Parshas Re'eh - Baseless Beliefs

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~

Parshas Re'eh

Baseless Beliefs

By: Daniel Listhaus

אֵת כָּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ

                                                                                          

“The entire matter that I command you, you shall guard it to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.”

-Re'eh 13:1

            Rashi[1] explains that when the Torah here commands us not to add to the mitzvos, it means that we are prohibited from adding to the details of the mitzvos themselves, such as bringing a fifth species on Succos with the lulav or adding in a fourth beracha (blessing) to birkas kohanim (the blessing that the kohanim give which is divided into three parts). Presumably we could assume that Rashi would similarly explain that when the passuk (verse) says not to subtract from the mitzvos it means not to, for example, bring three species on Succos or recite only two berachos of birkas kohanim.

            The question we must ask, though, is what compelled Rashi to explain the passuk in this way? Certainly a more obvious explanation of the Torah would be that Hashem gave us 613 mitzvos and we are not allowed to add or subtract from those mitzvos? The words of the passuk sound like they are talking to the person who wants to stand up and declare a new mitzva which would benefit society, to which the Torah is telling him that it is forbidden to add mitzvos. So, why does Rashi explain the passuk as not adding or subtracting to the details of each particular mitzva?

            The S'forno[2] also does not seem to understand the passuk at its face value. Rather, when the Torah writes not to add to the mitzvos, the S'forno comments, “Do not add to the mitzvos because perhaps you will be adding something which is disgusting in the eyes of Hashem. For example, perhaps you may decide to add a new form of worshiping Hashem such as burning children, which is disgusting in the eyes of Hashem.”

            This S'forno seems a bit extreme. He is explaining that the Torah was afraid of people making up their own ways to serve Hashem – such as burning children in fire. Is this really a concern? The S'forno is not dealing with someone looking to serve avodah zarah (idols), but rather an orthodox Jew abiding to the 613 mitzvos but just not feeling it is enough so adds a 614^th mitzvah. What would be so bad with someone choosing to serve Hashem in his own personal way? How is the S'forno addressing this by taking it to an extreme?

            The S'forno continues to explain that when the Torah says not to subtract from the mitzvos it means the following. Sometimes a person could look at a particular mitzva and say that the reason for the mitzva is not applicable and therefore the mitzva is no longer necessary. Sometimes such a claim is general – that the mitzva as a whole no longer applies, and sometimes it is a claim that an individual could make for himself, that for whatever reason the reason behind the mitzva does not apply to him and therefore he is exempt from the mitzva.

            The S'forno continues to mention that this was precisely the mistake that Shlomo HaMelech made. The passuk[3] states, regarding a Jewish king, “And he shall not have too many wives,[4] and his heart shall not turn astray...” The Medrash[5] describes that Shlomo learned this passuk and figured that it did not apply to him. After all, the passuk seems to be saying that the reason a king cannot have too many wives is because the Torah is concerned that it will cause his heart to go astray. Shlomo thought that because of his gift of abundant wisdom he was different from everyone else and therefore felt he could go ahead and marry additional wives.[6] However, as the S'forno writes, this was a big mistake. The Torah forbids us from subtracting mitzvos even if it seems to us that the reason is not applicable.

            This S'forno is also difficult to understand. Shlomo HaMelech read the Torah and its reason for not having too many wives. He made a personal calculation that it was not relevant to him and acted upon that feeling. What did he do wrong? The S'forno is saying that even if we see that the reason does not apply anymore, we should do it anyway. Why? If in fact the reason does not apply, what is the point of playing along and keeping unnecessary restrictions? If the S'forno would say that there is an external reason why one should keep the mitzva, such as not to confuse others to think the mitzva is completely non-existent, or in order that others should not think that such a person is specifically revolting against Hashem, then we could perhaps understand why it would be important to do a mitzva, despite its non-applicable reason. However, the S'forno does not give these answers as the explanation, but rather simply writes that even if it appears that the reason for the mitzva does not apply to you, you must do it anyway. Why is that so?

            In order to approach this, let us take a moment to think about the following. Imagine you were to walk into an ethics class at a university and are immediately swept into a series of thought provoking and interesting questions. You sit in the back and listen as the professor presents a famous question known as the Trolley Problem. There are many versions of the question but the basic gist is the following: There is a trolley out of control speeding down the tracks. Ahead on the tracks lay five people who are tied down, unable to move out of the way. You happen to be standing on the side of the tracks next to a lever. If you were to pull the lever, the trolley would be redirected onto a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person lying tied down on that track as well. Therefore, the two options you have are to either do nothing and allow the trolley to continue its course and kill the five people, or pull the lever and divert the trolley onto the other set of tracks where it will only kill the one person. The professor then turns to his class and challenges them: which option do you choose? As you remain observing in the back, you begin to witness the most fascinating debate amongst the students. One person stands up and declares that it is so obvious that you need to pull the lever. After all, how could you allow the five people to die for the sake of a single individual? Suddenly another member of the class jumps up and shouts back, “You mean you think it is better to actively kill someone? Better to just let nature take its course and allow the five people to die than for it to be on your hands that you actively killed the single person on the other track.” Another classmate then stands up and says, “Well I think it should matter who these people are. Perhaps the five people are anyways all sick and elderly people, while the individual on the track happens to be a baby.” Another student then stands up emotionally charged and says, “What difference should it make? Who are you to play the role of God? Maybe the healthy guy will die tomorrow and the sick, elderly people will live until 120!”

            As your head is bouncing back and forth digesting the various arguments and interjections by the professor pointing out the various defined schools of thought, you wonder to yourself what are all these ethics based on? The first student who stood up made a valid point: One should do what is best for the majority. However, without a doubt if you were to ask him why, he would have nothing to respond other than, “Because that is the correct thing to do. It is something that just feels right.” With this approach it is important to keep in mind that if one believes that a moral code is just based on gut feeling and emotions, then one has to be ready to accept the moral code of others based on their personal feelings and emotions. The response of “it just feels right” is arbitrary. Who says that what you think feels right is in fact right? For example, imagine someone who believes that if there is something a person wants for himself, he is ethically permitted to go any distance to get what he wants. Such a person could argue that if someone else has something he is jealous of and wants it, he has the right to demand it from him; and if he refuses, he could even kill for the item he desires. If one were to challenge this person and ask why such a mentality makes sense, he too could respond, “Because it is honestly just something that feels right to me. I was put in this world and it is my job to do whatever it takes to make myself happy.” Despite the two very different approaches to life, these two people have the same reason why they do what they do. Their response is incontestable and could be used by anyone to rationalize any action.

            One of the things we have to think about everyday is the fact that not only must we be grateful to Hashem for creating us, and not only must we thank Him for creating us as humans, we must also thank Him for the fact that He, as Creator of the world did not leave us here alone.[7] He gave us the Torah. The Torah is more than a history book, more than a scroll of rules, and more fundamental than a perspective on life. It is insight into Hashem Himself. Just like in order to optimize a board game, one must read the instruction pamphlet, so too when it comes to knowing how to live, think, and even things as personal as how to feel emotionally, the only way to act and respond correctly is through understanding what Hashem wants from us. This could only be done by someone who is close to Hashem, which is only possible by someone who has spent the time learning His Torah.

            It is known that there are two categories of mitzvos – mishpatim and chukim. Mishpatim refer to the mitzvos which are easy for us to understand. For example, not to steal or kill are things which are obvious to us that they should not be done. Chukim refer to the mitzvos which we cannot begin to fully comprehend. The whole concept of tumah (impurity) and tahara (purity) and especially the applications of chukim such as parah adumah are more than just complex - they are ideas that are way incomprehensible to us.

            However, despite this difference between the two terms, it is important to keep in mind that in reality every single mitzva is a chok (singular for chukim). Even the mitzvos which make sense to us and we think we comprehend, are not things that we should do solely because they make sense to us, nor are they right or wrong based on our personal understanding or emotions. Rather things are only good or bad because

e Hashem declared them as such. For example, the fact that killing is wrong is not just because it feels wrong, rather it is because Hashem declared it as wrong. However, if there would be a time that the Torah would demand someone or a nation to be killed, whether we understand the reason or not, and whether we personally believe that death is deserved or not is completely irrelevant. Everything has its time and place. The person who studies the ways of Hashem through His Torah shel b'chsav (written Torah) and Torah shel ba'al peh understands on a much deeper level what makes things right and wrong using the tools of reason that Hashem gave us on Har Sinai to use.

            Perhaps now we could better appreciate Rashi and the S'forno's explanations on the passuk of not adding or subtracting to the Torah. As mentioned above, Rashi gave examples as to what the Torah means when it says that one could not add to the Torah. He wrote that one cannot add another species to the lulav, esrog, haddas and aravah, or add in a beracha to birkas kohanim. Perhaps Rashi chose this explanation as opposed to simply writing that the Torah gave 613 mitzvos and we cannot add to that number because that would not be completely true. Part of the Torah's system is to leave room for those in-tuned to what Hashem wants to be able to create safety precautions to protect the Torah or create other decrees as they see fit.

            The S'forno too is coming to explain that the Torah is teaching us the following. Even if someone thinks that the thing he is adding is enhancing his avodas Hashem, do not do it without consulting someone who has insight into the ways of Hashem, for perhaps he will be doing something disgusting in the eyes of Hashem such as burning children. The S'forno is not exaggerating; he is simply stating a fact. Indeed one who makes up way of serving Hashem, no matter how good it seems in his eyes, it is repulsive to Hashem. If it does not have roots in the Torah then it is completely baseless like the person who sacrifices children. Although you may think that the two are not even comparable, you must keep in mind that if you are willing to argue that what you feel is good avodas Hashem is valid, then you are also saying that whatever anyone else feels is good avodas Hashem is valid as well. And yes, that baseless argument could rationalize anything – even the burning of children.

            One cannot make up mitzvos based on what he feels is right and wrong. In the end of the day unless one is in-tuned to da'as elyon by thoroughly studying the Torah to the point that one is trained to think, so to speak, like Hashem, one has no right to declare what is good or bad. One cannot just say that because he feels something is right that therefore it must be the case. For, just like the trolly problem, every s'vara (logic) one way will have a counter s'vara against it by someone else who does not share the same feelings and therefore ends up with a completely different moral code. Rather, when it comes to the Torah we must keep in mind that even the mitzvos we think we know the reason for, we really do not and at some level every mitzva we do – even those as basic as not killing or being nice to one another – is a chok, a decree from Hashem. This was Shlomo's mistake. He saw that the Torah specified a reason for why a king should not marry too many wives and he took that at face value.

            As we enter into the month of Elul, may Hashem help us realize that His telling us in the Torah what to do and not to do is the only reason that anything becomes inherently good or evil, and that alone is the only solid base for a belief system with a valid moral code. With this in mind we will be zoche (merit) to a real teshuva (repentance) and a complete kapparah (atonement).

---

[1]    Devarim 13:1

[2]    Ibid.

[3]    Devarim 17:17

[4]    See Gemara Sanhedrin 21a. A  king cannot marry more than 18 wives.

[5]    Shemos Rabbah 6:1

[6]    He married 1000 wives!

[7]    See Orchos Tzadikkim: Sha'ar HaZechira

Parshas Eikev - The Bottom Line of Bribery

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~

Parshas Eikev

The Bottom Line of Bribery

 By: Daniel Listhaus

כִּי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹקי הָאֱלֹקים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים הָקל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר וְהַנּוֹרָא אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד

“For Hashem, your God – He is the God of the powers and the Lord of the lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, Who does not show favor and does not take a bribe....”

-Eikev 10:17

            In the middle of Moshe’s ultimate speech to the B’nei Yisroel before his death, Moshe reminds them that there is no “cheating the system” because Hashem does not take bribes. Rashi[1] comments that this means that Hashem cannot be appeased with money. However, this Rashi is very hard to understand. Why would the idea even enter one’s mind to try to appease Hashem with money? The whole idea is ridiculous. How could man attempt to bribe Hashem with money?

            The S’forno[2] has a different approach and writes that Moshe was relating the following idea. Imagine a person who is a sinner. He knows that ultimately he will be punished for his sins but he finds it too hard to control himself so does it anyway. However, still uncomfortable with the thought of spending time in gehenom, he reasons that he could just do more mitzvos and as a result diminish the punishment of his aveiros (sins). In order to counter such a thought, Moshe rabbeinu taught that Hashem does not take bribes. As the S’forno continues to write based on the gemara[3], “a mitzva does not extinguish an aveirah.” Therefore one should not think that if one sins he could dampen his punishment by performing mitzvos, for those are calculated on a separate scale. Rather, the only way to lessen the punishment of aveiros is by doing teshuvah.

            The Maharal, in Gur Aryeh,[4] explains for Rashi that of course there would be no hava amina (thought) to think that it would be possible to offer money to Hashem to appease him because there is nothing that we would be doing. Even declaring that Hashem already has all the money in the world would be a gross understatement. Wealth is a physical concept; Hashem is fundamentally above any gashmiyus ideas. Rather, what Rashi must mean is that one might think that one can play within the guidelines that Hashem set forth for us of connecting to him through offering karbanos (sacrifices) and donating to the Beis Ha’Mikdash and that by doing so could appease Hashem to dampen one’s load of aveiros. In order to rebut such a thought, Moshe reminded B’nei Yisroel that each individual is responsible for his or her actions and that an appeasement of being a “goody-goody” to be more generous in offering better karbanos and more sponsorship opportunities might get one some bonus mitzvos, but does not do anything to lighten the load of one’s averios.

            Using the Maharal’s explanation, Rashi and the S’forno seem to be saying the same thing. One is responsible for his actions and just because one decides to do more mitzvos does not negate the fact that he or she did past aveiros.

Interestingly, though, the gemara that the S’forno is referring to actually uses a slightly different terminology. The gemara does not say that performing mitzvos has no effect on one’s aveiros. All that the gemara mentions is that aveiros have the power to dampen the potency of one’s mitzvos. How does the S’forno see from this gemara that mitzvos do not have the power to dampen aveiros? Perhaps they dampen each other? Perhaps the gemara means that each individual has a virtual basket where all his mitzvos and aveiros get stored and calculated and that the system is such that for some mitzvos he gets rewarded and for some aveiros he gets punished, while some just cancel each other out and the s’char v’onesh (reward and punishment) consequence will fully depend if the sum is positive or negative? Why should it be that aveiros dampen mitzvos but mitzvos cannot dampen aveiros? It does not make sense and seems quite unfair! Additionally, why would this be referred to as bribery? Shouldn’t this precisely be how the system works? Hashem should look down and tally up our mitzvos and aveiros and allow them to balance each other out similar to how the system works on Rosh Hashanah as part of the calculation in determining who should live on to the upcoming year. So why is this called bribery and even we could explain why it deserves such a title, how could we understand the one-way relationship of aveiros having the power to dampen mitzvos but not the other way around?

            Earlier in the parsha[5], Rashi[6] explains that Moshe warned the B’nei Yisroel to be just as meticulous regarding safeguarding the “light mitzvos” as the “heavy ones” and not tread on them, so to speak, as so many people do. However, it is hard to understand why this is such a serious matter. After all, imagine someone who is extremely careful when it comes to keeping Shabbos properly, but happens not to care too much about performing the mitzva of shiluach ha’kein (sending away the mother bird before taking its egg)[7] correctly. What’s the big deal? He is keeping Shabbos perfectly and is meticulous when it comes to all the “major league” mitzvos he just is not so careful with some of the lighter mitzvos. If he is scoring well with the big mitzvos isn’t that what is more important?

            The S’forno[8] comments that Hashem commanded us to keep all the mitzvos and in return he keeps with us bris v’chesed – his treaty and kindness. However just doing the mitzvos is not enough. We are obligated to perform the mitzvos with the proper intentions doing them out of love for Hashem as opposed to for personal ulterior motives or even for the purpose of receiving reward in the world to come. This is an idea we find in the mishnayos as well. The mishna[9] cites Antignus who teaches that our approach to performing mitzvos should not be like servants who work in order to receive reward, but rather be like servants who work even without receiving reward. In other words, when we perform mitzvos the reason we do so should, on a highest level, be solely out of love for Hashem. Not because of the eternal reward we will receive, not for the physical consequences we benefit from, and not even solely for the reasons that are described in the Torah. Rather, ultimately our mindset should be that every mishpat at its core is a chok and the reason we follow the Torah and keep the mitzvos is because that is what Hashem commanded.

The game of adding and subtracting points based on mitzvos and aveiros is a physical game – one which plays a role in determining if an individual will live longer, and whether the world in general may continue. However, on a deeper level, in the world of s’char v’onesh, it does not work like that at all. An aveirah is more than a red minus one mark; it is a glaring symbol of rebellion against the King and raises a red flag to reevaluate the authenticity of the mitzvos performed. Doing more mitzvos does not negate the fact that an aveirah was done. The opposite of an aveirah is not a mitzvah per se, it is teshuva. An aveirah means rebellion and teshuva could remedy that; doing mitzvos will allow one to get s’char, but does not make light of the fact that one rebelled against the King.

With this in mind we could better understand the first passuk as well as the mishna in avos[10]. Every single mitzvah deserves the same amount of seriousness because every mitzvah is a direct commandment from Hashem. Therefore transgressing even on what we may perceive as the slightest of mitzvos is really at its core a demonstration of utter rebellion.

The s’char that one receives from doing mitzvos is beyond comprehension. As the gemara[11] relates in the name of Rebbe Yaakov, it is not possible to receive the reward from a mitzvah in this world. The Michtav Mei’Eliyahu[12] writes that this is true even of the “smallest” mitzvos. Mitzvos performed in this world are fulfillments of Hashem’s ruchniyus commandments, the rewards that are reaped from their fulfillment are so great that all of the money and pleasures on this world from the day it was created until now cannot compensate. It is this understanding itself of the greatness of even the smallest of mitzvos which answers why aveiros diminish mitzvos and not the other way around. Even the transgression of the smallest aveirah translates directly into an audacious act of treason. One who does an aveirah sheds light on where he is at in terms of his loyalty, so to speak, to Hashem. The way to prove loyalty is not to point to the good deeds one has done or will promise to do, for those themselves could be called into question as being done for ulterior motives. Rather, the only way to counter the seriousness of even the smallest aveirah and to diminish its consequences is by doing teshuva.

Bribery is a demonstration of not caring about one’s improper actions or the legal processes that they demand, and instead is an attempt to beat the system by diverting the judge’s attention to other good deeds or future promises. Hashem does not accept even the best of bribes. Pointing to past mitzvos, giving one’s best animals as karbanos, or doubling one’s contributions to the Beis Ha’Mikdash with the hope of being able to shirk his accountability through appeasement is not the proper response. Only the gift of teshuva is strong enough to undo the damage of disobedience by sincerely apologizing for the aveirah done and accepting upon oneself to make the extra effort that it does not happen again.

With the month of Ellul approaching may we take the time to look back at our actions and not just make the effort to increase our mitzvos so that we merit a good din, but to also work on teshuva to undo the damage we have done with our aveiros.

---

[1] Rashi Devarim 10:17

[2] Ibid.

[3] Sotah 21a

[4] Devarim 10:17

[5] Devarim 7:12

[6] Ibid.

[7] This is what the Da’as Zekainim M’ba’alei Tosfos (Devarim 7:12) as well as the Maharal (Avos 2:1) offer as an example of a “light mitzvah” based on a memra (statement) from Rebbe Shimon ben Yochai.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Avos 3:1

[10] Avos 2:1

[11] Kiddushin 39b

[12] Michtav Mei’Eliyahu 1:1

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