed from doing the right thing (aside from korach, but that was individuals). So why were they not given a portion, but spread out in specific cities taken form the portions of other tribes?

Maybe the reason is because the Leviim were so dedicated to the service of Hashem. Much more so that any other group or tribe.

If Hashem gave them a portion, they would be fairly isolated. they would continue living a life dedicated to Hashem and all would be very nice.

But by mixing them among all the other tribes, life can be even better. By not being isolated in their own portion, but by living among the other tribes, they can show the rest of the Nation how to live a life of dedication. They can teach the people. They can influence.

When one has what to offer, he should not remain isolated. he should share it with everyone else.

Matos: the impression formed

Parshat Matos

In Perek 32 we find the tribes of Reuven and Gad requesting from Moshe that they be allotted the land on the eastern side of the Jordan River, as it was lush grazing land and better for their flocks.

Moshe's response was that by requesting this, and if he would approve it, an impression will be formed in the minds of the rest of the nation. The impression would be that these tribes are avoiding participating in the coming battles, and that they found a better land than the Land of Israel, and, in a sense, are rejecting the Land of Israel. By creating this impression, others might be influenced to reject Eretz Yisrael and attempt to avoid entering.

There was nothing really wrong with the actual request. On its own merits, it stands as a reasonable request. The only problem Moshe had with it was the impression it gave over to others. For that side issue alone, Moshe would have rejected the request. It was only because they found a solution - i.e. to go in with the nation, fight the battles, and only afterwards go to reside on the eastern banks of the Jordan River - was their request approved.

There are two lessons (that are connected) I see in this story:

1. We have to be careful of the impression we give over. Even if every other aspect of what we might be doing is fine, pure and logical, the impression (formed) is just as important a factor.
2. In the big debate about whether Jews in America, or anywhere in the Diaspora for that matter, are really striving to live in Eretz Yisrael - maybe on its own it is not so bad to live in America and even to want to remain there. A person can have very valid reasons - parnassah, culture, friends, health, etc.. - to desire to remain in America. These people, however, should still be careful to not give the impression that they are rejecting Eretz Yisrael, rather they are preferring Diaspora for a very specific, possibly legitimate, reason. That is a big responsibility because while they prefer to live in America, they should not be the cause of other people following in their ways for less legitimate reasons.
   

Pinchas: who done it?

Parshat Pinchas

In 25:14 the Torah tells us the name of the man who had committed the public act of indecency with a Midianite woman. Until now, when relating the incident, the Torah did not tell us who he was. It simply described him as a "Jewish man".

Rashi tells us that because it just told us who was the tzaddik - Pinchas - so it also tells us who was the rasha.

But at the end of Parshat Balak when it related the main part of the story it also related there who the tzaddik was, yet regarding the rasha it did not tell us his name, it called him a Jewish man without actually identifying him. Why not then but now yes?

Earlier, at the end of Parshat Balak, the Torah was relating the story of what happened. If at that time, as the story is happening, the Torah would tell us his name, we would see how important a person he was and what he was doing, it would give people an opportunity to "learn from him".

If, for example, you would see a Rabbi eating in a certain restaurant that you thought was questionable, you would probably say, "Oh, the Rabbi must have checked it out and found it to be ok. if he can eat there, I for sure can."

You see an important person, a leader, doing something that might be questionable ethically or morally, and you automatically say that if he is doing it it must be ok.

If we would have read the story knowing from the start that the offender was Zimri the Nassi, we would rationalize in our minds that what he was doing must have been ok. We would likely learn from him.

When it relates the story, it only tells us "a Jewish man", so we will not learn from him and follow in his ways. He is just a Jew who did something wrong. nothing special.

Now, in Parshat Pinchas, when it is validating the vengeance of Pinchas, it is ok, and even beneficial, to tell us who the offender was. Now that he has been punished, and Pinchas is being glorified for having meted out the punishment, nobody will take example from him. The risk has been negated. On the contrary, by saying his name now, people will see that even great people make mistakes, and they get punished for them. They do not have protexia from being punished.

Balak: getting a new perspective

Parshat Balak

Balak brings Bilaam out to curse the Jews. When it does not pan out and Bilaam ends up blessing the Jews, Balak gets upset and finds a new location from which Bilaam could attempt to curse them. This happens a few times.

Why go to a different mountaintop to curse them?

Balak was trying to give Bilaam a different perspective each time.

If one time he looks at the Jews and can't curse them, maybe he needs to look at them from a "different angle". Maybe he needs some new perspective on the Jews, and that would arouse the ability to curse them.

We, too, have to be open to looking at things from a different perspective. If we are not successful at something, sometimes we just need to look at the problem from a different angle. Get a different perspective tto possibly understand better the issues.

Balak: they must have thought Bilaam was nuts

Parshat Balak

Balak tried to persuade Bilaam to come with him to curse the Jewish people. In 22:21 we find Bilaam finally agree to go with Balak's messengers, "וילך עם שרי מואב". As the story progresses, we read about how an angel stood in the path and the donkey had to veer off into the vineyard, while Bilaam was hitting it, the donkey spoke, Bilaam saw te angel and spoke to it.. etc. A series of very bizarre events.

Where were the Moabite officers during these bizarre happenings? What did they think of what was going on? They saw the donkey speak and did not think anything was out of the ordinary? Did they not see the angel - or did they think Bilaam was speaking to himself? They must have thought he was nuts!!

Maybe that is why the angel had to force the donkey off the path and into the middle of the vineyard. That afforded them some privacy so he could talk to Bilaam and so Bilaam could witness the miracle of the donkey speaking.

Chukas: fitting emuna

Parshat Chukas

After the incident in which Moshe hit the rock to draw water instead of speaking to the rock, Hashem gives Moshe a punishment. In 20:12, Hashem tells Moshe, "Therefore you will not bring the nation [into the land of Israel]."

How does the punishment fit the crime? Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it. Ok, so he did not maximize the possible Kiddush Hashem. He did not teach them the highest level of emuna he could have. What does that have to do with bringing Bnei Yisrael into the Land of Israel?

Living in Eretz Yisrael is the ultimate level of emuna one can have. Especially after coming from a life of slavery, and the life of the people who grew up in the desert. To live in Eretz Yisrael requires great emuna that Hashem takes care of us and our needs.


If Moshe could not teach Bnei Yisrael that level of emuna, then he is not the right person to prepare them and bring them into Eretz Yisrael. They need someone who can raise them to the appropriate level of emuna.

Chukas: a rep

Parshat Chukas

In 20:13 it tells us that, "These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel fought with the LORD, and He was sanctified in them."

But at the beginning of this incident in 20:2 it said they fought with Moshe. Did they fight with Moshe or with Hashem?

I would say, that is one and the same. Technically, they fought with Moshe, as the passuk first says. However, Moshe was a representative of Hashem to the people of Israel.

Picking a fight with Moshe is like picking a fight with Hashem.

Chukas: why didn't He kill them?

Parshat Chukas

In 20:2-8, we find Miriam has just died. With her went the "Well of Miriam" which had been the source of water for the Israelites.

the people find themselves in the desert with no water. They come to Moshe and complain that they have no water and how could he bring them in the desert to die... and Hashem tells Moshe to speak to the rock to draw out water for the nation.

What changed? In the previous few parshiyos, we encountered a number of incidents in which the people complained and Hashem punished them. He sent them plague to kill them, or too much meat, etc.. Why this time does Hashem provide them with water in this fashion instead of punishing them for the complaints like He did previous times?

Here they were complaining about a lack of water. In previous incidents they complained about a lack of luxuries , or about questioning leadership, etc.

The complaint here about lack of water is legitimate. People need water to live. It is a basic necessity. For this type of complaint there is no need to punish them.

Yes, it also might indicate a weak level of emuna - faith in Hashem's ability or capability to provide for them. They should have, after all they have seen and been through, been confident that Hashem would find them a new source for water.

That, however, is not a reason to punish them, rather a reason to educate them. Hashem has to now provide for them a lesson in emuna. That is why His response is not to just find them a pool of water in the desert. Rather, He makes it into a whole lesson. he brings them to a rock and instructs Moshe to draw water from the rock. That was going to be a lesson in emuna, at the same time as providing the water they needed.

Chukas: relaxed perfection

Parshat Chukas

In the beginning of the parsha, the Torah teaches us the concept of Para Aduma (red heiffer) and its details. In 19:2 the passuk tells us to take a "complete (faultless) red heifer" (פרה אדומה תמימה).

Rashi defines "temima" - faultless, or complete, as meaning it must be complete in its redness, being that if it would be found to have two black hairs, it would invalidate it from service as a red heifer.

One could extrapolate from that that one black hair would be acceptable. Only a minimum of two black hairs is a problem.

What's the difference one hair or two hairs? They are both so insignificant relative to the rest of the animal. If the minimum is going to be so small, why not make it even one hair, and if one hair is not a problem, why is two hairs a problem - maybe we should say only ten hairs?

There is no such thing as "perfect" in this world. The most perfect item will always have some sort of minor blemish. If you look hard enough you will find it. There is nothing perfect.

The Torah allows for a slight blemish in the red heifer, because if it did not, it would be impossible to ever have a red heifer. With one black hair we still call it "complete" and "perfect". That is the physical reality.

But once that blemish repeats itself, it can no longer be called "complete" or "perfect" even by our relaxed standards. One non-red hair will be ok, but more than that, means it is not just a slight aberration of perfection, but it is not perfect.

The same is true in our lives. Nobody is perfect. Do something once, and it can be overlooked as a slight aberration. Do it twice and it is indicative of a problem and can no longer be ignored.

Korach: they keep complaining

Parshat Korach

After the fight with Korach has been concluded, then a plague ran through the camp killing people, and Hashem stopped the plague, in 17:6 the passuk tells us how the people complained that Moshe Aand Aharon were killing off Gods nation, which leads to Hashem offering to Moshe that if he has had enough of them yet, He (God) would be willing to kill them all. He (God) is just waiting for the word from Moshe.

It is amazing how the people just keep on complaining. A group of people just complained a short while ago. They forced a confrontation, and even after Moshe warned them off they kept going, they all got killed with unusual deaths.

The past few Torah portions have given us other examples of the people's complaints and how Hashem dealt with them, often resulting in the deaths of the complainers.

The people complain and get killed. So how do they have the gall to complain yet again, especially after they just witnessed the horrific deaths of Korach and his group of supporters?

People like to complain. A leader has to know that before he takes the position as leader - he has to know that no matter what he does, no matter how much integrity he has, no matter how honest he is, the people he is leading will complain and kvetch.

Shlach: part of the group

Parshat Shlach

In 14:6 it says, "ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה מן התרים את הארץ קרעו בגדיהם" - and Yehoshua and Calev, of those having spied out the land, tore their garments.

Don't we know they were 2 of the 12 spies already? Why does it have to tell us that they were of the spies?

Their report and whole attitude was completely different than that of the other 10 spies. One could be surprised to learn they were part of the same group of people. One could be shocked to see the differences between these two and the other 10. Maybe they were not really doing their job. Maybe they were just crazy right-wing fanatics with their own agenda to influence the decision to go into Israel.

The Torah reminds us that, no, they were not just trying to put on a good show on behalf of their friend Moshe. They were part of the group of spies. Everything the others saw and experienced, they also saw and experienced. They are tearing their garments because they know there is nothing wrong with the Land of Israel - they were the spies, so nobody knows it better than them.

Shlach: having an agenda

Parshat Shlach

In 13:21-33 we find the spies returning with a fairly negative impression and report of the Land of Israel. I find it astounding that being their report is so negative, why is it that none of their experiences are related to us? What happened to them that they had such a negative impression? The passuk simply says (aside from the one passuk about cutting down the cluster of grapes), "and they returned from spying out the land at the end of 40 days."

One would think, based on the negative reports they came back with, and the attitude that they are so against going into israel, that they must have experienced such traumatic and frightening events. Seen horrible things. Why does it not tell us a single negative event from their days of spying?

I suspect it might be because they did not experience any such negative or traumatic events.

I think their trip through the Land of Israel was probably relatively quiet and uneventful. The negative report was contrived based on their agenda. They had an agenda to recommend against going in, for whatever reason (many commentaries discuss their agenda).

It was not a result of any bad experiences or anything negative they might have seen while spying, just in order to justify their agenda.

Shlach: pure representation

Parshat Shlach

In 13:24 we find the spies having arrived at Nahal Eshkol, cutting down a cluster of grapes, some pomegranates and some figs and carrying them away. The spot is called Nahal Eshkol based on the cluster (eshkol in Hebrew) they cut down. Interestingly, the passuk says, "אשר כרתו משם בני ישראל"

Bnei Yisrael did not cut the grapes down - the 12 spies cut the grape cluster down. That is such a significant incident that it gets the place named for it? And even so, why not say that the spies cut the cluster, why say bnei yisrael cut the cluster?

When you appoint a shliach - a messenger, a representative, that shliach is representative of you. When the shliach performs his duty, it is as if the sender is performing his duty. He takes the identity, to a certain extent, of the person sending him.

This applies to leaders as well. When you select a leader - a President, Prime Minister, etc. that leader represents the people behind him. When he goes and meets with foreign heads of state and signs treaties and agreements, it is not him making the agreement, but the nations he represents.

That is why here it says Bnei Yisrael cut the cluster from there. Sure it was only the 12 spies doing it, but they represented the nation. And since Bnei Yisrael cut the cluster, that is a significant event, deserving of renaming the location.

B'Haalotcha: a successful community

Parshat B'Haalotcha

In 11:28-29, after Moshe gathers 70 Elders of Israel leaving two behind, we find the two begin prophesying in the camp. Somebody (Gershom perhaps) sees and runs to tell Moshe. Yehoshua gets upset and asks permission to kill them off. Moshe responds - are you jealous for me? What would I give to have the whole nation as prophets of Hashem....

The natural reaction a person has to the success of other people is jealousy and an attempt to denigrate that person. The success of others is often perceived as a threat to you. To ensure your own success, you feel you have to knock down other people.

Moshe said that that is not the way. We must strive to be successful, but we should also be happy about the success of others. We should strive for their success, and we should encourage them to succeed. Their success should be seen as independent from yours. You can both be successful.

B'Haalotcha: acting on questions

Parshat B'Haalotcha

In 11:21-24 the passuk relays a conversation between Moshe and Hashem. Moshe says there are 600,000 people here and how can You just say You will give them meat for a month! Even if You shechted all the cattle and brought them all the fish from the sea it would not be enough for a months worth of food! So how can You make such a promise?

It seems that Moshe also doubts Hashem's ability to provide and to come through on His promises. So what makes MOshe better than the rest of the Jews, that he is their leader?

According to the Sifri brought in Rashi, this question only applies according to the explanation of the passuk given by Rabbi Akva who understands it according to the simple meaning, as I described it above. According to Rabbi Shimon there is no question because he understands it differently.

So, according to the simple reading of the passuk, and according to Rabbi Akiva, how could Moshe have these doubts, and if he did,what made him better than the rest?

People are allowed to have questions. Having emuna, faith, in Hashem and the Torah does not mean one cannot have questions. It does mean that those questions do not sway his observance of the mitzvos and following Hashem's words.

So maybe Moshe did have questions and doubts. Maybe he did not understand how everything worked. But Moshe had emuna and he acted on the emuna and not on the questions. The rest of the people kvetched and acted on their questions. That is the difference.

B'Haalotcha: someone else is picking up the tab

Parshat B'Haalotcha

In 11:4-5 we are told about the Jews complaining that they did not have meat. They say, "מי יאכלנו בשר. זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים" - who will feed us meat? we remember the fish we ate in Egypt for nothing, the gourd, the melons, etc....

Rashi tells us they had plenty of meat available - the Torah told us earlier about the herds of cattle they took with them out of Egypt, but they were simply looking to complain.

They complain about the lack of meat, but then they remember and refer to what they ate in Egypt and there is no mention of meat. They ate fish and vegetables in Egypt. So why are they complaining about the lack of meat now if they never had meat anyway?

The complaint is "Who will feed us meat". Since they left Egypt, the have gotten used to having everything handed to them on a silver platter. They have not had to do anything. Hashem takes care of all their needs. They put forth no effort at all for anything other than serving Hashem.

They got used to having a free ride and that is why they are not willing to use their own animals for meat. Let Hashem give us meat, why should we use up our own!! Not only that, but when people get things for free on a regular basis, they lose the perception of the giver.

If one works for a living and has to buy food from his own money, he is careful not to overspend, and to buy within his budget and this type of food rather than that type of food. But when somebody gets used to having everything covered and he has nothing to worry about and no responsibilities, he wants the best. After all, it is not his money he is spending - it is someone else's. He loses the perception of what is necessary and what is extra.

In Egypt they never ate meat. But in Egypt they had to work for their food. In the desert they were handed everything with no effort on their part, so now they need meat. On someone else's tab it is easy to insist on luxuries.

B'Haalotcha: even the small things are important

Parshat B'Haalotcha

At the beginning of the parsha, Aharon is commanded as to the methodology of placing the wicks and lighting them in the menora in the mishkan. In 8:3 the passuk says, "ויעש כן אהרן" - and Aharon did so.

Rashi says on this verse, that it shows us the praiseworthiness of Aharon that he did not deviate from the instructions.

This leaves an opening for the question I have asked a number of times before - We know Aharon never deviated from instructions, especially regarding the mishkan. The passuk has told us so many times already, and Rashi points out each time that this is his praise for not deviating. So, why does Rashi have to say this, and why does the passuk need to praise Aharon for not deviating?

I think the reason might be because of the subject matter involved. The subject matter here is the menora and specifically the wicks of the menora, and their placement. One might think that maybe it is not a big deal exactly how the wicks are put in and lit. It i sa pretty mundane issue. Maybe if the kohen (Aharon in this case) finds it easier to light them in a different order, or to clean the old wicks out or place the new wicks in dofferent orders or methods, maybe he would feel it is such a mundane issue and he can do it as he sees it being most convenient.

After all, it is not like it is such a major thing. It is just the wicks!

But no - even on such a "minor" issue as the wicks of the menora, Aharon still did not deviate from the instructions Hashem had given him. That is his praise - that he totally gave himself up to doing things according to instruction and even on the small things he was "mivatel" his own da'as.

Naso: not getting out of hand

Parshat Naso

The last section of the parsha goes through the donation of korbanot the nesiim gave at the dedication of the mishkan. All 12 gave the same exact donation.

Rashi tells us why the nesiim were so quick to be the first to participate with a donation at the dedication ceremony. he tells us that for the building of the mishkan the nesiim had said they would let the people give first and they would give whatever was lacking afterwards. It turned out the people gave so much there was nothign left for the mesiim to give. They were upset they missed the oportunity to participate, so now they jumped forward right away.

But why and how did they all give the same exact thing? This was not base don a commandment that they had to bring a specific korban, so how did all 12 individually think of the same exact korban?

I think they must have gotten together and decided what to bring. That way it would not "get out of hand".

Think of it similar to the "wedding takkanos" of Agudas Yisrael in America. Weddings were getting out of hand as each person needed to outdo the one before him. So Aguda made rules and now nobody should feel the need to outdo the other guy and spend beyond his means.

The same here. If they each would bring their own thing, the first guy would bring, let's say, one cow. The second guy would say,"That's all he brought? I will bring 2 cows." The next guy would then bring 5 cows and 2 sheep. The next would bring 10 cows and 15 sheep. etc.

It would get out of hand, so they agreed that they would each bring the same exact ste of korbanos.

I did see a pshat that despite the fact that they each brought their own korbano, they were still brought with the individual style and "kavanos" of the specific tribe.