~Thoughts on The Parsha ~
Parshas Ve’zos
Ha’Beracha
B for Effort
By: Daniel Listhaus
וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה משֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל
“…And for all the strong hand, and
for all the great awesomeness that Moshe performed before the eyes of all Yisroel”
-Ve’zos
Ha’Berachah 34:12
After restating the
uniqueness and greatness of Moshe rabbeinu,
the very last passuk
(verse) of the Torah states, “…And for all the strong hand and for all the
great awesomeness that Moshe performed before the eyes of all Yisroel”.[1] Rashi[2] comments that when the passuk says “the strong hand”, it
refers to Moshe’s receiving the luchos with
his hands. The Sifsei chachomim[3] further explains that indeed it took
a strong hand to be able to carry the luchos, as the luchos were
extremely heavy.
This Rashi presents a difficult problem. We know that during the B’neio Yisroel’s traveling in the midbar (desert), the aron, which held the luchos, carried itself, requiring no effort
to be put in to carry it. This was certainly also true when Moshe received the luchos originally from Hashem.[4] If so, how could we understand the passuk? How does Moshe’s ability to carry
the luchos demonstrate his incredible physical
strength? The luchos might
have technically been extremely heavy, but they were also weightless! If Moshe
did not have to put any effort into carrying the luchos then why does the passuk point to the event as a display of Moshe’s strong
hand?
Perhaps the answer
to this could be found based on a fundamental concept regarding hilchos succah.
The Tur[5] brings down from the passuk[6] that the yom tov
of Succos is strongly connected to yetzias Mitzrayim (exodus from Egypt). Specifically, the physical huts (succos) that we dwell in for the duration
of yom tov is to commemorate the ananei ha’kavod (clouds of glory) that Hashem had
surrounding the B’nei Yisroel to protect them in the midbar. The Beis Yosef writes
this as well and maintains this opinion in Shulchan Aruch[7]
where he writes
specifically that the mitzva we
have to build a succah
is to represent the ananei ha’kavod that accompanied us in the midbar for protection.
However, it would
seem that this is more than an explanation, but an actual p’sak (ruling). After all, the reason for
the mitzva of succah is actually a machlokes tanaim (tannaic dispute) brought
in the Gemara[8] between Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Akiva. Rebbe Eliezer
holds that indeed the mitzva of
succah is a physical representation of the ananei ha’kavod. Rebbe Akiva, however, argues and maintains
that the mitzvah
of succah is to recall the actual huts which B’nei Yisroel dwelled in while in the midbar. The Chayei Odom[9] points out that the passuk in Vayikra[10] which commands the mitzva of succah, actually refers to the succos of the midbar twice, one time chaseir (literally, “missing” i.e – without the letter vuv) and the second time malei (literally, “complete” i.e – with a
letter vuv). The reason for this, as he
explains is to refer to the two types of succos that we had in the midbar – the protection of the ananei ha’kavod as well as the physical huts that B’nei Yisroel constructed.
If we take a step
back and try to imagine the discussion that must have taken place between Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Akiva, it is hard to comprehend how Rebbe Akiva could maintain the position
that the commandment of succah is
solely to recall the actual huts we lived in while traveling in the midbar. Especially compared to the option
of the succah representing the ananei ha’kavod, how could we understand what was so
special about the huts we lived in that would be worth recalling for
generations as the central reason for celebrating Succos with the succos that
we build?
As an approach to try to answer this
question, an even more fundamental question must be raised. It is unlikely that
Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Akiva are arguing about facts of what the B’nei Yisroel had in the midbar. Rather both agree that the ananei ha’kavod were present and both agree that the B’nei Yisroel dwelled in huts. Their argument is
solely what the passuk is
referring to as the reason for the annual commandment to build a succah. If so, the question which begs to
be asked is why the B’nei Yisroel needed to build succos in the midbar at
all? Furthermore, Rashi[11], when explaining Rebbe Akiva’s opinion that the mitzva of succah is to recall the actual succos, writes that B’nei Yisroel built the succos in the midbar to
protect themselves from the elements. Why was this necessary? The ananei ha’kavod already did this for them and so much
more! Leaving aside the machlokes as
to why we have the mitzvah of
succah, how could we even understand the
fact that the B’nei Yisroel felt it necessary to build huts to protect them?
The Medrash[12] describes that there were four kings
who were faced with battle, but who each approached the circumstance differently
in terms of their personal physical commitment and their complementary tefillos (prayers). The four kings were Dovid
Ha’melech, Asa, Yehoshafat, and Chizkiyahu.
Dovid Ha’melech
said, “I will
pursue my enemies and overtake them, and will not return until they are
destroyed”[13] The passuk[14] confirms that Dovid’s tefillah was answered. When Asa was faced with
the possibility of war, he stood up and davened saying, “I do not possess the strength to kill
them, rather I will pursue them and You (Hashem) will kill them.” The passuk[15] confirms that Asa’s tefillos were answered. The medrash continues that when Yehoshafat was pulled
into battle he declared, “I do not possess the strength to pursue or to kill, I
will just sing shirah (songs
of praise) to You (Hashem), and You (Hashem) will wage the war.” Again, the passuk[16] confirms that Yehoshafat’s tefillos were answered as well. The medrash concludes by relating that when Chizkiyahu
was faced with war he said, “I do not possess the strength to pursue or to kill
or even to sing shirah,
I am going to go to sleep while You (Hashem) wage war.” Again, the passuk[17] testifies that Chizkiyahu’s tefillos were answered.
In all four cases,
each of their tefillos was
answered and their respective battles were successfully victorious. However,
the difference between their methods is quite clear. Dovid Ha’melech’s tefillos seem to state more dependency on what we may term
as his own hishtadlus
(effort) rather than pure bitachon (faith) in Hashem, whereas on the other side of the
spectrum, Chizkiyahu seems to be completely depending on Hashem’s intervention
while exerting no effort himself at all. At first glance it would appear that
the medrash is listing four scenarios with
increasing levels of trust in Hashem. The reality, however, is exactly the
opposite.
The Chovos Halevavos[18] writes that pure bitachon does not stop at “blind faith”.
Rather, the highest form of bitachon actually demands taking initiative and
pursuing needs. As a simple example the Chovos Halevavos
writes that despite the fact that the length of a person’s life is determined
by Hashem, one must still pursue the necessary means of sustenance such as
food, drink, clothing and shelter. He continues to bring examples from tanach[19] where people of great bitachon still made statements seemingly
doubting Hashem’s control of the world. As he explains, there is a difference
between statements made out of lack of faith in Hashem, and those made because
of full faith in Hashem with the understanding that as humans, our expression
of bitachon
is translated into our
hishtadlus. The action or declaration may at
times look the same, but the potential reasons behind them are worlds apart.
This idea is not a
foreign one. The Gemara[20] relates that at the time of kriyas yam suf (splitting of the sea) before the
sea split B’nei
Yisroel had
to enter. No one was willing to step into the yam suf until Nachshon ben Aminadav did so at which time the sea split. The
question is that if the sea was going to have to split either way, why not just
split? The answer is that
although it may sound counter intuitive, the truth is that full bitachon requires
full hishtadlus. It is precisely the involvement in this world with the
understanding that despite our efforts everything comes from Hashem, which is
true bitachon. Despite the
inevitable miracle which was going to occur, it was necessary for us to put in
the hishtadlus of walking into the sea nose-deep to
demonstrate the investment of bitachon in our physical world.
This idea is parallel
to the consecutive steps mentioned in Mesillas Yesharim
based of the beraisa
of Rebbe
Pinchas ben Yair
that the level of kedusha (Holiness)
- being able to take mundane things to utilize for Holy purpose is actually a
loftier level than p’rishus
- abstaining from physical pleasures of the world altogether.
With this
understanding perhaps we could better understand what was going on in the midbar right after yetziyas mitzrayim. The succos we built at the time of exiting mitzrayim were simultaneously not unnecessary
at all and non-indicative of lack of trust in the Hashem's protection of us
with the ananei
Ha’kavod.
Rather, they were our expression of hishtadlus
coupled with bitachon
that we had complete trust in Hashem that we will survive and that despite the
building of huts we fully understood
that the protection came from Hashem alone. Indeed with this in mind we could
understand the base of the machlokes
of what it is we should celebrate on the yom tov
of Succos. Should we be celebrating the level
of bitachon
which B’nei Yisroel had in the midbar as demonstrated by their hishtadlus of building huts with the trust that
the protection comes fully from Hashem, or the end result of Hashem’s actual
protection of B’nei Yisroel with the ananei ha’kavod? The balance of hishtadlus and bitachon
coupled with Hashem's positive response are both sides of the coin. Should our
proverbial reaching our hands up be the cause of celebration, or Hashem
reaching down to us to pull us up? Both are vital, both are complementary in
the relationship, both are infused in the mitzva of succah.
Going back to the passuk in V’zos Ha’Beracha – the very last passuk of the Torah, perhaps this is the
fundamental lesson with which the Torah chooses to conclude. It is true that
the luchos were weightless as they miraculously
carried their own weight. However, as much as Moshe trusted this that if Hashem
was giving him the luchos that
by definition he would be capable of carrying them, that trust did not
translate to mean that Moshe would stand and watch while the luchos floated in mid-air. Rather, his full bitachon actually necessitated his approaching
the luchos with a strong hand fully prepared to
use his full strength to carry the luchos with
the full bitachon
that it would be
within his capacity with Hashem’s help.
Our perspective as
people must be that we have full bitachon in
Hashem and His master plan. However, at the same time, we must recognize that sleeping
in bed with such beliefs is actually not the highest form of bitachon, rather it is our physical exertion
and investment into the correct path of our future along with our tefillos which fully demonstrates bitachon.
Even if we may pasken according to the Tur and Shulchan Aruch
that the yom tov of Succos is primarily for recalling the ananei ha’kavod, there is no doubt that the yom tov remains as one which very much runs
on the theme of bitachon and
our physical expression of coming closer to Hashem. We refer to Succos as z’man simchaseinu (time of our joy). Pure happiness, as the Orchos Tzadikim explains, is really bitachon. After
all, who is happier than one who has bitachon in Hashem? One of the
reasons Succos is referred to as z’man simchaseinu is because it
is the yom tov of the harvesting season when the crops are gathered from
the fields. The Sefer Ha’Chinuch[21]
writes that this is one of the reasons we take the daled minim (four
species) on Succos. After all, what better time is there than Succos
to use to channel our happiness from our hishtadlus in the field and
direct it towards celebrating the bitachon we have in Hashem. It is not
celebrating our hard work and toil as the cause of a plentiful harvest, but
rather celebrating the bitachon we had and continue to have in Hashem as
expressed by our hishtadlus coupled with the knowledge that we are doing
what we must but that ultimately everything is from Hashem. This representation
of the daled minim, along with the fact that they simultaneously
represent our own physical selves as individuals as well as k’lal yisroel as
a whole coming together to demonstrate our new efforts and hishtadlus we
will put in this new year with bitachon in Hashem, is precisely the
connection of daled minim to the yom tov of Succos.
Hashem’s response in return is confirmation to our beautiful and never ending
relationship with His request that we spend another day together and celebrate
the yom yov of Shemini Atzeres.
As we conclude the yom tov of Succos and Shemini
Atzeres along with Simchas Torah, let us take the lesson
of the yom tov with us through the upcoming dark, winter months
and throughout the whole year. May Hashem help us internalize
that despite our need to put in necessary effort, that ultimately everything
comes from Hashem; and that it is with that exact recognition that our hishtadlus
could become a pure act of bitachon. In this zechus (merit),
may we, along with all of k’lal Yisroel experience a happy and healthy
year of success and witness miracles to complement our enhanced hishtadlus
as we witnessed during our travels in the midbar.
[1]
Devarim 34:12
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid. See also the Re’eim
[4]
See Ohr Ha’Chaim on Devarim 9:17 who writes this explicitly.
Other meforshim (commentaries) explain the passuk here as
one unit with the end of the passuk that it was Moshe’s “strength” which
allowed him to break the luchos despite all the effort it took to get
them. However, according to the simple reading of the passuk with Rashi,
and certainly according to the Sifsei Chochomim and the Re’eim,
the question stands.
[5]
Tur O.C. 625:1
[6]
Vayikra 23:43
[7]
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 625:1
[8]
Succah 11b
[9]
Hilchos Succah klal 146
[10]
Vayikra 23:43
[11]
Rashi Gemara Succah 11b
[12]
Yalkut Shimoni 22:163
[13]
Tehillim 18:38
[14]
Shmuel I 31:17
[15]
Divrei Hayamim II 14:12
[16]
Ibid.20:22
[17]
Melachim II 19:35
[18]
Sha’ar Ha’Bitachon: Perek 4
[19]
See Shmuel I 16:2 for example, when Shmuel – a navi – expressed worry of
Shaul killing him. The worry of acting in a way that Shaul might find out and
go after him was not out of lack of faith that life and death is all in
Hashem’s hand, rather it was a declaration of his own need to put in the hishtadlus
of staying safe from Shaul because of his own bitachon that he knew
everything would turn out the way it should.
[20]
Sotah 37a
[21]
Sefer Ha’Chinuch mitzvah 324
No comments:
Post a Comment