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 Balak - What Do You Hear?

Parshas Balak

What Do You Hear?

By: Daniel Listhaus

“G-d came to Billam and said, 'Who are these men with you?' Billam said to G-d, 'Balak son of Tzippor, king of Moav sent to me: 'Behold! The people coming out of Egypt has covered the eye of the land. Now go and curse it for me; perhaps I will be able to make war against it and I will drive it away.' G-d said to Billam, 'You shall not go with them! You shall not invoke curse upon the people, for it is blessed! ”

-Balak 22:9-12

After a series of internal issues and conflicts and the deaths of Miriam and Aharon, the B'nei Yisroel seem to finally regain their prestige and instill a sense of fear into the surrounding nations. After watching the battle during which the great Sichon and Og were defeated by the B'nei Yisroel, Balak realized that in order to destroy them, a different strategy would have to be used. Balak noticed that although some nations do battle with chariots and others with horses, the B'nei Yisroel come to battle with nothing more than the Name of Hashem.¹ Balak therefore had the idea to counter words with words and hire Billam to curse the B'nei Yisroel.

As Billam started the journey with the messengers of Balak, the Torah tells us that Hashem approached Billam and asked, “Who are these men with you?” Rashi² comments that when Billam heard Hashem ask him this, he started doubting Hashem's abilities. He said to himself that there are times when not everything is revealed before Hashem and He is therefore not always aware of what is going on. After all, if Hashem had to ask who these people are, it must be because He does not know. Billim therefore convinced himself that he would be able to find a time to curse B'nei Yisroel without Hashem realizing what he was up to.

The problem with this Rashi is the following. Billam was not an ordinary person. As evil as Billam was, there was a potential in him equal to Moshe rabbeinu's. Rashi³ writes that in order to level the playing field and remove any excuses that the goyim would have for not doing teshuva (repentance), Hashem rested His shechina on Billam. With Billam, the goyim of the world had their own Moshe rabbeinu who had the potential to lead and advise them in the right direction through nevuah (prophecy). If so, when Hashem came and asked Billam, “Who are these men with you?” why did Billam suddenly doubt Hashem's knowledge? Billam was very aware of Hashem's power and should have understood that there must have been a different reason for Hashem asking him who the men who were with him were.

Furthermore, if Billam had listened in history class, perhaps he might have even known the reason for Hashem's unnecessary question. After all, Billam was not the first one ever to have a question asked to him by Hashem of which Hashem obviously knew the answer. Take Adam for example. After eating from the Eitz Hada'as, Adam and Chava achieved a level of knowledge and realized that they were unclothed. As they searched for something to cover themselves in, Hashem called out, “Where are you?”.⁴ Rashi⁵ describes that Hashem asked this in order not to scare Adam. Proper middos dictates one to knock before he enters. Therefore, when Hashem was about to enter – so to speak – Gan Eden to speak to Adam when he was not expecting it, the right thing to do was to give a slight warning before hand. This is why Hashem first called out, “Where are you?” before actually approaching Adam. In this case, Adam understood what Hashem was doing and he used the opportunity to do teshuva for eating from the eitz hada'as.⁶

A very similar episode takes place later in Beraishis. After Kayin killed his brother, Hevel, Hashem came to Kayin and asked, “Where is Hevel your brother?”⁷ Again, Hashem did this in order to not scare Kayin as well as to give him a moment to think about his actions and do teshuva. However, Kayin had very different reaction than his father, Adam. Instead of doing an immediate teshuva, he first tried to play along. Kayin responded, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?”⁸ Only after when Hashem said to Kayin, “What have you done? The sound of your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!...”,⁹ did Kayin finally respond, “Is in my iniquity too great to bear...”. As Rashi¹⁰ writes, Kayin tried to be goneiv daas elyon – be like one who steals the Supreme Knowledge as if he could fool Hashem. He was easily swayed to try to not have to face the situation he had gotten himself into. Unlike Adam who did immediate teshuva, Kayin first tried to get away with killing Hevel. However, ultimately Kayin also did teshuva and accepted the fact that Hashem knows every detail of what is going on in the world.¹¹

Billam on the other hand seems to have had the worst reaction of all three of them. Once he heard Hashem asking him a question, he immediately adopted as a fact that Hashem has moments when He is not completely aware of what is going on. This belief stayed with Billam even after Hashem explicitely warned him not to carry out his charge from Balak.

Why was Billam so stubborn? He did not take the opportunity of Hashem taking His time to approach as a moment to do teshuva, as Adam did. He did not even correct himself after trying to take advantage of the situation, as was the case with Kayin. Instead, Billam totally blew it. In his mind he confirmed that Hashem is not all-knowing and that he could capitalize on this. What was different about Billam that made him think differently from Adam and Kayin?

People hear what they want to hear. The Orchos Tzadikkim¹² writes that listening and a person's ratzon (will) are closely related. Depending on what a person's ratzon is will change what he listens to and how he interprets what he hears. Adam was a tzaddik and therefore understood the purpose behind Hashem asking him where he was. Kayin was a beinoni who had just done the despicable act of killing his brother. He therefore tried to “play along” and see how long he could get away with it for. Billam, however, was a rasha. Therefore, his ears were programmed to constantly be searching for things against Hashem. When he heard Hashem asking him a trivial question, he did not have the open-mindedness to understand the situation.¹³ Instead, he heard Hashem depending on him for an answer, and automatically understood it to mean that Hashem is not all-powerful. With this confirmed belief, he then set out to carry out his intended agenda to destroy the Jewish people.

Billam had the potential to be a Moshe rabbeinu, however, he ended up as the polar opposite. Moshe had one mission in mind: to carry out the word of Hashem and serve simultaneously as a servant of Hashem and appointed leader of the B'nei Yisroel. Therefore, everything Moshe did was with that focus in mind. Everything Moshe saw was with an emes lens, displaying how everything could be used to achieve high levels of kedusha and become closer to Hashem. Billam, though, had a quite different outlook on life and therefore perceived everything with a lens of sheker. Everything he saw, did, and even heard was used to come up with excuses and reasons to go against Hashem and fight B'nei Yisroel.

May Hashem help us define our ratzon in the correct way so that we could gain from the messages around us, and not be guided to view and hear everything in a sheker way as Billam's ratzon did.

1See Tehillim 20:8 as well as Rashi Bamidbar 22:4

2Bamidbar 22:9

3Bamidbar 22:5

4Beraishis 3:9

5Ibid. See also Meseches Derech Eretz 5

6See Sifsei Chochimim Beraishis 4:9 who quotes the Maharashal

7Beraishis 4:9

8Ibid.

9Beraishis 4:10

10Ibid.

11See S'forno and Ramban on Beraishis 4:13

12Sha'ar HaRatzon

13See also Maharshal Gur Aryeh 22:9

Parshas Chukas - The Power of a Zechus

Thoughts on the Parsha
Parshas Chukas

The Power of a Zechus

By: Daniel Listhaus

“...And Miriam died there....And there was no water for the assembly.”

-Chukas 20:1-2

Rashi¹ comments that from the juxtaposition of these passukim (verses) we see that for the entire forty years in the desert prior to this point, the well that the Jews had access to, which followed them on their journey, was only deserved through Miriam's zechus (merit). This is why when she died, the well disappeared and hid among the other rocks.

What was Miriam's zechus which had the capacity of providing drinks to an entire population and their animals in the hot desert for forty years?

Before Moshe Rabbeinu was born, Pharaoh made a decree that all baby boys be killed. Rashi² writes that in response to this law, Amram, the father of Moshe, divorced his wife, Yocheved. Once he divorced his wife, the rest of the Jews then divorced their wives as well. After all, Amram was the leading Gadol Hador (esteemed leader of the generation) and what he did was viewed as p'sak halacha (halachik ruling) for others to live by. Meanwhile, Miriam had a prophecy that her future brother would be the savior of the Jewish people. So, she went over to her father with the following argument. She said that his “decree” was worse than Pharaoh’s; for Pharaoh only decreed that the boys be killed, yet Amram was essentially preventing both boys and girls from being born. Miriam won the debate, Amram remarried his wife, and as a result, Moshe was born.

When it came to the point in time when it was impossible to hide Moshe from the Egyptians, Yocheved placed Moshe in a homemade basket and sent him along the Nile river. The passuk describes that Miriam stood on the side by the banks of the river to see what would happen to her brother, Moshe. The meforshim (commentaries)³ explain that Miriam received a tremendous mitzva and zechus from standing and watching Moshe. It was this zechus that merited her being the source of providing water to the b'nei Yisroel in the midbar (desert).

The difficulty with this is that the Gemara⁴ states that the reason Miriam stood and waited by the river was because she was curious if her prophecy would come true. If so, it becomes harder to understand what the huge zechus was. Miriam had a prophecy and wanted to see if it was correct. It seems that the primary reason for her being there was not to babysit Moshe from a distance, but rather out of curiosity if she was correct in her interpretation of her prophecy.

At the end of this week's parsha⁵, amongst the wars that take place, the giant Og appears on the scene holding a mountain as long and wide as the entire Jewish camp.⁶ The fact alone that he was threatening the destruction of the entire Jewish population should have indeed been no threat to Moshe and the Jews, because they understood that they had the yad Hashem (“hand” of Hashem) on their side and that nothing could counter such a force. Yet, we see from the fact that Hashem had to tell Moshe, “Do not fear him...”⁷ that Moshe was indeed afraid, and seemingly, specifically of Og. Rashi⁸ explains that Moshe was afraid to fight because Og had a zechus on his side. In Parshas Lech-Lecha, the Torah writes⁹, “And they [the four kings] captured Lot (Avraham's brother-in-law).... And the fugitive came and told Avram...” Rashi¹⁰ there comments that the “fugitive” was Og; and that the reason he had suddenly decided to be such a nice, caring person was because of what he intended to do. His intentions were that he hoped Avraham would be killed in battle trying to rescue Lot, and that he would be able to marry Sarah. Nonetheless, despite his intentions, the mere fact that he did a good thing by aiding Avraham, merited him a zechus deserving of reward which, over five-hundred years later, Moshe was afraid to stand up against in battle.

Let us review this one more time, for it is truly mind-boggling. Moshe Rabbeinu was the leader of b'nei Yisroel, he was the messenger of Hashem and the means of bringing forth the plagues upon Mitzrayim. He split the sea, received the Torah, and spoke to Hashem face to face as one speaks to a friend. Og, on the other hand, was a low-life, self centered individual who had one puny merit, which is barely a merit at all as he did it for purely selfish reasons. In a scale balancing Og versus Moshe, the ressult should be that Moshe would weigh down the scale so much and so fast that Og would go flying, catapulted in the air. Was this really something that Moshe had to worry about to the point that Hashem actually had to calm him down and tell him not to worry?

How could we understand these two zechusim working in this week's parsha? The zechus of Miriam and the zechus of Og each seem so small, and a surprising that these are even deemed as merits?

The only way to understand this, is that it must be we see from here the tremendous power of a zechus mitzva. Despite the true reasons behind the good deeds Miriam and Og did, in the end of the day, something good was done – the accomplishment of a mitzva. Such actions create a real force in the world which work as a zechus.

The Gemara¹¹ quotes Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav as saying, “A person should always engage involve himself in [learning] Torah and [performing] mitzvos even if she'lo l'shma (for ulterior motives, instead of learning Torah and doing mitzvos to become closer to Hashem), because from doing them she'lo l'shma, one will eventually come to learn Torah and perform mitzvos for their sake – l'shma. The Gemara then continues to demonstrate this from Balak. In next week's parsha, Balak hires Bilaam to curse the Jews. Bilaam, though, first requests of Balak, to build seven alters and offer karbanos on them to Hashem¹². The Gemara explains that because Balak brought forty-two animals to Hashem as karbanos¹³, he was zocheh to have Rus, and ultimately Dovid Hamelech come from him.

Balak was an extremely wicked person with only one thing in mind – to kill the Jews. Yet, despite the way through which he merited his zechus, his reward was still great. Again, we see the tremendous ramifications of a zechus in this world.

We do not understand how zechusim work, what type of control we have over them, or when Hashem decides to use them on our behalf. One thing is for sure, though, we see that even the power of a seemingly puny zechus is tremendous. Even when the mitzva is done she'lo l'shma, for selfish reasons, or even “accidentally” in order to do something terrible, the mere fact that something positive occurred is enough to create a strong force. How much more so must be the zechus of learning or performing mitzvos l'shma!

May we all merit to recognize the real ramifications of our actions and see the effects of our positive actions in as clear of a way as was visible in the midbar.

1Baidbar 20:2 see also Rashi Gemara Shabbos 35a

2Shemos 2:1

3Sifsei Chochomim Bamidbar 20:2 brings this from Rabbeinu Bechayai

4Sotah 13a

5Bamidbar 21:33

6See Rashi Bamidbar 21:35 who quotes the Gemara Berachos 54b

7Bamidbar 21:34

8Bamidbar 21:34

9Beraishis 14:12-13

10Ibid.

11Horiyos 10b

12Bamidbar 23:1-2

13He built seven alters in three places. On each he offered a bull and a ram. 7 x 3 x 2 = 42

Parshas Korach - To Kill a Mockingbird: Dutch Tulips and Mad Crowd Disease

THoughts on Parsha
Parshas Korach

To Kill a Mockingbird: Dutch Tulips and Mad Crowd Disease

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת בֶּן לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן

“And Korach the son of Yitzhar son of Kehas son of Levi took...”

-Korach 16:1

Rashi¹ and the Medrash² describe that Korach came to Moshe with the following two questions. The first was, “Does a tallis made entirely of techeiles (blue-dyed wool) require a string of techeiles”? The logic behind this question is that we know that we are required to put tzitzis strings on each corner of every four-cornered garment that we wear.³ The real mitzva of tzitzis includes that one of the strings on each corner be techeiles⁴. So, essentially, Korach was asking that if, for a regular tallis, a single string of techeiles is enough to fulfill the requirement, then certainly if the whole garment is made of techeiles, it should require no such thing.

The second question that Korach approached Moshe with was pretty similar to his first; “Does a room filled with seforim need a mezuza?” Again, the logical force behind this question is the following. We know that we must put a mezuza, containing the shema, on every doorpost⁵. So, Korach was asking, if there is a room filled with seforim or Torahs, and those have all the parshiyos in the Torah, why should such a room require a mezuzah? What power would the mezuzah be adding which would not already exist in such a room?

Rashi⁶ relates that Moshe responded that in both situations there is indeed still an obligation. The mitzva of techeiles does not disappear if the garment is already blue, and the mitzva of mezuza does not vanish when the doorpost leads into a library of Sifrei Torah. Upon telling this to Korach, Korach and the group which was with him began to laugh.

There is a tremendous difficulty with the arguments which Korach presented. The closest form of a valid logical-tool which Korach could have been trying to use here is a kal v'chomer (fortiori argument). If so, Korach's question should have answered itself. A kal v'chomer argument states that if something applies in “situation A”, then it should certainly apply in “situation B”, where it is even more likely to apply. According to this, Korach's kal v'chomer should have said the following: If one string of techeiles works to meet the requirement on a garment that is entirely white, then certainly it will do the trick for a garment that is completely blue. After all, it cannot be any worse than a white garment; it is at least the same, if not better. The same is true of Korach's second kal v'chomer. If a single mezuza on a doorpost to an empty room is enough to fulfill the mitzva, then certainly it should work for a room filled with seforim.

The answers to Korach's questions seem obvious. In fact, he supplied the answers with his own kal v'chomers. Let us consider this for a moment. The reason Korach had the audacity to confront Moshe with such pointless questions is clearly because he was trying to make a point. However, why is it that when Moshe responded to Korach with the correct answers, and seemingly refuted him, Korach va'adaso (and his assembly) just stood there laughing?

The theme of leitzanus (mockery) seems to continue further in the parsha as well. The passuk⁷ relates that Korach gathered the entire assembly against Moshe and Aharon. Rashi⁸ describes that the way Korach managed this was through words of mockery. Korach spent the night going from tent to tent with a prepared speech. He essentially announced, “Do you think I am starting this argument just for my own sake? I am doing this for all of you as well! Moshe and Aharon took all the greatest positions for themselves. We have to stop them!”

Why did Korach have to utilize leitzanus in order to accomplish his plan? Why did he not simply challenge Moshe and Aharon to a formal debate?

In the 17^th Century, a fascinating event occurred known as the Dutch Tulip Bubble. According to historians, Ogier de Busbecq of the Ottoman Empire was the one who introduced the tulip to Europe in 1554, by sending tulip seeds to Vienna. After a while, tulips began to spread across many European countries. By 1619, tulips had become a commodity in Holland and as the demand for tulips increased while more people entered the tulip market, the prices kept rising to ridiculous heights. This continued until February of 1637 when some tulips reached a price equivalent to between $1000 and $2000 dollars. This was a price equal to about ten times the annual income of a skilled craftsman in those days. At one point, people were too afraid of planting their tulips because they were too expensive to risk.

This is not an example of some European stupidity, nor is it a description of the naiveness of the 1600s. Rather it is an illustration of how far crowd-behavior could go. Crowds tend to behave irrationally. Just the feeling of being part of a greater group makes one feel good, and causes him to care less about realities and truths he may care about as an individual. The mental unity that a crowd or club has to offer has a tremendous impact on personal opinions and beliefs. It changes people from individuals and independent thinkers to being part of a crowd. One's psyche is pushed aside and is instead replaced and shaped to the psychology of the mob. This begins to snowball and ultimately, the “mad crowd disease” spreads like wildfire. This is how a tulip could end up selling for such exorbitant prices. If the crowd decides to attribute a false value to something, the idea will begin to spread despite how ridiculous it may sound to an individual who is outside the crowd.

Korach had an agenda. He was jealous of Moshe and Aharon's positions. Until this point their leadership was undisputed and Korach wanted to change that fact. However, one man cannot influence an entire nation. Therefore, Korach used leitzanus (mockery) as a means to unite the B'nei Yisroel against Moshe and Aharon. He became the proverbial mockingbird poking fun at Moshe, and indeed succeeded in getting the entire B'nei Yisroel in on the fun. The arguments of Korach did not have to make sense, the only purpose of Korach's questions was to publicly humiliate Moshe and start his own “mad crowd disease” to spread throughout the B'nei Yisroel. The crowd psychology that Korach started began to spread fast until Hashem ultimately came to stop it.

Rashi⁹ tells us that Dasan and Aviram joined Korach because they were his neighbors. It should therefore not be surprising that they started playing the same game. Moshe, in trying to seek peace with Korach tried to explain his position, “Listen now, sons of Levi...You and your entire assembly who are joining together are against Hashem! And as for Aharon – what is he that you cause protest against him?”¹⁰ Moshe then tried to summon Dasan and Aviram to make peace, but he was met with completely irrelevant opposition. They responded, “...You did not bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey...even if you put out the eyes of those men we shall not go up!” Dasan and Aviram were not addressing Moshe's attempt to seek peace, they were not interested in doing anything but continue to fan the fire of leitzanus which Korach had started. When Moshe realized this, the passuk¹¹ and Rashi¹² describe that Moshe was extremely upset and distressed.¹³

Like their mentor, Korach, Dasan and Aviram did not address Moshe respectfully or with any form of logic. Instead, they used leitzanus to push Moshe aside in order to further their agenda.

The mishna¹⁴ tells us, “Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will in the end endure; but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not endure.” The mishna continues and explains, “Which is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute between Hillel and Shammai.¹⁵ And which is a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and all of his assembly.”

This mishna seems to be inconsistent. The first example of the mishna is that a dispute between Hillel and Shammai is one which is for the sake of Heaven. However, when discussing the argument of Korach, the mishna refers to it as the dispute of Korach and his assembly. Why does it not refer to it as the dispute between Korach and Moshe? Both parties of the argument should be mentioned as the mishna did when discussing Hillel and Shammai.

Perhaps with our explanation we could understand this mishna. Korach's scheme was not to argue with Moshe directly. He had no arguments. Even if he would have had some logical argument, he would have had to deal with the fact that Hashem was the One Who commanded Moshe who to choose for the various leading positions of Klal Yisroel. Rather, Korach's idea was to change the psyche of the B'nei Yisroel. It was a one-sided argument trying to use leitzanus to create an army of mad crowd disease who would fight the fight for him. This is the danger of the mockingbird, and the reason it is so necessary to dispose of it.

Even one who merely lives near one who is a rasha (wicked person) is negatively affected by his neighbor's attitude, actions, and behavior. However, it is not enough to not be a neighbor of such a person. Rather one must disassociate oneself from even identifying with such crowds who are not arguing to pursue the emes of Torah, but are instead trying to push their own agendas contrary to da'as Torah.

With this message in mind, may we merit to achieve the level of the first passuk in Tehillim, “Praiseworthy is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked, and in the path of the sinful did not stand, and in the session of mockers did not sit.”

1Bamidbar 16:1

2Bamidbar Rabbah 18:1

3Bamidbar 15:38

4 A bluish dye made from a sea snail (chilazon)

5Excluding bathrooms

6Bamidbar 16:1

7Bamidbar 16:19

8Ibid.

9Bamidbar 16:1

10Bamidbar 16:11

11Bamidbar 16:15

12Ibid.

13See Amar N'kei on Rashi 16:15

14Avos 5:20

15Hillel and Shammai were a pair of early tannaim in the mishnaic era. Their arguments were not out of anger, jealousy, or haughtiness, but rather an argument over what the true halachos (laws) in Torah are based on their mesorahs (tradition) and understandings.

Photo Credit: http://thaumazein-albert.blogspot.com/2011/05/dutch-tulips.html

Parshas Shelach - Who Are You Going to Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes?

Thoughts on the parsha
Parshas Shelach

Who Are You Going to Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes?

By: Daniel Listhaus

“...We were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes!”

-Shelach 13:33

This week's parsha opens with Hashem's response to the B'nei Yisroel's request to send spies to scout Eretz Yisroel. Hashem said to Moshe, “...send forth for yourself men...”¹ As Rashi² comments, Hashem was not pleased with the idea of sending the meraglim (spies). After all, He promised us that Eretz Yisroel was good. What more of a guarantee could we possibly ask for? What better evidence could we possibly discover? Yet, Hashem allowed us to send in spies despite our inexcusable uncertainty and persistence.

Rashi³ writes that just as the meraglim came back and spoke badly about Eretz Yisroel, that was really their intention from the beginning.

The problem with this Rashi is that earlier in the parsha, when listing the names of the meraglim, the passuk⁴ testifies that they were kulam anashim (all men). Rashi⁵ on this passuk (verse) explains that whenever the Torah uses the word “anashim” it is an expression of importance. It therefore seems that indeed the meraglim had only the best intentions when chosen to be the ones to scout Eretz Yisroel. How could we understand this contradiction between these two Rashis?

Furthermore, there is another fundamental question which must be asked on the whole story of the meraglim. The Medrash⁶ tells us that there is nothing loved before Hashem as much as one who is a sh'luach mitzva (someone sent to do a mitzva) and who puts in tremendous efforts to carry out the mitzvah. This is why sh'luchei mitzvos are exempt from doing other mitzvos⁷. As an example, the medrash provides the story of the spies sent by Yehoshua to scout out the city of Yericho, which we read in this week's Haftorah⁸. In contrast, the medrash mentions that the story of the meraglim sent by Moshe in our parsha reflects a polar opposite case to the Haftorah, and is far from showing an example of sh'luchei mitzvah.

The question is, what did the meraglim that Moshe sent do wrong? Moshe himself, upon commanding the spies to go to Eretz Yisroel, said, “Ascend here in the south and ascend the mountain. See the land – what is it? And the people who dwell in it – are they strong or weak? Few or numerous? And how is the land in which they dwell – is it good or is it bad? And how are the cities – are they open or fortified? And how is the land – is it fertile or is it lean?...”⁹ The meraglim were sent to offer their opinion regarding the land. After all, is it not a spy's job to determine the strengths and weaknesses of enemy countries¹⁰. Did theses meraglim not do exactly that? They found the strengths and weaknesses of Eretz Yisroel. Is it because of them that the negative aspects that they discovered happened to outweigh the good news and cause the B'nei Yisroel to shout out against Moshe? What more could be expected of them? They were sent to determine the enemy's strategic position and they did just that. Why is it their fault that the giants living in Eretz Yisroel had prospered tremendously? They were just telling the truth – stating the facts!

There is another difficulty in the actual speech that the meraglim gave when they came back. After giving the first part of their report, and then being interrupted by Calev, the meraglim described to the B'nei Yisroel that the land was populated with giants. They said, “We were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes”. What did they mean that they were like grasshoppers in their own eyes? Granted they were received with a strong reception when it came to delivering the news back to the B'nei Yisroel, but that is no reason for them to think they sprouted antennas! Surely they knew that they were human, so why did they say that they seemed as grasshoppers in their own eyes?

Furthermore, we must ponder the validity of the meraglim's statement. How did they know how the giants perceived them, that they had the confidence to declare, “...and so we were in their eyes.”?¹¹

In order to better appreciate the story of the meraglim, let us think about the following. Imagine for a moment that you are walking down a street in Manhattan, when a Japanese tourist approaches you and, pointing at the Empire State Building, asks, “What is the name of that block?” You respond, “Well, this street we are on now is 34^th Street, perpendicular to us is 5^th Avenue, and parallel to us us 33^rd Street.” Confused, he repeats, “Okay, but what is the name of that block with the big building in it?” Thinking this man is crazy, you say, “I do not know what you are getting at. Blocks do not have names, only streets have names. ”Annoyed, you then walk away.

Now imagine you take a trip to Japan. You are walking along some street one night and realize that you are totally lost. As you continue to walk around aimlessly, you come across a unique six-story glass crystal building. Wanting to be able to check it out in the morning, you find a Japanese man who understands English and you ask him, “Excuse me sir, what building is this?” He responds, “That is the famous Prada Aoyama building.” You then say, “I would like to come see it tomorrow, could you please tell me what street we are on?” “Street?”, He asks, clearly very confused, “Well, it is on block number 2”. Now it is your turn to be confused, “I do not care what block it is on. What street is this?” The Japanese gentleman just shrugs his shoulders and says, “Look fella, the address is 5-2-6. Meaning, it is in District 5, Block 2, and Building number 6 on the block. Streets do not have names, only blocks have names here.”

As humans, we often find ourselves in the position of the Japanese tourist in America, or the American visiting Japan. Every person has his own premises, opinions, and perceptions which one assumes to apply universally. We enter situations which should be viewed objectively, and instead apply our own previous notions, personal thoughts, and subjective opinions.

Perhaps this was the main issue with the cheit ha'meraglim (sin of the spies). Hashem had already promised the Jews that they would enter Eretz Yisroel and that it contained nothing but pure goodness. The meraglim, though, did not go forth with their mission with the perspective of being messengers from Hashem. Rather, they went looking through their own glasses, which was the foundation of their mistake. Hashem gave them a choice, “Are you going to spy out the land coming from the perspective that on your side there is Hashem, before whom everything else is puny like insects before Him? Or, will you be the insects – grasshoppers, standing on your own, without fully appreciating Hashem's power, perceiving every molehill as a mountain.

Unfortunately, the meraglim did in fact fail to have the full bitachon (faith) in Hashem, thereby utilizing the middah (character trait) of anavah (humility) incorrectly. Once they made the choice to view themselves as grasshoppers, they caused themselves to be viewed in the eyes of the giants as little insects as well. Perhaps this is an alternative way to understand the aforementioned passuk, “...We were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and therefore we were in their eyes as well”. In other words, it was only because the meraglim felt insecure, due to their lack of belief in Hashem, that the giants realized that they had nothing to fear about these “human-looking creatures”, for they were nothing but puny grasshoppers.

Had the meraglim trusted in Hashem completely, instead of their own eyes, they would have seen the truth about Eretz Yisroel. They would have come back alongside Yehoshua and Calev, confirming how prosperous and beautiful the land is. The giants and their fortified cities would have seemed like nothing more than midgets behind sticks.

With this in mind, we could now understand the contradiction between the two Rashis. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the meraglim chosen were the cream of the crop – the most chashuv (prestigious) members of B'nei Yisroel. However, because they set off with the the intention of applying their own preconceived notions and opinions, instead of going with the mind-set of Hashem being on their side, it was as if they originally went with the intention to speak badly about Eretz Yisroel. They went in specifically looking for the streets, when they should have been noticing the blocks.¹²

At the end of the parsha, we find the last paragraph of kriyas shema which deals with the mitzva of tzitzis. After the Torah's actual commandment for one to attach tzitzis to a four-cornered garment he is wearing, the Torah provides the reason for the mitzva - “It shall constitute tzitzis for you, and you shall see it and you shall remember all of the commandments of Hashem and perform them; and you shall not spy after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.”¹³ We are supposed to look at our tzitzis and remember the mitzvos of Hashem¹⁴ and perform them in the correct way. What would be the incorrect way of doing the mitzvos? Rashi explains¹⁵,that the heart and eyes are the “spies” of the body. We must make sure to avoid looking at this world through our own glasses and instead utilize the instruction manual, the Torah, which Hashem provided us. Only if we accept da'as Torah and seek ratson Hashem will we achieve the level of the next verse in kriyas shema, “...so that you...be Holy to your G-D”¹⁶.

So, “Who are you going to believe?”, Hashem asks us every day, “Me or your own eyes?”

1Bamidbar 13:2

2Ibid.

3Bamidbar 13:26

4Bamidbar 13:3

5Ibid.

6Bamidbar Rabbah 16:1 and Tanchuma 6

7See Gemara (Mishna) Succah 25a

8Yehoshua 2:1-24

9Bamidbar 13:17-20

10This idea is also seen in Mikeitz 42:12 when Yosef, under disguise as an Egyptian, accused his brothers of being spies and trying to discover the weaknesses of Egypt, he attributed that as the reason why each of the tribes entered through a different gate.

11To answer this question, Rashi (Bamidbar 13:33) explains that the meraglim said that they overheard the giants saying, “There are ants in the vineyard which look like men”. Many mefarshim (commentaries) are bothered by this Rashi. How How did hearing the giants say that they looked like ants mean to the meraglim that they really meant that they were like grasshoppers. After all, this was the claim of the meraglim, that they were also grasshoppers in the eyes of the giants. There are a few approaches to answer this question on Rashi. (See Mizrachi., Kli Yakar, and Maharal [Gur Aryeh] on Bamidbar 13:33)

12See also Maharsha to Gemara Sotah 35a, Maharal Gur Aryeh Bamidbar 13:26, and Mizrachi there, who seem to resolve the contradiction in between the Rashis as follows. At the time that the meraglim were chosen, they were indeed great men. However, upon being sent to spy out the land by the people who were not willing to trust completely in Hashem, it had a negative affect on them and caused them to scout Eretz Yisroel without the proper bitachon in Hashem.

13Bamidbar 15:39

14See Rashi (Bamidbar 15:38) who explains that the word tzitzis = 600 in gematriya (numerical value) + five knots + eight strings = 613. Also, when we look at the t'cheiles (blue-dyed string on tzitzis), which is made from the chilazon (a type of sea-snail), our memory gets triggered to think about the blue ocean which reflects the Heavens and reminds us of Hashem and his mitzvos.

15Bamidbar 15:39

16Bamidbar 15:40

Photo Credit: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherearthnews.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FImages%2FMEN%2FEditorial%2FArticles%2FOnline%252520Articles%2F2009%2F08-01%2FGrasshopper%252520Control%252520Expert%252520Advice%2Fgrasshopper.JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherearthnews.com%2Forganic-gardening%2Fgrasshopper-control-kill-grasshoppers.aspx&h=234&w=300&tbnid=lusA3a663ITlCM%3A&zoom=1&docid=BjCuXxYPqG4XDM&ei=BZCUU4a1LtWxsQSNiYGwAw&tbm=isch&ved=0CDcQMygMMAw&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1983&page=1&start=0&ndsp=19