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..

Actively remembering

Parshat Chukat

In Parshat Chukat we read about the story of Hashem sending the snakes to bite the people as punishment for (yet again) complaining how Moshe could dare take them out of Egypt with no bread or water in the desert. Hashem sends the poisonous snakes to bite them and people start dying.

In 21:8 hashem tells Moshe to make a “saraf” (fiery serpent) and place it on a pole. Whoever would look at it would be healed and whoever would not look at it would not be healed. Rashi brings the words of Chaza”l who ask how could looking at the snake heal the people? Rather when they would look at the snake they would remember their Father in Heaven, Hashem, and repent. Those who did not look at the snake would have no catalyst to cause them to think about Hashem and repentance, hence they would die.

Why did this have to be part of the healing process? Moshe davened to Hashem to stop the snakes and Hashems response was to put a snake on a pole. Why did He require this? He has sent many plagues in the past which he cancelled without doing anything so strange, so why here did He require such an act of participation on the people’s behalf?

Because their sin was one of lack of faith (they asked and complained about having been taken from Egypt into a barren desert), Hashem could not just heal them and let bygones be bygones. Next week it would happen again, as it has already occurred a number of times. The only way to nip it in the bud was to make them realize on their own what their mistake was. By telling Moshe to put the snake on a stick and make them look at it to get healed, He was forcing them to think about what they had done wrong, thereby allowing them to repent for the lack of faith. Living in the desert was an experience of truly miraculous proportions. Every moment they were surrounded by unusual miracles. They just did not think about them and realize Hashem is taking care of them.

Their participation in the healing process would force them to think about it and later to remember the lessons of the past, thereby ensuring it would not happen again.

When you participate in a process, the results are often internalized in a much greater way than by one who simply observes from the outside.

Hitting the rock, hitting the Jews

Parshat Chukat

We read the story how the Jews complained about not having water to drink. Moshe was told to speak to the rock in front of the nation and water would come forth to satisfy the thirst of the people. Moshe hit the rock, the people drank and Moshe got punished for hitting rather than speaking.

In 20:12 Hashem punishes Moshe for hitting the rock, He says, “Because you did not have faith to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael, etc..”. Rashi explains this verse that had Moshe spoken to the rock, the people would have extrapolated from the event that just as the rock was spoken to and did as it was told despite the fact that it receives no punishment for not listening, how much more so do I have to listen to Hashem’s word when I do get punished for not listening.

I was thinking about this “kal v’chomer” that the people would make to learn the lesson Hashem wanted them/us to learn. It seems that had Moshe spoken they would have naturally come up on their own with the above extrapolation. That means, I think, that now that Moshe hit the rock, they are coming up naturally with a different extrapolation. That kal v’chomer must have been – “Moshe hit the rock and it listened, so Hashem will hit us and we will listen (I.e. if we do not listen Hashem will hit us).”

If my thoughts are correct that the lesson we were supposed to learn was avoided and instead we learned a different lesson, it is understandable why Moshe was punished so harshly for a seemingly slight mistake (after all, hitting a rock to draw water is also a pretty big miracle). That would be because look at the lesson he taught them. He taught them (or at least made them think so) by his actions that God is a harsh God and quick to hit to have people act in accordance with His will. That is not the lesson Hashem wanted conveyed, because it is not true.

Visual Aids

Parshat Korach

After the Fear Factor/Survivor challenge between Korach and Aharon (or maybe The Apprentice is a better analogy) comes to a conclusion, Moshe, unbelievably, still finds doubters among the people. He goes back to the crowd and people say he was too harsh with Korach’s group, and they did not all need to die, and maybe Moshe sabotaged the challenge, etc.

Moshe comes up with another idea. He says the Nasi of each tribe should place his staff in the Holy Tent and the one that sprouts almonds would be a sign from God who is chosen for the job. They accept the idea, place the staffs, surprisingly Aharon’s staff sprouted almonds and everybody is calm and satisfied.

In 17:25 Hashem tells Moshe to place Aharon’s staff in the tabernacle as a reminder to the people, lest they should start complaining again. They would see the staff and remember all that happened.

Amazing that after all that happened, all they had seen and gone through, they would still need a stick and a pile of almonds to remind them. You would think the images of the ground swallowing the people would be seared in their minds. You would think seeing a stick sprout almonds would be unforgettable. Why is it necessary to keep the stick around as a reminder?

I think the answer is that until now also they had seen miracles of equal quality. The splitting of the sea. Water coming out of a rock. The daily Manna. The clouds and fire and daily protection form the elements. Yet despite all these miracles constantly flooding their experiences, they still keep finding reason to complain and to doubt Moshe. When you feel slighted, it does not matter how much your mind tells you that the other side is obviously correct – sometimes the only thing that can stop you in your tracks is a visual, physical reminder of what happened. Not just a memory, but something physical that forces you to remember honestly. That was the purpose of keeping the stick.

Last man standing

Parshat Korach

Concluding the stage of negotiating the challenge to see who would be Kohen Gadol, Moshe makes a seemingly innocuous condition. He says in 16:29-30 that if they will die a normal death, that will show that “Hashem did not send me” and if something unusual would be the cause of death such as the ground opening its mouth and swallowing them alive that would prove these people incited wrongfully against God.

Both sides of Moshe’s condition were based on the death of his opponents. If they die normally he is wrong, and of they die in a freak manner, he is right. Seems one-sided to me!? What about a condition, if Aharon dies that shows he is wrong? Why did they have to die no matter what? It does not seem like a fair deal - if they are right they die and if they are wrong they die?

I guess Moshe knew most of them would die even if Korach was right and he was wrong. Only one person could have the job and with 260 or so people vying for it, most people would die. It was not just a matter of losing the job and having to start sending out your resume again to new potential employers. Moshe knew that all losers would die. It was just a matter of whether he or Korach was right. If Moshe was right, they would die a horrific death. If Korach was right, they would die normal deaths.

 

Do you have anything to gain?

Parshat Korach

Korach started the argument for personal reasons. He wanted the job of nesius, he felt he deserved it, and the fight got notched up a few levels in the heat of the moment. Korach did not want to fight it alone and he found 250 other poor “victims” (victims of Korach’s persuasion I would suggest) to join him in his fight.

We are told nothing about these 250 people – other than of a select few. Why they joined Korach I have no idea, I can only assume he had powerful powers of persuasion, and maybe they did not like Moshe that much as it is. I do not know why they thought they deserved the position nor whether they believed they would win it when going up against 260 other people all claiming the same thing, with the possibility of death to the 259 or so losers. I am not sure what they were thinking.

It seems to me kind of pathetic that they joined the dispute at all and somehow it seems that they muist have been influenced by Korach, especially as it says Korach took them and rashi explains that to mean he took them in with his words. Korach convinced these guys they had a chance, when he knew they did not. I feel that might have been a worse offense than the dispute with Moshe. At least in the dispute with Moshe he had a possibly valid claim and wanted it verified. These guys had nothing and they were solely killed because Korach suckeres them into joining him, probably hoping they could force Moshe’s hand with their numbers.

Korach knew in advance that if anybody other than Aharon would win it would be him. We are told that he saw in a prophecy certain descendants of his. He took that to mean that he would be victorious, as he would clearly live if he was going to have descendants. He was mistaken because he did not realize his own children would back out of the dispute at the last minute. He knew these 250 or so people joining him had no chance. He knew it was either him or Aharon. Yet he still persuaded them to come join his fight. I find that despicable. He used them! And this was coming from someone who was one of the greatest people of the generation – he had nevuah, he was a leader, he was clearly persuasive and charismatic, we know he was learned and had the strength of mind and logic to make elephants jump through needles!!

When someone is trying to convince you to do something, check carefully to see what you will actually gain from the venture. See if he is using you for his own selfish purposes. Nobody, no matter how great they are, should be trusted automatically. Korach shows us that even the greatest of people can be looking out for their own interests and be willing to sacrifice innocent people to achieve their goals.

Who really appointed Aharon?

Parshat Korach

Korach had a dispute with Moshe as to who should lead the Jewish nation. He specifically was claiming the right to be Kohen Gadol for himself. We are told by Rashi and the Midrashim that his claim was based on what he felt was a personal slight.

Korach felt that he was skipped over for the Nesius (president or governor perhaps) position of the Kehas tribe in the Levite tribe. How so? Kehas had 4 sons. The eldest was Amram and his two sons took the first two positions, Moshe the leader and Aharon the Kohen Gadol. Next was Yitzhar and his children should have been appointed to the next positions in the food chain of power – the nesius of Kehas. That should then have gone to, so Korach felt, Korach, him being the eldest of Yitzhar’s children. Yet he was not appointed to the position. He was passed over and the job was given to Elitzafan the son of Uziel who was the youngest son of the 4 brothers. He came to claim the Nesius, and once he was making a claim, he changed it to the Kehuna, so he was basically questioning the validity of Moshe’s appointments, based on what he recognized as a bad appointment.

The argument between them proceeds as we all know and the rest of the story is history. In 16:15 after Moshe comes up and presents the terms of the challenge to find out who would be the Kohen, he is then angered by Dasan and Aviram who refuse to come before him for a conciliatory meeting. He turns to God and says a short prayer. He says do not accept their minchot – do not accept the korban they will bring.

I do not understand the purpose of this prayer. Assuming what we believe is true, that Moshe made all his appointments based on the command of Hashem, and nothing involved was personal, what was he davening for? He knew his appointments had been directed by God and by definition Hashem would only accept Aharon’s korban, and would not accept Dasan, Avirams or any of the other 250 people involved in the dispute! Hashem could not because they would have been bringing the korban inappropriately and would have to be killed like Nadav and Avihu had been killed. I understand why the people went ahead with it. They doubted Moshe and were challenging him. I do not understand Moshe – just by the very nature of his position and actions, he should have been confident of his victory over this uprising. Why would he feel the need to offer a special prayer for his victory?

Yes, I know Rashi says he was referring to other korbanos – not to accept any of the korbanos presented by these people, but that is hard to swallow as an answer – Moshe knew they were all about to be killed and would not be offering any more korbanot. It could be Rashi was bothered by the same question and felt the need to explain it referring to other korbanot, but I think that is an insufficient answer to my question.

If you have any suggestions and possible answers, please post it in the comments, or email me at Israeli.jew@gmail.com – this question has been disturbing me for a few days now and I have not thought of a satisfactory answer.

Eretz Yisrael

Parshat Sh'Lach

There is really nothing more that needs to be expounded on in the main theme of the Parsha. No greater lesson can really be learned by expounding, rather than just looking simply at what happened.

The Jews were on the cusp of entering Israel. Any day now and they would be there. They just received the Torah. All cylinders were clicking and everything was going great. They start complaining and decide they need to send in spies to scout out the land. All they see is the bad, whether real or made up.
After they witnessed all the miracles of the dessert, did they really not think Hashem could help them conquer and settle the Land? Yet they spoke badly of the Land of Israel. They tried to dissuade the people from entering and building up the land.

The lesson is clear. We often hear people disparaging Israel. Be it the weather or the politics or the attitudes or the people or whatever. We have to see the good in Israel. Sure, we have to see the bad and try to improve it. But that would be looking at the bad with an eye to improve, rather than an eye to complain and disparage. Don't harp on the bad. See the good and encourage Aliyah, rather than discourage it.

Remember the Provider

Parshat Sh'Lach

The Torah in Chapter 15 describes the commandment of separating Challah from ones dough. In 15:20 and 15:21 it says from "the first of your dough".

The Torah uses the word "Reishit" a number of times. As far as I can remember, it is always in reference to one of the mitzvot hatluyot ba'aretz - a mitzva dependant on being in the land of Israel, generally one that has to do with agricultural aspects of being in Israel. Shemittah, Trumot and Maasrot, bikkurim, challah, etc..

The concept of giving from the first of ones produce or efforts is one of recognizing who is really the provider. The Jews wandered in the dessert for 40 years. They had all their needs taken care of and all their wants provided for. At worst they had to complain a little and then they were given what they wanted..
They are going to enter the Land of Israel and all that is going to end. Nothing will be given to them on a platter. They have to go back to living normal lives. They will have to work for their food. Plant, sow, plow, harvest - a lot of sweat and toil.

A person who works hard and eventually sees results from his labors, often takes the attitude that he has been successful in his efforts. We even say "Yagata U'Matzata, Ta'amin" - if you put forth effort and find success, believe (in your success). God tells us in advance that we should be careful from having such attitudes. When we give ourselves too much credit and forget who the actual provider is, we are headed for trouble. He therefore gave us a number of mitzvot whose goal is (or at leats in part) to protect us from having such thoughts and forgetting where our success really comes from.
After having planted and harvested and worked very hard for our produce, we are told to give the first fruits to the Kohanim and Leviim, or bring to the Bet Hamikdash, or let the land sit fallow for a year, or once a week stop working or separate from the first of the dough, etc. The first thing we do when we see the fruits of our labor is give some to Hashem (or His rep). This right away reminds us who really provided us with our success. It was not the toil of our hands and the sweat of oru brow. It was Hashem who made us successful. Don't forget it.

No Comment

Parshat B’Ha’Alotcha

Miriam and Aharon approach Moshe and complain that they heard he has separated from his wife. They say that Hashem does not only speak with him and if he separates from his wife, everyone else will as well. Moshe does not respond, rather the passuk in 12:3 tells us that Moshe was the most humble of men.

Passuk 12:3 seems to be out of place. Why is it here that the Torah decides to tell us that Moshe is the humblest of all men?

I think the reason is because the fact that Moshe was the humblest of all men was exactly the answer to Miriam’s issues and therefore it fits exactly. Moshe separated from his wife because Hashem told him to. He had to be ready at every available moment to talk directly with God. Sure, other people were great as well and spoke with God. However, nobody was doing it at the level of Moshe. Hashem even tells Miriam afterwards that they speak directly while everyone else speaks via dreams, etc..

Moshe was the humblest of all men and he therefore was not going to start bragging about how he had to separate from his wife because he speaks directly to God while everyone else only speaks in dreams. Because he was so humble he had no response available. Any response would have made him look haughty.