Sunday, October 23, 2016

Parshas Ve’zos Ha’Beracha - B for Effort

~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