~ 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
No comments:
Post a Comment