Parshas Devarim - Get Out of the Back Seat

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
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

10In the second paragraph, of “Al kein...”
Title Picture credit: http://jasbusinesssolution.com/

Parshas Mattos-Masei - Sickness or Symptom

~ Thoughts on The Parsha ~

Parshas Mattos-Masei

Sickness or Symptom

By: Daniel Listhaus

וְאֶת מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן הָרְגוּ עַל חַלְלֵיהֶם אֶת אֱוִי וְאֶת רֶקֶם וְאֶת צוּר וְאֶת חוּר וְאֶת רֶבַע חֲמֵשֶׁת מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב

“They killed the kings of Midian along with their slain ones: Evi, and Rekem, and Tzur, and Chur, and Reva, the five kings of Midian; and Billam son of Beor they killed with the sword.”

 -Masei 31:8

            When describing the battle that took place between B’nei Yisroel and Moav, the passuk (verse) singles out Billam and mentions that he was killed by sword. Rashi[1] writes that the passuk does so because when Billam came against B’nei Yisroel he did so with their craft of tefillah (prayer) because Billam knew that B’nei Yisroel triumph only with their mouth through prayer and supplication. Therefore Billam came and seized their craft by cursing them with his mouth. Rashi continues and explains that when B’nei Yisroel fought back against him they too cleverly exchanged their craft for the craft of the other nations[2] and killed him with a sword.

            This Rashi is hard to understand. Rashi makes it sound like it was a good thing that B’nei Yisroel switched their battle strategy to physical fighting instead of davening. How could this be? Certainly there is never a time to fully rely on weapons in battle. After all, as Dovid ha’melech writes in Tehillim[3] “Eileh va’rechev v’eilah ba’susim va’anachnu b’sheim Hashem Elokeinu nazkir” – that while the nations come to battle with their chariots and horses, we come solely with the power of tefillah. We bring weapons to battle in order to be dressed for the part but that is not what we believe wins the battle. If so, why does Rashi emphasize here that killing Billam by sword was an exchange of craft as opposed to merely the way that we were able to easily kill him after davening to Hashem for help in battle?

            The Rosh[4] comments that the sword used to kill Billam was the same sword that Yaakov avinu stuck into the pile of stones that was used as a treaty between him and Lavan. At that time, Yaakov warned Lavan not to cross the line; with the stones and sword symbolizing worthy punishment of being stoned and slayed. Interestingly, Lavan and Billam were close relatives. In fact some maintain they were the same person![5] Billam should have known to stay away and yet he tried for the fourth time to be “arami oveid avi”.[6] He tried with Lavan (or as Lavan) to wipe out Yaakov and the shevatim, he tried in Mitzrayim by advising to Pharaoh to kill all the Jewish babies,[7] he tried again with Balak to curse B’nei Yisroel, and then as a final attempt tried to cause B’nei Yisroel to sin. Billam crossed the line and was therefore killed by that very sword which served as the original warning.[8]

Perhaps this was important just for the middah k’neged middah aspect of it and that is the way Hashem wanted Billam to meet his demise. However, perhaps there is a slightly deeper aspect to why B’nei Yisroel killed Billam with that sword. Going to battle with that sword with the objective to kill Billam put B’nei Yisroel in the right frame of mind to internalize all that Billam had done and the borders he crossed. In other words, of course B’nei Yisroel utilized the ko’ach ha’tefillah (power of prayer); that is always a necessity and indeed the way we win in battle. However it was also necessary for us to understand our enemy and the core of the problem – that Billam was a sonei Yisroel who tried to wipe us out many times. Once we as a nation understood the core issue, that Billam represented the ideologies of Lavan and that he had crossed the line, they were able to have the right kavanos in davening and then take the sword and kill him. The power came from Hashem through tefillah but the mindset was set by the sword. We had to understand the underlying issue before knowing what to daven for and be successful in addressing it.

            The simple, yet profound concept of needing to know underlying causes in order to know how to address them is one which expresses itself in many aspects of life. Just like in order to create a treatment for a disease one has to research and figure out exactly what the core ailment is and not get caught up with the symptoms, so too when solving problems one has to research and analyze the root of the problem at hand without getting caught up in the symptoms, in order to best know how to solve it. Whether interpersonal issues or personal struggles, one must think about the problem he is in, how he got there, and the tools he has at his disposal in order to best understand how it could be addressed.

The Gemara[9] contrasts the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash stating that the first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because K’lal Yisroel was doing avodah zarrah, sh’fichas damim, and giluiy ar’ayos; whereas during the time of the second Beis Ha’mikdash, K’lal Yisroel was acting appropriately in terms of Torah and mitzvos but there was an underlying sinas chinum (baseless hatred) that was present and caused the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash.

The Maharal[10] writes that the understanding of this Gemara goes deeper than the surface. He writes that it is not a mere coincidence that the first Beis Ha’mikdash was destroyed from the “big three” and the second was destroyed due to sinas chinum.  After all, not every aveirah is categorized as bad enough to destroy a Beis Ha’mikdash. Is the Gemara just looking for things that were being done incorrectly at the time and saying that that was the reason for the destruction? Had K’lal Yisroel not been keeping Shabbos properly would the Gemara have automatically attributed the destruction to that? There has to be something deeper about why these specific aveiros had the capacity to destroy the Batei Mikdash that the gemara feels comfortable pointing the finger directly and specifically to those aveiros.

           

The Maharal explains as follows. During the first Beis Hamikdash, we merited the privilege of having a Beis Ha’mikdash because we were filled with tahara (purity) and had the Shechina amongst us. Therefore, when we allowed tummah (impurity) to infiltrate, the Shechina could no longer be present and the very foundation of the Beis Ha’mikdash became rotten and was therefore destroyed. However the second Beis Hamikdash was founded on slightly different grounds. The second Beis Hamikdash did not have the same type of kedusha and was lacking in some of the miracles that were present during the time of the first Beis Hamikdash.[11] It was founded on unity within K’lal Yisroel; that is how it was built and that is what it depended on in order to last. If only we would have internalized and understood that the Beis Hamikdash was founded on ahava, then we would have been able to understand that that is what it would take to keep it standing.

This is the lesson we learn from Billam and the sword. Time must be taken to understand causes and roots in order to know how to deal with whatever matters arise. In Billam’s case, our realization that Billam was a real enemy who was overstepping his boundaries by trying to interfere with the continuance of B’nei Yisroel allowed us to properly daven to Hashem and ultimately succeed in killing him with the very sword he swore by. In the times of the Batei Mikdash the contrast of destruction was directly correlated with the proverbial types of legs that the Beis Hamikdash was standing on. Taking the time to properly recognize causes of problems is what allows us to find the right solutions.

This is really the relationship between the month of Av and the month of Elul. During Av we are tasked to reflect and give a state of the union address. Not just where we are at, but more importantly how did we get there. Once we understand what got us to where we are, we are then prepared to move on to the month of Elul to work on addressing the causes of the problems. However if we choose to focus on symptoms instead of causes, we risk getting lost and getting frustrated trying things that won’t work; like throwing darts at a wall and trying to draw the target afterwards.

May Hashem help us have the clarity to find the root causes of struggles that we face in our own lives along with those that we face as a nation as a whole so that we could make progress in the areas of teshuva and ahavas chinum. In this zechus the Beis Hamikdash should be re-built on unbreakable foundations speedily in our days.

           

---

[1] Rashi Bamidbar 31:8

[2] Beraishis 27:40

[3] Tehillim 20:8

[4] Bamidbar 31:8

[5] See Rosh, see Gemara Sanhedrim 105b, as well as Sefer Seder Olam

[6] Devarim 26:5

[7] Gemara Sotah 11a

[8] The Rosh also says that the wall that Billam brushed up against with his donkey was actually the very same pile of stones from the treaty between Yaakov and Lavan.

[9] Yoma 9b

[10] Maharal Netzach Yisroel perek 4

[11] Gemara Yoma 21b

Parshas Pinchas - Core Credentials

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~

Parshas Pinchas

Core Credentials

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶל ה' לֵאמֹר: יִפְקֹד ה' אֱלֹקי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל בָּשָׂר אִישׁ עַל הָעֵדָה: אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה' כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין לָהֶם רֹעֶה: וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל משֶׁה קַח לְךָ אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר רוּחַ בּוֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ אֶת יָדְךָ עָלָיו: וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי כָּל הָעֵדָה וְצִוִּיתָה אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם: וְנָתַתָּה מֵהוֹדְךָ עָלָיו לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד וְשָׁאַל לוֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּט הָאוּרִים לִפְנֵי ה' עַל פִּיו יֵצְאוּ וְעַל פִּיו יָבֹאוּ הוּא וְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ וְכָל הָעֵדָה: וַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֹתוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיַּעֲמִדֵהוּ לִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי כָּל הָעֵדָה: וַיִּסְמֹךְ אֶת יָדָיו עָלָיו וַיְצַוֵּהוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' בְּיַד משֶׁה

“Moshe spoke to Hashem, saying, 'May Hashem, G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the assembly, who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall take them out and who shall bring them in; and let the assembly of Hashem not be like sheep that have no shepherd.' Hashem said to Moshe, 'Take to yourself Yehoshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit, and lean your hand upon him. You shall stand him before Elazar the kohen and before the entire assembly, and command him before their eyes. You shall place of your splendor upon him, so that the entire assembly of the Children of Israel will pay heed. Before Elazar the kohen shall he stand, and he shall inquire of him of the judgment of the Urim before Hashem; by his word shall they go out and by his word shall they come in, he and all the Children of Israel with him, and the entire assemble.' Moshe did as Hashem had commanded him. He took Yehoshua and stood him before Elazar the kohen and ind before the entire assembly. He leaned his hands upon him and commanded him, as Hashem had spoken through Moshe.”

-Pinchas 27:16-23

            Hashem reminded Moshe that because of his sin with hitting the rock, he would not be allowed to enter Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, a new leader had to be appointed. The new leader would have to be one capable of following in Moshe's footsteps and leading a stubborn B'nei Yisroel out of the midbar (desert) and into their next stage of conquering Eretz Yisroel. If we take the moment to read through the passukim carefully, listening to the conversation between Hashem and Moshe, we will find what the Torah values most when it comes to looking for someone capable of leading the nation of Hashem.

            The Torah[1] relates when Moshe davened (prayed) to Hashem to ask that He appoint a suitable successor, Moshe referred to Hashem as “elokei ha'ruchos” (G-d of the spirits). Rashi[2] explains that by using this expression, he was in fact davening: “Master of the World! The personality of each individual is revealed before You; they do not resemble each other. Appoint a leader who can put up with each individual according to his personality.”

            It is fascinating that if one stands two people alongside each other and analyzes their features part by part, it is often very difficult to figure out which part is so drastically different that the people should have such unique features. Yet, it is a fact that people look different from one another. Chazal tell us based on the Gemara[3] that just as our faces are not the same, neither are our minds. Each person sees things in a different light from a different perspective. Some thoughts may be similar while others will contrast as much as black and white. A proper leader must be able to appreciate each person's unique personality and be able to deal with each individual appropriately. His task is the ultimate challenge of receiving people b'seiver panim yafos;[4] not merely always smiling or always serious, but rather “b'seiver”. A leader must put thought into his countenance depending on each individual, case by case. This is one quality which Moshe stresses as being of utmost importance. Someone placed in an authoritative position leading a group and wanting to help them grow, must be able to be in-tuned to the different dynamics that by definition exists and varies based on each individual, and be able to wisely deal with each one accordingly.

            Moshe continues his tefillah (prayer) saying that the leader should be one who shall go out before them and come in before them. Rashi[5] explains that Moshe was saying the following: “Hashem, may You choose a leader who does not act in the manner of the kings of the other nations who sit in their palaces and send their armies off to war, but rather act as I [Moshe] did, for I did battle against Sichon and Og.”

            From this part of Moshe's tefillah we gather a second equally important attribute a leader must have, namely he must practice what he preaches. It is very easy to lecture and give commands and then sit back and watch as they get done, or disciple when they do not get accomplished. However, such behavior is less than insufficient, it is counter-productive. It gives quite a mixed message when the one preaching does not act as such himself, and it creates, whether consciously or subconsciously, a definite confusion and possibly even a strong dislike or hatred to the one giving the orders. A true leader does not ask of things he does not do himself. If he is asking his subjects  to go to war, he will lead them into the war himself. If he is suggesting ways of living, he will follow them as well. This is true even in a general sense of leading, and so much more when the leader has the responsibility of relating the commands of Hashem.

            Continuing the narrative in the Torah, the next couple of passukim relate what Hashem responded to Moshe. Rashi[6] states that Hashem told Moshe to take Yehoshua with words, meaning, that Moshe should say to him how fortunate and privileged he is to lead the children of Hashem. Yet, it is only one passuk[7] later when Hashem continues to tell Moshe to warn his successor that the job of leading B'nei Yisroel is not an easy one. As Rashi[8] describes, B'nei Yisroel are troublesome and uncooperative.

Along these lines, there is an old joke that a United States President phoned the Israeli Prime Minister and started complaining about how difficult it was being president over a country of people and having to hear the constant complaints and being blamed for everything. The Israeli Prime Minister replied, “Big deal. You only need to be president over a country full of people. I need to be president over a country full of presidents.”

            B'nei Yisroel is a hard nation to lead, and anyone who leads B'nei Yisroel should be reminded of this and that if they are to accept the position, an understanding of this is imperative just as Hashem told Moshe to forewarn Yehoshua appropriately. However, the correct mindset that goes along with it is not a huge sigh, but rather as Rashi puts so beautifully, “You are fortunate, for you are privileged to lead the children of G-d!” A pure-hearted leader of K'lal Yisroel does not get tired out from helping the people and putting up with all the nonsense because in the end of the day there is a drive which surpasses it all, and that is the amazing privilege of being in a position of leading the children of Hashem. This is the mindset necessary to be a good leader of B'nei Yisroel.

             The next passuk[9] continues Hashem's instructions to Moshe regarding appointing a new leader. Hashem tells Moshe to place his splendor upon his successor. Rashi[10] elaborates that Moshe's face was like the sun and Yehoshua's face was like the moon. Besides for the pashut p'shat (simple explanation) fact that Hashem was stating that there will never be a navi (prophet) or leader as great as Moshe rabbeinu, there is perhaps another underlying point being hinted to here. The moon does not give off its own light, but rather just reflects what it is able to get from the sun. Perhaps with this moshol (parable) we could extract yet another vital property of a Jewish leader. It may be true that as generations go on, the light that the moon reflects gets less and less, however the most important aspect is that it is reflecting its light from the sun. No matter the “qualifications” of a leader, the ultimate qualification is the fact he has a rebbe and a mesorah (tradition) going up to Moshe rabbeinu. Someone who self-declares himself as being smart enough to lead is foolish and is missing the most critical qualifier of having a rebbe with a mesorah. One must not be a leader with his own light but rather that which reflects off the sun. This is yet another vital factor in choosing a leader for K'lal Yisroel, which we learn from Hashem's conversation with Moshe.

            The Torah[11] concludes this segment by describing that Moshe did exactly as Hashem commanded him and took Yehoshua and stood him before Elazar Ha'Kohen. Moshe then leaned his hands on Yehoshua – giving him the first semicha in history – and commanded him everything Hashem told him. Rashi[12] points out  that really, Hashem commanded Moshe to lean his hand on Yehoshua, yet the Torah accounts that Moshe leaned his hands on Yehoshua, more than Hashem commanded him, as if to demonstrate that he was generously overfilling Yehoshua to the brim with his wisdom.

            The Kli Yakar[13] asks that according to Rashi's explanation that Moshe in fact did more than he was commanded, how could Moshe have done so? Isn't that an issue of bal tosef – the negative commandment to add to mitzvos? If Hashem gives a commandment with a specific number then we are not allowed to add to that. For example, on Succos we are commanded to bring four species. Not three and not five. So if Hashem commanded Moshe to lean one hand, how could he have leaned both his hands?

            The Kli Yakar offers the following answer which givers further insight into the responsibility of a Jewish leader. The Kli Yakar writes that Moshe was to lean his hand in the same way as we find by karbanos (offerings). In the parsha of karbanos, the Torah also uses the singular form to describe the kohen leaning his hand on the animal, yet in practice it describes Aharon leaning both his hands on the karbon. Moshe replicated the form of the commandment and practice as mentioned by the karbonos at the time of appointing Yehoshua in order to demonstrate that the role of the leader is to bear the burden of the various sins and mistakes of the nation. Just as the karbon must carry the burden of the aveiros (sins), so too a leader of K'lal Yisroel must be willing to be responsible for everyone under his care.

            Perhaps there is even an additional message which could be gleaned from this Rashi and Kli Yakar. A leader must be there purely for the people and not for any selfish purpose whatsoever. If one stops for a moment and thinks about political positions, when a mayor, governor, or president must give up his position after a complete term or by being voted out, one will never find him truly wishing that his successor do as good a job as he. Each president wants to be the one to be remembered and wants to take up the biggest section in the history books. Often to try to achieve this politicians will bad-mouth their successors or sarcastically challenge them to do as good a job. However, those are properties of a bad person and very far from the characteristics of a good leader. A good leader wishes only for the ultimate success of the people. This means that a good leader would do all he could to try to find a successor that is just as good or better than himself so that he could pass on his charge of taking care of the people he loves to a suitable person. Perhaps this is yet another idea being pointed out by the Torah and Rashi, that Moshe was someone who truly loved and cared for the B'nei Yisroel, therefore, as depressing as it was to have to give up his position and prepare to face death, Moshe put both hands on Yehoshua to express that he wanted to give him everything he had with a beracha (blessing) that Yehoshua have the capacity of strength and wisdom to lead K'lal Yisroel like Moshe himself.

           

            The mishna[14] states that there are four types of people who give tzedaka. The first is someone who is willing to give tzedaka (charity) but wishes that no one else does. The mishna refers to such a person as begrudging of others.  Here is a person who looks like he is doing a nice thing by giving tzedaka but it is clearly for only selfish reasons. The proof is in the fact that he does not want others to give. He cares more about being in the spotlight, than the poor people having food to eat. He couldn't care less about the poor people; if he did he would encourage others to give as well. The same thing is true when it comes to a leader. A good leader wants only what is best for his people. If there is someone else helping him lead and doing a good job, he should not be jealous, because as long as the people are benefiting, he should be happy. Someone who tries to undermine the good of others is clearly not a leader but rather a haughty person who wants to steal the spotlight.

            When we speak of leaders, the term is not limited to a king or president of countries or nations. Rather, a leader in K'lal Yisroel includes anyone of influence whether a friend, mentor, camp counselor, rebbe, rav, or community leader. The group could be big, it could be small; it could be a less involved role or a more aggressive one. It could be at work, or in school; with frum people, or ones needing kiruv. No matter the details, the guidelines from this week's parsha apply all the same. A key leader is someone who has a rebbe with a mesorah and understands and cares deeply for every individual in his sphere of influence; and despite the trouble and white hairs that are bound to come, he remains driven with the privilege he has to be involved with the growth and helping of Hashem's children. He is also  more than happy to bear the responsibilities that come with his role without any jealousy of those who are capable of inputting productively.

            May Hashem help us realize our own spheres of influence and guide the leaders of K'lal Yisroel along the mindset of Moshe as he placed his hands on Yehoshua.

           

---

[1]     Bamidbar 27:16

[2]     Rashi ibid.

[3]     Berachos 58a

[4]     See Mishna Avos 1:15

[5]     Rashi Bamidbar 27:17

[6]     Rashi Bamidbar 27:18

[7]     Bamidbar 27:19

[8]     Rashi ibid.

[9]     Bamidbar 27:20

[10]    Rashi Bamidbar 27:20

[11]    Bamidbar 27:22-23

[12]    Rashi Bamidbar 27:23

[13]    Bamidbar 27:18

[14]    Avos 5:16

Photo Credit: readingbodylanguagenow.com/readingbodylanguageofleaderspart1/

Parshas Balak - The Letter S: Which Side Are You On?

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~

Parshas Balak

The Letter S: Which Side Are You On?

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם לָאָתוֹן כִּי הִתְעַלַּלְתְּ בִּי לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ

“Billam said to the she-donkey, ‘Because you have mocked me! If there were a sword in my hand I would now have killed you!’”

-Balak 22:29

The Torah[1] relates that Balak, king of Moav, realized that B’nei Yisroel a small nation of slaves that recently escaped Egypt, not only managed to defeat the Emori, but even obliterate the giant guardians Sichon and Og who Moav.[2] This made Balak and all of Moav very worried and they went to seek counsel from the elders of Midian.

Rashi[3] points out that Moav seeking advice from Midian was not typical as the two nations hated each other. However, the circumstances were such that they found themselves hating a common enemy even more - the B’nei Yisroel, and they were willing to look the other way from their differences and join forces to solve the “Jewish problem” of their time. The reason they felt Midian would be the proper strategic partner was because they knew that Moshe rabbeinu had spent time in Midian and figured that perhaps Midian would know what Moshe’s secret to success was and, by extension, what his proverbial kryptonite might be. Indeed, Midian did know; they revealed that Moshe’s unique power was his mouth. When Moav heard this they said, “We too will come against B’nei Yisroel with a person whose power is in his mouth.” This led them to Billam ha’rasha who Balak hired for a large sum of money.[4]

The passukim go on to describe that Billam was accompanied by a number of men on the journey that would take them to the proper place for Billam to set up and curse B’nei Yisroel. However, their journey there was far from uneventful. Billam’s donkey came to a screeching halt when it saw a malach (angel) standing on the road right in front of it with sword drawn.[5] Rashi[6] describes that the malach said, “This rasha has put aside the tools of his craft, for the craft of the goyim of the world is the sword, and he comes against B’nei Yisroel with his mouth, which is the craft of B’nei Yisroel. I too shall come against him with his own craft.” However, Billam just hit his donkey and redirected her back to the road. The malach came again as a fence on either side and the donkey squeezed against the wall, pressing Billam’s leg against the wall; Billam continued to hit the donkey. The malach then came again and stood in a narrow path and there was no room for the donkey to go. Billam hit the donkey again with his staff.

The passuk[7] relates that Hashem then opened the mouth of the donkey and the donkey said, “What have I done to you that you struck me three times?” Billam replied, “Because you have mocked me! If there were a sword in my hand I would now have killed you.”

Rashi[8] (ibid) comments that this was a major embarrassment for Billam. The officers that were with him thought to themselves, “This is the person we are trusting to destroy a whole nation with his mouth and yet for his own donkey he needs a weapon?”

Although Rashi is unclear as to whether the officers verbalized this mockery, if these were only their thoughts, or if this was merely what Billam thought they were thinking, it is certainly a valid tease. Billam was hired to wipe out B’nei Yisroel yet his own donkey he would have threatened with a sword if it were available.

Let us take a moment though to think about the following. Why was it that Billam’s gut response to disciplining his animal was that he would have killed it with a sword? If Billam himself was someone whose expertise was utilizing his mouth as a weapon, why not threaten or actually curse the donkey with his mouth?

It must be that we see from here that Billam, as a goy, really held the same craft as all the other nations - that of the sword. This also helps us understand the Rashi mentioned earlier. The malach went to block Billam because, “This rasha has put aside the tools of his craft, for the craft of the goyim of the world is the sword, and he comes against B’nei Yisroel with his mouth, which is the craft of B’nei Yisroel. I too shall come against him with his own craft (i.e- the sword).”

Indeed, Billam’s weapon of choice was not just conceptually the sword, but practically as well. This is evident from the fact that his immediate response to the donkey was a threat by sword. 

However, with all this in perspective, how could we understand why then he did not have his sword with him? Why was he so confident in his mouth alone to fight against B’nei Yisroel that he was comfortable leaving his sword at home? Why not at least bring it as a backup plan?  He was coming to essentially do battle with B’nei Yisroel, why would he leave his choice weapon behind even if it was not the tool he selected to hopefully use for this purpose?

Perhaps we could learn from Billam ha’rasha what he and Midian really knew as a fact about the secret of B’nei Yisroel’s success.

As Jews, we are asked to balance hishtadlus and bitachon. However even after understanding the need for balance, there needs to be a fundamental realization as to the perspective and way we approach these concepts. Dovid ha’melech writes in Tehillim[9], “Some with chariots and others with horses, but we in the Name of Hashem our G-d call out.” Many people are under the impression that the order of operations in striking the balance between hishtadlus and bitachon is that first we choose or are put into a position where we strive to do something, we then daven to Hashem for help and success, and then, upon a successful result, we have a renewed faith in Hashem as we witnessed His siyata d’ishimaya. Let us take the following simple example. Imagine a student has a difficult math final coming up. Having been thrown into a situation where he has a test to take he decides he is going to try his hardest. At the same time, he davens to Hashem that Hashem help him study and be successful, and then after receiving his score he has renewed bitachon.

Although this is certainly a level, the truth is that the perspective should be exactly the opposite. The real order is that we start with bitachon. We begin with believing that Hashem is all powerful and it is He alone who created and orchestrates the world on a daily basis and does everything according to His overall master plan for our individual benefit, and therefore it is appropriate to daven only to Him.[10] After having bitachon, one follows forward by davening as we believe in Hashem and understand that He wants us to daven to Him. Tefillah is then followed by action which demonstrates that the person has full belief in Hashem’s ratzon to do what is best and is therefore able and willing to act upon it with confidence. In our student’s final exam case, the parallel example would be that the student anticipating taking the test stops to think that ultimately Hashem runs the world and decides how people’s circumstances will turn out. This strong belief sparks the individual to daven for his success from Hashem because he believes and understands that it is all within Hashem’s power and will. Following that, the student’s push to get out of bed, study, and ultimately take the exam should be fundamentally because he has the confidence that Hashem is there and that his tefillos will work on his behalf to the capacity that Hashem deems fit.

When we approach an enemy in battle wielding weapons and davening, the perspective is not that we are entering in war and davening that we are successful; rather, we begin with having full bitachon in Hashem and daven with kavana to overcome our enemies and then we are willing to enter in battle to bring about the result. Bitachon is not an enhancement to hishtadlus, it is the other way around! Proper hishtadlus is acting upon the bitachon.

This is something which Midian, and specifically Billam, understood fundamentally. Their battle with B’nei Yisroel could not be at the battlefield. If they would fight on the battlefield that would mean they had already lost. After all, B’nei Yisroel led by Moshe rabbeinu entering into battle would be an action already rooted in complete bitachon and tefillah; the battle itself would just be the finishing touches, the demonstration that they fully trusted in Hashem’s aid. Perhaps this is the reason Billam did not even bother bringing his sword with him. Billam, as Moshe rabbeinu’s evil counterpart, fully understand the power of bitachon as a source of koach ha’tefillah and understood that he had to interfere in such a way that Hashem would be angry enough at B’nei Yisroel that He would chas v’shalom cast us aside completely and look away from our bitachon and tefillah.

When we think of the relationship between thoughts, speech, and action it is quite complex. Optimally, one would understand who he or she is at one’s core and allow that to filter through and define the character of one’s speech and action. However, we know that the inverse relationship works as well. One who succumbs to negative actions, could easily find that translated over time into negative speech and a decay of his personal interior core. In the same vein, one who strives to practice meritorious actions will often find himself within the realm of “metoch shelo lishma bah lishma”, that even if the spark of the good action was not specifically due to the purest of intentions or beliefs, the mere continuation of good actions could lead to an ultimate positive change in one’s self, and further have an effect of continuing good actions but for the proper reasons, intentions, and based on good core values and beliefs.

May Hashem help us that we ourselves should be zoche to reach the level of B’nei Yisroel in the midbar and that our enemies recognize that when it comes to fighting B’nei Yisroel their craft is useless. Let us work from all ends of the spectrum, working on our bitachon, our tefillah, and our ma’asim (actions) to ultimately achieve that level where words beat sword.

---

[1] Bamidbar 22:2

[2] See Rashi ibid.

[3] Bamidbar 22:4

[4] Rashi Bamidbar 22:5

[5] Bamidbar 22:23

[6] Rashi ibid.

[7] Bamidbar 22:28

[8] Rashi ibid.

[9] Tehillim 20:8

[10] See Chovos Ha’leva’voas: Sha’ar Ha’bi’tachon