~ THoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas dEVARIM
Parshas dEVARIM
Get
Out of the Back Seat
By:
Daniel Listhaus
“These
are the words that Moshe spoke to all of [the B'nei] Yisroel, across
the Yardein, in the wilderness, in the Plain, opposite [the Sea of]
Reeds, between Paran and Tophel and Lavan, and Chatzeiros and
Di-Zahav.”
-Devarim
1:1
The Ramban1
describes that the final sefer
of the Torah serves three main
purposes. One theme of Sefer Devarim is
to repeat many of the mitzvos already
commanded earlier in the Torah. For this reason, Sefer
Devarim is often
referred to as Mishna Torah,
meaning “repetition of the Torah”. Another function of Sefer
Devarim is to introduce some
mitzvos which,
although taught already on Har Sinai,
were not yet written in the actual sefer
Torah. Some of these mitzvos include
hilchos yibum (laws of
levirate marriage), motzei
shem ra (evil talk2),
geirushin (divorce),
and eidim zomimin3.
The third facet of Sefer Devarim is
to document Moshe's mussar
(rebuke) to the B'nei Yisroel.
As
in every area of Moshe's life, the final mussar
Moshe gave to the B'nei Yisroel
was calculated based on da'as Torah
and ratzon Hashem.
Rashi4
explains that it was no
coincidence that Moshe waited until this particular point to rebuke
the B'nei Yisroel.
Moshe understood that the time of his death was approaching and
therefore chose this moment to give mussar
to the B'nei Yisroel.
He learned this from Yaakov avinu.
Yaakov too waited until his deathbed in order to offer his divrei
mussar to his sons. Rashi
continues to explain some
reasons brought by chazal as
to why one should not give mussar except immediately before death: In
order that he should not rebuke him and then have to do so again, and
in order that the one getting the mussar should not be embarrassed to
later face the one who rebuked him.
This
was not the only calculated aspect of Moshe's final speech to B'nei
Yisroel. The passuk
(verse) describes that Moshe gave mussar
to the entire
B'nei Yisroel.
However, certainly this was not necessary. After all, there were many
people among the B'nei Yisroel
who took no part in any of the activities that Moshe rabbeinu
was giving mussar
about. If so, why does the passuk say
that the entire B'nei Yisroel
was present? Rashi5
points out that Moshe made everyone's attendance mandatory in order
to circumvent a potential issue. Moshe was concerned that had he only
given mussar to part of B'nei Yisroel,
then the part which was not there would later come and say to those
who were, “You heard from the son of Amram [i.e- a disrespectful
way of referring to Moshe] and did not respond at all with
such-and-such a point. Had we been there, we would have answered
him.” Therefore, Moshe invited everyone to attend and share their
thoughts.6
Upon
reading this Rashi, a
moshol (parable)
immediately comes to mind. Anyone who has played chess among friends
is certainly aware of the annoying onlooker who seems to know how to
get every opponent into check-mate. As you try to concentrate on your
game of chess you keep turning your head and rolling your eyes at the
guy breathing over your shoulder staring at the chess board speaking
to himself with a megaphone, “Ooh! I could win in four moves.
Should I tell you where to go? Are you sure you do not want me to
help you?” As annoying as it is to you, when the game is finally
over and it is now your turn to watch someone else play, you too
instinctively find yourself playing better as an onlooker than the
one in the seat.
Whether
it is true that an onlooker plays a better game of chess than the one
actually playing or not is debatable. On the one hand, perhaps the
onlooker is indeed in a better position because of the lack of
pressure. However, on the other hand, perhaps the onlooker's feeling
is baseless and really it is only because he is not putting in the
same concentration or developing a long-term strategy, as the real
player is, to see the flaws of his “great moves”. Either way,
there seems to be a real sense of “back seat driver syndrome”
which exists in the world and Moshe rabbeinu was
trying to avoid this. He did not want to have any onlookers to “know
better”, or any back seat drivers who would swear to have done
things differently. Instead, Moshe wanted everyone to be involved and
therefore unable to later say, “you should have said this or that”.
This
Rashi, however, is
difficult to understand. Did Moshe really resolve this problem with
his solution? Let us turn back to our chess moshol
and see. Imagine that it is now the know-it-all onlooker's turn to
play in the actual game of chess. He plays, makes some nonstrategic
moves and ultimately loses the game. Does this mean that objectively
there were no better moves he could have made? Of course not. Could
the back seat driver make mistakes when he is in the driver seat?
Certainly the probability of getting into an accident has not
decreased. All that changes is where the person is situated, however
the objective truths that a hypothetical onlooker or back seat driver
could point out are still virtually there. If so, how could we
understand what Moshe did to solve the problem he was faced with?
Moshe wanted to give indisputable mussar,
but the mussar was
only applicable to certain members of B'nei
Yisroel. However,
Moshe did not want some to not attend because then perhaps they would
come later and say to those present, “you should have responded
such-and-such”. Moshe therefore had everyone present. Why is this
any different from our chess example, though? What does making the
onlooker into a player solve? The external truths and refutes still
exist and could be thought of at a later point. The fact that there
is now a larger crowd under the spotlight should not reduce the fear
of an argument erupting in the future.
In
order to understand this Rashi, it seems that there is a
slightly different or deeper explanation in the words of Rashi.
It must be that the fact alone that the entire B'nei Yisroel
was present and listened without interruption was indeed the solution
to Moshe's dilemma, despite the possibility that a cynic could always
show up later and find some fault to refute the mussar. When
one sits down to play a game of chess, he may know that the
rationalization exists that had he only been an onlooker, he could
have won. Nevertheless, he sits down to play the game and will accept
the outcome as a fair win or loss. It is true that external moves
exist and it is true that he may have played a better pretend game as
part of the audience, but the fact that he was willing to put that
aside is a sign that he is all ears.
The
part of B'nei Yisroel who were not the direct subject
of Moshe's mussar would have remained on the side lines.
However, by Moshe joining them in the proverbial game and them not
speaking out, they were doing more than just not speaking. They were
acknowledging the fact that despite any external arguments which may
have existed, Moshe was speaking the truth and that there was a
relevant lesson in it for all of them.
The
three weeks, leading into the nine days and ending with Tisha B'av
is a time for reflecting upon the sins of B'nei Yisroel as
a whole and the ramifications thereof throughout history. Yet, for
most of us it becomes a time when we fall subject to the back-seat
driver or chess-onlooker syndrome in one of two ways. Some read
through the mistakes of B'nei Yisroel and think: “Had I been
there I would not have made those same mistakes”. Others may read
through the kinnos and the mussar of the nevi'im and
think: “I could refute his argument in this way or that way”. We
must realize, though, that these types of thoughts and beliefs are
baseless and stem from looking for refutations instead of listening
to the mussar.
Instead,
we must ask ourselves if we are even really onlookers entitled to
disassociation in the first place. The gemara7
says, “ein arud meimis elah ha'cheit meimis” - “It is
not the snake which kills but rather the sin that kills”.8
The two Batei Mikdash were
destroyed not because there were enemy armies we could not defend
ourselves from, but rather because our disconnection with Hashem
became too great. It is easy to turn around now and say, “Well if I
was there there is no way I would have done that”. However, one who
thinks this is really missing the point. Following the aforementioned
theme we must realize that there is nothing preventing the Beis
Hamikdash from returning other
than the fact that the initial aveiros (sins)
which destroyed the Batei Mikdash are
indeed still present today.
The gemara9
tells us that one of the reasons
the second Beis Hamikdash was destroyed was
because of sinas chinum (baseless
hatred). This also means, by extension, that one of the
reasons the Beis Hamikdash continues
to not return on a daily basis is for this same reason. Every
day Hashem wants to give us the Beis Hamikdash but He
says, “How could I give it back if there is still sinas
chinum?” We could be
ignorant and say, “If Hashem would tell this to us we would argue
and say, “Impossible! – Look at all the social networking and
friendships which exist....” However, what we must understand is
that any cynic could find an argument; better chess moves will
always exist, and even the best back-seat drivers could make mistakes
at the wheel. The key is to accept the position regardless, by
stopping to listen to what is being said, just as the B'nei
Yisroel chose to ignore the external truths to refute Moshe and
instead accept the mussar as
interested listeners.
Tisha
B'av has a deep connection to us
despite the fact that we feel we are mourning an event which took
place such a long time ago. On the yomim tovim we
acknowledge the fact that there is a different atmosphere which is
present. We do not just commemorate past events, but rather relive
them on a spiritual level. When it comes to Tisha B'av as
well we must feel this time as a period of mourning on a personal
level for once again failing to correct our aveiros of
destruction, which prevent us from reconnecting to Hashem on a level
which merits a Beis Hamikdash.
May Hashem help us on
our mission to fix our aveiros of
destruction by helping us hear the mussar of the
nevi'im, reflected in
the kinnos, which were
ignored in the past. With this in mind, may we experience next Tisha
B'av as a yom tov and
witness what we implore Hashem multiple times a day in Aleinu
L'shabeach10,
“...Then all humanity will call upon Your Name, to turn all the
earth's wicked toward You. All the world's inhabitants will recognize
and know that to You every knee should bend, every tongue should
swear...on that day Hashem will be One and His Name will be One.”
1Devarim
1:1
2On
a simple level, the difference between motzei shem ra and
lashon harah is that
motzei shem ra refers
to when what is being said is false, whereas lashon harah
is when the information is
true.
3Witnesses
who testified about something they could not have seen because other
witnesses testify that they were together somewhere else.
4Devarim
1:3
5Devarim
1:1
6Nonetheless,
although everyone was present and had the ability to ask on anything
Moshe was saying, no one indeed had any refutations.
7Berachos
33a
8The
gemara brings this as part
of a story involving R' Chanina ben
Dosa who stuck his foot out for a snake to bite and the snake died
(because R' Chanina ben Dosa was pure of aveiros).
He then brought it to the Beis Medrash
saying, “See, it is not the snake which kills, but rather the
aveiros”
9Yoma
9b
