B"H
Dvarim (Deut) Ch. 26:1 reads:
והיה כי תבוא אל הארץ אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך נחלה וירשתה וישבת בה
Loosely translated:
And it shall come to pass when you enter the land which the L-rd your G-d gives you as inheritance and you shall inherit it and dwell in it....
Rashi comments on the sentence:
והיה כי תבוא וגו' וירשתה וישבת בה: מגיד שלא נתחייבו בבכורים עד שכבשו את הארץ וחלקוה
Loosely translated:
When you come etc... and you shall inherit it and dell in it: teaches us that they were not obligated to bring the first-fruits until after the conquered the land and divided it (amongst the tribes.)
Rahi gets this interpretation for the juxtaposition of 16:1 which talks about conquering the land with 16:2 which talks about bring the first-fruits as a thankgiving offering:
ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אשר תביא מארצך אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך ושמת בטנא
Loosely translated:
And you shall take from all first-fruit of your land which you shall harvest from the land that the L-rd your G-d gives you and you shall put it in a basket.
Because conquering the land (and diving it) is juxtaposed to bringing the first-fruits as an offering to Hashem, it's clear that the former is a prerequisite for the second, as Rashi points out.
But Rashi is telling us something a bit deeper:
Conquering the land took 7 years. Dividing it took another 7. The whole process took 14 years, then. However, once the conquering was over and the division process has began, some people would have gotten their potion earlier-on, while other got their portion toward the end of the 14 years.
One might think that the people who got their portion earlier would be obligated to bring the first-fruit thanksgiving offering earlier (i.e. once their fields yielded crop, which could even be the very same year they got their portion.)
Rashi therefore clarifies this for us: despite the fact that by the end of the 14 years the land was fully divided, those who got their portion earlier-on did not bring their first-fruit thanksgiving offering until after EVERYONE got their portion. (Goes to show us that a Jew cannot be fully happy with their lot if he/she knows that their's another Jew out there somewhere who is lacking theirs!)
So, according to this Rashi, the term והיה כי תבוא (=And it shall come to pass when you enter the land) does not mean "as soon as you enter the land". In other words, "when you enter" does not mean "when you physically set foot". Instead, Rashi tells us that "when you enter" means "when you wholly enter, every last Jew enters and gets their allotted portion."
Put differently, the שלמות (=wholeness, completion and perfection) of entering the land only occured when everyone got their portion. Until that time (14 years after physically entering the land) it cannot be said that the Jews "entered the land" in the complete sense.
Some sources (need citation) also give a homiletic interpretation of 16:1
והיה כי תבוא: And it shall come to pass that when the Jewish neshama (=soul) enters
אל הארץ: into the earthly (mundane) body
אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך: that the L-rd G-d has provided you with
And Rashi comments (as derived above) that the wholeness and perfection of this entrance is only once the land (=homiletically the mundane body) is fully conquered and divided. What does it mean to conquer and divide the mundane body?
An answer:
Each person has within him-/herself the pull towards mundane, earthly things (=ארציות) . The Torah is teaching us that the neshama isn't fully finished entering the body, in שלמות, until the Jew battles his animalistic-self and conquers his/her ארציות and subjugates it to the service of Hashem, thereby rectifying it and making bringing it into the realm of holiness.
Once that's done, and a person's ארציות has been elevated and conquering is therefore complete, it is time to divide the mundane body: each part of the body is involved in a different manner of serving Hashem: the hand is set aside for giving Tzdaka (charity) and downing Teffilin. The foot is set aside for walking to study hall. The head is set aside for learning Hashem's Torah. The heart for loving Hashem, etc...
When a person reaches this level of conquering his/her ארציות and then dividing and giving each body part the prescribed mitzvot specific to it and engaging it in its specific service of Hashem, then it can be said that the neshama has "Wholly entered the body with שלמות."
On the surface, this presents one small complication: battling with the body's inclinations and conquering one's ארציות is something that's related to בעלי תשובה (=penitents). However, for צדיקים (=righteous individuals) there's no war to fight and no ארציות to conquer: a צדיק has no animalistic self. By such a person, there's only the division part that needs to take place, without a prerequisite war. Where is this hinted to in the Torah?
A possible answer: In Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 21:32 we find:
וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר וילכדו בנתיה
Loosely translated:
And Moshe sent spies to spy on Yahzer, and they conquered [it and] it's suburbs (see Rashi on the verse).
So, the spies were able to conquer the whole land of Israel, if they did not go off the path of righteousness and drag the whole nation with them.
Therefore, theoretically, if the spies did indeed conquer the land during the 40 days they spent there then the Jewish people would have maintained the status of צדיקים and would have have not needed to resort to fighting a war -- simply enter the land and divide it amongst themselves -- as is the case of a צדיקים. However, since they allowed themselves to follow the spies they ended falling from the level of צדיקים to the point that they needed to repent and become בעלי תשובה, which necessitate fighting with ארציות.
Good shabbos!
Monday, August 27, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Compulsory or voluntary?
B"H
Dvarim (Deut.) Ch. 21:10 reads:
כי תצא למלחמה על איביך ונתנו ה' אלקיך בידך...
Loosely translated:
When you go to war against your enemies, the L-rd G-d will deliver him into your hands...
Rashi's commentary reads:
כי תצא למלחמה - במלחמת הרשות הכתוב מדבר
Loosely translated:
When you go to war - Scripture refers to a voluntary war...
So, the war appears to be one which the Jewish people were not coerced into, but rather one that's fought for other reasons.
However, a homiletic interpretation of "Your enemy" is the יצר הרע (=evil inclination) that a person possesses within. In other words, the scripture says that when you do battle with the evil inclination, Hashem will surly help by helping you defeat it.
Now, battle with one's evil inclination is not voluntary. In other words, one is obligated (and indeed compelled) to fight his/her own evil inclination at all times, as is alluded to in many verses in Torah. (For instance: Dvaim 17:7)
So then, what is this war being fought here? Is it voluntary (as Rashi explains) or is it compulsory?
A possible approach:
Possibly both approaches are true, but they relate to different individuals. The individual who cannot successfully provoke his/her evil inclination and do battle with it and defeat it is told that this is a voluntary war, i.e., "go for it, if you feel up to the challenge." After all, not everyone's up to the challenge and even those that are may end up loosing the battle. So, the battle is tagged as voluntary. Should the evil inclination be kindled and attach the Jew, on the other hand, then of-course the Jew is obligation to defend him- or herself.
An altogether different individual, on the other hand, who is very strong in his yiddishkait and will not be swayed by his/her evil inclination (because his evil inclination cannot exercise control over his/her actions) is commanded to actually provoke and go to war on the evil inclination until it's totally defeated and nullified.
It's also noteworthy that the term used here is על איביך which literally translates to "[go to war] over your enemies", and not עם איביך (...with your enemies) or נגד איביך (...against your enemies.) This would indicate that the Almighty give the Jew all the necessary strength to go to war with his evil inclination, but from the very get-go to be at an advantageous position -- "over you enemies." The evil inclination has no chance if a Jew is approaching the battle-field with the knowledge the the outcome of the battle has already been decided in advance: evil inclination TKO'ed in the first round.
Good shabbos.
Dvarim (Deut.) Ch. 21:10 reads:
כי תצא למלחמה על איביך ונתנו ה' אלקיך בידך...
Loosely translated:
When you go to war against your enemies, the L-rd G-d will deliver him into your hands...
Rashi's commentary reads:
כי תצא למלחמה - במלחמת הרשות הכתוב מדבר
Loosely translated:
When you go to war - Scripture refers to a voluntary war...
So, the war appears to be one which the Jewish people were not coerced into, but rather one that's fought for other reasons.
However, a homiletic interpretation of "Your enemy" is the יצר הרע (=evil inclination) that a person possesses within. In other words, the scripture says that when you do battle with the evil inclination, Hashem will surly help by helping you defeat it.
Now, battle with one's evil inclination is not voluntary. In other words, one is obligated (and indeed compelled) to fight his/her own evil inclination at all times, as is alluded to in many verses in Torah. (For instance: Dvaim 17:7)
So then, what is this war being fought here? Is it voluntary (as Rashi explains) or is it compulsory?
A possible approach:
Possibly both approaches are true, but they relate to different individuals. The individual who cannot successfully provoke his/her evil inclination and do battle with it and defeat it is told that this is a voluntary war, i.e., "go for it, if you feel up to the challenge." After all, not everyone's up to the challenge and even those that are may end up loosing the battle. So, the battle is tagged as voluntary. Should the evil inclination be kindled and attach the Jew, on the other hand, then of-course the Jew is obligation to defend him- or herself.
An altogether different individual, on the other hand, who is very strong in his yiddishkait and will not be swayed by his/her evil inclination (because his evil inclination cannot exercise control over his/her actions) is commanded to actually provoke and go to war on the evil inclination until it's totally defeated and nullified.
It's also noteworthy that the term used here is על איביך which literally translates to "[go to war] over your enemies", and not עם איביך (...with your enemies) or נגד איביך (...against your enemies.) This would indicate that the Almighty give the Jew all the necessary strength to go to war with his evil inclination, but from the very get-go to be at an advantageous position -- "over you enemies." The evil inclination has no chance if a Jew is approaching the battle-field with the knowledge the the outcome of the battle has already been decided in advance: evil inclination TKO'ed in the first round.
Good shabbos.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
To live or not to live?
B"H
Tractate Erovin, Ch. 1, pg. 13b reads:
נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
Loosely translated:
The followers of Shamai and the followers of Hillel had a disagreement: The formers argued "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, more so that having been created" while the latter argued "it's more beneficial for Adam to have been created, more so than not having been created." They debated the matter and concluded that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, however, now that he has been created he should examine his deeds..."
This verse uses the term "Adam" which could be understood to mean the first human being Adam, but could also be understood to mean all Adam's descendants (i.e., all of humanity), by extension.
The above disagreement is a bit odd, to say the least. While the position of the followers of Hillel can be understood plainly, what do the followers of Shamai mean by it's better not having been created?
After all, we were created. Having said that how could they come to the conclusion that it's better than we weren't created?
An explanation:
An analogy is in order: suppose a person is requested to invest a very large sum of money in some business venture. He is told that there's 248 possible outcomes in which he's going to double his/her investment, while there are 365 other outcomes in which he/she will loose everyting. Any reasonable investor is going to back out of the deal really quickly. Why the odds of loosing are significantly greater than those of gaining.
Now, the analog in the Jewish soul: when it descends into this world it invests itself in a corporeal body. The Jew is obligated to keep 248 positive commandments. When a positive commandment is perform, a Jew's bond to the Almighty gets stronger. While the Jew is also obligated to keep 365 prohibitive commandments. When a prohibition is transgressed, heaven forbid, a Jew's bond to the Almighty weakens.
A straight forward calculation reveals that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created..." because there are just so many more ways Adam (i.e., a person) can get hurt from this, than he/she can benefit from it."
This is also alluded to in the word נמנו, which the Gmarah uses: in this context it means "debated" but it is etymologically related to מנו (=the counted.) I.e., the students of Shamai and Hillel counted the mitzvot and came to the conclusion that there are too many prohibitions relative to the positive commandments.
So the question then becomes: Why were we created after all, then?
To answer it, we can dig a bit into the Jewish understanding of performing a commandment. The performance of mitzvot (commandments) can be in one of three ways:
1. the mitzvah is performed with all the right intention, livelihood, joy and enthusiasm, or
2. the actual mitzvah-action is performed, but it's not accompanied by any of the above or
3. all the intentions etc are right, but there's no actual physical performance.
It's explained that when a person does a mitzvah, an angel is created (to advocate for that person.) However, כמים פנים אל הפנים i.e., just as a person performs the mitzvah so to is the angel that's created. Each angel has a "body" (albeit noncorporeal) and a "soul". So:
1. when the performance of a mitzvah is done with all the right spirit, the angel is created with a good body and a health soul.
2. when the performance of the mitzvah is done without the right intentions, i.e., it's lacking in spirit, so too is the angel: a strong body, but it's lacking a soul.
3. when the performance of a mitzvah is lacking in the actual doing, but there's all the right intention is spirit, then a soul of an angel is created but there's no body to vest it into.
G-d Almighty does something very neat, as it alluded to in Kiddushin Ch. 1, pg, 40a:
מחשבה טובה מצרפה למעשה
Loosly translated:
(G-d) joins a good thought to a deed.
In the context above: there's a number of soul-less angels out there that resulted from a mitzvot performed without the right intentions and a number of body-less angel-souls out there resulting from Jews having the right intentions but not following up on them. So, the Almighty takes a these souls (=good thoughts) and joins them in these angel bodies (=deed), thereby creating a good and healthy angel!
So, in a sense each positive mitzvah can be counted twice: once on the count of the intentions, and once on the count of the actual deed. And rewards for the mitzvah are dished out.
On the other hand, a person can have all the intentions in the world to transgress, but never actually does anything to actualize these intentions, then there's no punishment dished out -- since there's no deed associated with these intentions.
So, we find that on the account of positive commandments there's twice the reward per mitzvah than prohibitions. This can explain why Adam was indeed created: true there are many more possibly paths leading away from the almighty, but each path leading to the almighty is twice as wide. That is, indeed there are 365 prohibitions that detract from a persons connection to the Almighty, but there are 2x248=496 ways to connect to the Almighty), so to speak. The landscape changes because with positive commandements, intentions alone carry weight, while with prohibitions they do not!
While on the subject of deeds, the Gmarah continues:
עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
I.e., now that the person is created, he should examine his deeds, to ensure that he/she is heading in the 2x248 direction rather than in the 365 direction, heaven forbid.
This also connects to the month of Elul (which we're in, at the time of writing). The month of Elul has been specifically set aside as the month of introspection and self-adjustment and self-refinement. A person should examine his/her deeds and ensure that he/she is on the correct path as we approach the days of Awe which immediately follow the month of Elul.
Leshana tovah tikatevu vetichatemu.
Tractate Erovin, Ch. 1, pg. 13b reads:
נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
Loosely translated:
The followers of Shamai and the followers of Hillel had a disagreement: The formers argued "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, more so that having been created" while the latter argued "it's more beneficial for Adam to have been created, more so than not having been created." They debated the matter and concluded that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, however, now that he has been created he should examine his deeds..."
This verse uses the term "Adam" which could be understood to mean the first human being Adam, but could also be understood to mean all Adam's descendants (i.e., all of humanity), by extension.
The above disagreement is a bit odd, to say the least. While the position of the followers of Hillel can be understood plainly, what do the followers of Shamai mean by it's better not having been created?
After all, we were created. Having said that how could they come to the conclusion that it's better than we weren't created?
An explanation:
An analogy is in order: suppose a person is requested to invest a very large sum of money in some business venture. He is told that there's 248 possible outcomes in which he's going to double his/her investment, while there are 365 other outcomes in which he/she will loose everyting. Any reasonable investor is going to back out of the deal really quickly. Why the odds of loosing are significantly greater than those of gaining.
Now, the analog in the Jewish soul: when it descends into this world it invests itself in a corporeal body. The Jew is obligated to keep 248 positive commandments. When a positive commandment is perform, a Jew's bond to the Almighty gets stronger. While the Jew is also obligated to keep 365 prohibitive commandments. When a prohibition is transgressed, heaven forbid, a Jew's bond to the Almighty weakens.
A straight forward calculation reveals that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created..." because there are just so many more ways Adam (i.e., a person) can get hurt from this, than he/she can benefit from it."
This is also alluded to in the word נמנו, which the Gmarah uses: in this context it means "debated" but it is etymologically related to מנו (=the counted.) I.e., the students of Shamai and Hillel counted the mitzvot and came to the conclusion that there are too many prohibitions relative to the positive commandments.
So the question then becomes: Why were we created after all, then?
To answer it, we can dig a bit into the Jewish understanding of performing a commandment. The performance of mitzvot (commandments) can be in one of three ways:
1. the mitzvah is performed with all the right intention, livelihood, joy and enthusiasm, or
2. the actual mitzvah-action is performed, but it's not accompanied by any of the above or
3. all the intentions etc are right, but there's no actual physical performance.
It's explained that when a person does a mitzvah, an angel is created (to advocate for that person.) However, כמים פנים אל הפנים i.e., just as a person performs the mitzvah so to is the angel that's created. Each angel has a "body" (albeit noncorporeal) and a "soul". So:
1. when the performance of a mitzvah is done with all the right spirit, the angel is created with a good body and a health soul.
2. when the performance of the mitzvah is done without the right intentions, i.e., it's lacking in spirit, so too is the angel: a strong body, but it's lacking a soul.
3. when the performance of a mitzvah is lacking in the actual doing, but there's all the right intention is spirit, then a soul of an angel is created but there's no body to vest it into.
G-d Almighty does something very neat, as it alluded to in Kiddushin Ch. 1, pg, 40a:
מחשבה טובה מצרפה למעשה
Loosly translated:
(G-d) joins a good thought to a deed.
In the context above: there's a number of soul-less angels out there that resulted from a mitzvot performed without the right intentions and a number of body-less angel-souls out there resulting from Jews having the right intentions but not following up on them. So, the Almighty takes a these souls (=good thoughts) and joins them in these angel bodies (=deed), thereby creating a good and healthy angel!
So, in a sense each positive mitzvah can be counted twice: once on the count of the intentions, and once on the count of the actual deed. And rewards for the mitzvah are dished out.
On the other hand, a person can have all the intentions in the world to transgress, but never actually does anything to actualize these intentions, then there's no punishment dished out -- since there's no deed associated with these intentions.
So, we find that on the account of positive commandments there's twice the reward per mitzvah than prohibitions. This can explain why Adam was indeed created: true there are many more possibly paths leading away from the almighty, but each path leading to the almighty is twice as wide. That is, indeed there are 365 prohibitions that detract from a persons connection to the Almighty, but there are 2x248=496 ways to connect to the Almighty), so to speak. The landscape changes because with positive commandements, intentions alone carry weight, while with prohibitions they do not!
While on the subject of deeds, the Gmarah continues:
עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
I.e., now that the person is created, he should examine his deeds, to ensure that he/she is heading in the 2x248 direction rather than in the 365 direction, heaven forbid.
This also connects to the month of Elul (which we're in, at the time of writing). The month of Elul has been specifically set aside as the month of introspection and self-adjustment and self-refinement. A person should examine his/her deeds and ensure that he/she is on the correct path as we approach the days of Awe which immediately follow the month of Elul.
Leshana tovah tikatevu vetichatemu.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Access denied (for now...)
B"H
Dvarim (Deuteronomy) Ch. 3:25-26 read:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה אשר בעבר הירדן...
...ויאמר ה' אלי רב לך אל תוסף דבר אלי עוד בדבר הזה
Loosely translated:
[Moshe beseeches Hashem, pleading with him:] Please let me cross over to see the good land that is on the other side of the Jordan river...
...And Hashem said to me: "You had enough! Do not continue to ask this thing of me."
The context that this exchange is in is Moshe pleading for permission to enter the Holy Land, but his requests are denied.
The question is why did Hashem say that Moshe had enough? Enough of what?
An interesting insight into this can be gained if we consider what King David wrote in the book of Psalms 90:10:
ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה
Loosely translated:
The alloted days of our lives is 70 years.
If King David says that we're all alloted 70 years then why is it that certain people live longer lives or others, G-d forbid, do the opposite?
The answer is (as is explained in a number of places) that a person's merits (or that of his/her ancestors) may extend his/her lifespan (=bonus extension). The opposite is also true. Nonetheless, a person gets a 70-year quota by default (and it's subject to change.)
Moshe, pleading with Hashem on Mt. Nevo is at the last days of his life. He was already informed that he's not going to enter the land of Israel and that indeed his burial place is in the wilderness. Moshe is 120 years old at that point.
So, taking King David's assertions that a person gets 70 years, it turns out that Moshe is 70 years old, plus a 50 year extension Moshe says to Hashem:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה
Which was loosely translated at as "Let me please cross [the Jordan river] so that I shall see the Good Land", however it can also be rendered as: "Let me cross נא so that I shall see the Good Land." What is נא? Aside from "Please" it also has the numerical value of 51. Moshe in effect is asking Hashem: "Please let me cross into the 51'st year of my bonus, that is allow me to live into my 121'st year, and therefore I shall be able to see the good land."
Hashem's answer: "רב לך"
Which was loosely translated as "You had enough", however it can also be rendered as: "לך is enough." What is לך? Aside from "You" it also has the numerical value of 50. Hashem in effect is answering to Moshe: "Fifty is enough. You're 50 year bonus is plenty. You will not live into your 121'st year."
The Midrash says that Moshe pleaded with Hashem over 500 times to enter the land and was refused every single time, until Hashem finally, explicitly and unequivocally told him to continue to ask no more, in verse 26.
A lesson for all of us: when it comes to matters of holiness one should never give up.
But Moshe's passing in the wilderness serves another lesson: Moshe being the loyal and devoted shepherd that he was will never leave behind his flock. He is buried in the desert together with the entire generation that left Egypt. Moshe will still lead them into the Holy Land of Israel at the end of days (the time of resurrection) just as he set out to do -- speedily in our days.
Dvarim (Deuteronomy) Ch. 3:25-26 read:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה אשר בעבר הירדן...
...ויאמר ה' אלי רב לך אל תוסף דבר אלי עוד בדבר הזה
Loosely translated:
[Moshe beseeches Hashem, pleading with him:] Please let me cross over to see the good land that is on the other side of the Jordan river...
...And Hashem said to me: "You had enough! Do not continue to ask this thing of me."
The context that this exchange is in is Moshe pleading for permission to enter the Holy Land, but his requests are denied.
The question is why did Hashem say that Moshe had enough? Enough of what?
An interesting insight into this can be gained if we consider what King David wrote in the book of Psalms 90:10:
ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה
Loosely translated:
The alloted days of our lives is 70 years.
If King David says that we're all alloted 70 years then why is it that certain people live longer lives or others, G-d forbid, do the opposite?
The answer is (as is explained in a number of places) that a person's merits (or that of his/her ancestors) may extend his/her lifespan (=bonus extension). The opposite is also true. Nonetheless, a person gets a 70-year quota by default (and it's subject to change.)
Moshe, pleading with Hashem on Mt. Nevo is at the last days of his life. He was already informed that he's not going to enter the land of Israel and that indeed his burial place is in the wilderness. Moshe is 120 years old at that point.
So, taking King David's assertions that a person gets 70 years, it turns out that Moshe is 70 years old, plus a 50 year extension Moshe says to Hashem:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה
Which was loosely translated at as "Let me please cross [the Jordan river] so that I shall see the Good Land", however it can also be rendered as: "Let me cross נא so that I shall see the Good Land." What is נא? Aside from "Please" it also has the numerical value of 51. Moshe in effect is asking Hashem: "Please let me cross into the 51'st year of my bonus, that is allow me to live into my 121'st year, and therefore I shall be able to see the good land."
Hashem's answer: "רב לך"
Which was loosely translated as "You had enough", however it can also be rendered as: "לך is enough." What is לך? Aside from "You" it also has the numerical value of 50. Hashem in effect is answering to Moshe: "Fifty is enough. You're 50 year bonus is plenty. You will not live into your 121'st year."
The Midrash says that Moshe pleaded with Hashem over 500 times to enter the land and was refused every single time, until Hashem finally, explicitly and unequivocally told him to continue to ask no more, in verse 26.
A lesson for all of us: when it comes to matters of holiness one should never give up.
But Moshe's passing in the wilderness serves another lesson: Moshe being the loyal and devoted shepherd that he was will never leave behind his flock. He is buried in the desert together with the entire generation that left Egypt. Moshe will still lead them into the Holy Land of Israel at the end of days (the time of resurrection) just as he set out to do -- speedily in our days.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Moshe did not answer
B"H
We find four occurrences at in the book of Bamidbar (Numbers) that seem to stand out (from all of scripture) in that Moshe was either unable or unwilling to answer questions put to him.
We find the first occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 25:6 which reads:
והמה בכים פתח אהל מועד
Loosely translated:
(When Zimri brought the Midianite women, before Moshe and the entire congregation) they were all crying by the opening of the Tent of Meeting.
Rashi brings a midrash about the reason they were crying:
Zimri brought the Midianite women to Moshe and asked him: "Am I permitted to marry this woman or not? And should you say 'no', who permitted Tziporah to you?!?" Moshe was silent.
We find the second occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 27:4-5, which read:
למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן תנה לנו אחזה בתוך אחי אבינו
ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם
Loosely translated:
(The daughters of Tzlofchad came to Moshe and made the following argument:) Why must the name of our father be removed from his family as he has no sons. Give us a portion of land amongst our Father's brothers.
And Moshe brought their claim to the Almighty.
Rashi again brings the midrash: The daughters of Tzlfchad made the following statement to Moshe: our father was killed for a private sin (=violation of Shabbat). He was not part of Korach's followers and he did not commit trison aginst you. Why must he be punished in the same manner as Korach and his gang by loosing his portion of the land of Israel?!?!
Here again, Moshe did not answer on his own. He went to Hashem to get guidance.
We find the third occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 36:2-3,6, which read:
ויאמרו את אדני צוה השם לתת את הארץ בנחלה בגורל לבני ישראל ואדני צֻוָּה בהשם לתת את נחלת צלפחד אחינו לבנתיו
...ומגרל נחלתנו יגרע
זה הדבר אשר צוה השם לבנות צלפחד לאמר, לטוב בעיניהם תהיינה לנשים
Loosely translated:
The tribe of Menashe came to Moshe arguing as follows: Our master (=Moshe) was commanded by the Almighty to portion the land amongst the Jews and our master was further commanded by the Almighty to give the portion of Tzlofchad our brother to his daughters.... and our portion be reduced (when they get married to someone from a different tribe)... Moshe (consulted Hashem and said this is what Hashem commanded to the daughers of Tzlofchad: they shall marry who they desire (so long as they are from the same tribe, thereby not reducing the total portion of the tribe.)
Here again, Moshe did not answer on his own. He went to Hashem to get guidance.
Lastly, with a bit of time-travel we find the fourth occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 9:7-8, which reads:
ויאמרו האנשים ההמה אליו אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם למה נגרע לבלתי הקריב את קרבן יהוה במעדו בתוך בני ישראל
ויאמר אלהם משה עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה השם לכם
Loosely translated:
(The people from the burial society came to Moshe) and they said: We are defiled with the impurity of death, why should we loose-out by not being able to bring the Pascal sacrifice at the right time with the rest of the Jews?
And Moshe said to them: stand here while I hear what Hashem shall command for you to do.
Evidently, here again Moshe did not answer on his own. He went to Hashem to get guidance.
Obviously the common thread here is that Moshe didn't answer directly when a question was posed to him. Why?!?!
To refine the question, let us look at the following:
In the first instance, Moshe could have answered very simply as follows: Tziporah was permitted to me because 1) we were married before the receiving the Torah and its prohibitions against marrying Midianites, 2) she accepted upon her the yolke of heaven, in other words, she converted.
In the second instance, Moshe could have also answered the daughters of Tzlofchad. The subject matter that we're dealing with here is not a very complicated issue in the laws of inheritance. And Moshe certainly knew the laws pertaining to this situation. He could have paskened (=make a rulling) himself.
In the third instance, Moshe could have replied the very same way without consulting with Hashem, for the answer was very straight-forward. He could have paskened again, on his own.
In the fourth instance (which happens to have occurred first, chronologically) Moshe could have come up with some answer himself. It may be somewhat unlikely that he would have commanded a Second Passover (which is what Hashem commanded) but nonetheless he didn't even try to answer.
Yes in all four instances, Moshe did not answer and did not pasken... Evidently, he was either unwilling or unable....
What's going on?
An explanation:
If we examine closely what transpired in the first two instances we will understand what caused Moshe's inhibition. We will then be able to extrapolate to the last two instances.
In the first instance Zimri ask Moshe a question. But before even giving Moshe the opportunity to answer he also offered criticism (or even an accusation.) Moshe surly had a very good answer (as stated above), but he abstained from presenting it. Had Moshe answered, an outside observer might have concluded that Moshe is attempting to defend his actions in order to maintain authority. In other words Moshe's answer might have been misinterpreted as trying to safeguard his personal interests, G-d forbid.
Moshe then, decided not to give a legal ruling and leave the matter to others, lest it be misinterpreted. Moshe did not want to be involved under these circumstances.
In the second instance the daughters of Tzlofchad came and asked for a legal ruling from Moshe, but along with the problem-statement they also added that their Father was not in the camp of Korach. Had they simply made a she'ela (presented their case and seeked advise) Moshe would have been very likely to give them ruling (as stated above). However, once they mentioned that their father was not on Korach's side (i.e., he was on Moshe's side) Moshe was no longer willing to give them a ruling. Had Moshe paskended a ruling, to an outside observer it may have been misinterpreted as if the daughters of Tzlofchad bribed Moshe to receive their father's portion. In other words, an outside oberserver may have misinterpreted Moshe's answer as a pay-back for their father's support, G-d forbid.
Again, Moshe decided not to give a legal ruling under these circumstances, lest it be misinterpreted. Instead he left it to Hashem to answer.
So, we see how great a leader Moshe was! In either cases, he could have answered and ruled, and yet when there's even a tiny chance that his actions may be misinterpreted he removed himself from the situation and deferred to others. Moshe's integrity is exemplary to the nth degree.
We can now also understand what happened in the last two instances:
In the instnace of the tribe of Menashe approaching Moshe regarding the ruling on the matter of the daughters of Tzlofchad: even though the ruling came from Above, and the matter at hand is only a derivative of the original matter, Moshe told the tribe of Menash: "I cannot hand this file. Because the genesis of this file was not for me to handle, I will not touch it even now." Again, Moshe demonstrating exemplary integrity.
In the last instance of the burial society approaching Moshe because they did not want to loose out on the very special Pascal sacrifice: there are varying opinions as to why their were ritually impure. According to one option they were impure at that point in time because they just handled the burial of Datan and Aviran. According to a different option they were impure because their were carrying the bones of Yosef to the Land of Israel.
If we go with the opinion that the burial society was impure due to handling Datan and Aviran's (i.e., Moshe's nephews') burial, had Moshe benefited the burial society in any way (such as ruling for them a second Passover), an out side observer may have misinterpreted this as payback for their services. In other words, in may have been misinterpreted as Moshe having vested interest in their actions.
If we go with the second option that the burial society was impure due to handling Yosef's bones, had Moshe benefited the burial society in any way, an outside observer may have misinterpreted this as payback for doing Moshe's work for him -- Moshe was handling Yosef's bones at first, and had given the task over to the burial society. Again, Moshe's ruling may have been misinterpreted as a form of payback.
All in all we get a glimpse into Moshe's personality and leadership, specifically by what he wasn't saying. His abstention from matters that may have had a tiny chance of being misconstrued is a true testament of his character and integrity as the proto-leader of the Jewish nation.
Please G-d may we merit many more leaders in Moshe's image, speedily!
Good Shabbos.
We find four occurrences at in the book of Bamidbar (Numbers) that seem to stand out (from all of scripture) in that Moshe was either unable or unwilling to answer questions put to him.
We find the first occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 25:6 which reads:
והמה בכים פתח אהל מועד
Loosely translated:
(When Zimri brought the Midianite women, before Moshe and the entire congregation) they were all crying by the opening of the Tent of Meeting.
Rashi brings a midrash about the reason they were crying:
Zimri brought the Midianite women to Moshe and asked him: "Am I permitted to marry this woman or not? And should you say 'no', who permitted Tziporah to you?!?" Moshe was silent.
We find the second occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 27:4-5, which read:
למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן תנה לנו אחזה בתוך אחי אבינו
ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם
Loosely translated:
(The daughters of Tzlofchad came to Moshe and made the following argument:) Why must the name of our father be removed from his family as he has no sons. Give us a portion of land amongst our Father's brothers.
And Moshe brought their claim to the Almighty.
Rashi again brings the midrash: The daughters of Tzlfchad made the following statement to Moshe: our father was killed for a private sin (=violation of Shabbat). He was not part of Korach's followers and he did not commit trison aginst you. Why must he be punished in the same manner as Korach and his gang by loosing his portion of the land of Israel?!?!
Here again, Moshe did not answer on his own. He went to Hashem to get guidance.
We find the third occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 36:2-3,6, which read:
ויאמרו את אדני צוה השם לתת את הארץ בנחלה בגורל לבני ישראל ואדני צֻוָּה בהשם לתת את נחלת צלפחד אחינו לבנתיו
...ומגרל נחלתנו יגרע
זה הדבר אשר צוה השם לבנות צלפחד לאמר, לטוב בעיניהם תהיינה לנשים
Loosely translated:
The tribe of Menashe came to Moshe arguing as follows: Our master (=Moshe) was commanded by the Almighty to portion the land amongst the Jews and our master was further commanded by the Almighty to give the portion of Tzlofchad our brother to his daughters.... and our portion be reduced (when they get married to someone from a different tribe)... Moshe (consulted Hashem and said this is what Hashem commanded to the daughers of Tzlofchad: they shall marry who they desire (so long as they are from the same tribe, thereby not reducing the total portion of the tribe.)
Here again, Moshe did not answer on his own. He went to Hashem to get guidance.
Lastly, with a bit of time-travel we find the fourth occurrence in Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 9:7-8, which reads:
ויאמרו האנשים ההמה אליו אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם למה נגרע לבלתי הקריב את קרבן יהוה במעדו בתוך בני ישראל
ויאמר אלהם משה עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה השם לכם
Loosely translated:
(The people from the burial society came to Moshe) and they said: We are defiled with the impurity of death, why should we loose-out by not being able to bring the Pascal sacrifice at the right time with the rest of the Jews?
And Moshe said to them: stand here while I hear what Hashem shall command for you to do.
Evidently, here again Moshe did not answer on his own. He went to Hashem to get guidance.
Obviously the common thread here is that Moshe didn't answer directly when a question was posed to him. Why?!?!
To refine the question, let us look at the following:
In the first instance, Moshe could have answered very simply as follows: Tziporah was permitted to me because 1) we were married before the receiving the Torah and its prohibitions against marrying Midianites, 2) she accepted upon her the yolke of heaven, in other words, she converted.
In the second instance, Moshe could have also answered the daughters of Tzlofchad. The subject matter that we're dealing with here is not a very complicated issue in the laws of inheritance. And Moshe certainly knew the laws pertaining to this situation. He could have paskened (=make a rulling) himself.
In the third instance, Moshe could have replied the very same way without consulting with Hashem, for the answer was very straight-forward. He could have paskened again, on his own.
In the fourth instance (which happens to have occurred first, chronologically) Moshe could have come up with some answer himself. It may be somewhat unlikely that he would have commanded a Second Passover (which is what Hashem commanded) but nonetheless he didn't even try to answer.
Yes in all four instances, Moshe did not answer and did not pasken... Evidently, he was either unwilling or unable....
What's going on?
An explanation:
If we examine closely what transpired in the first two instances we will understand what caused Moshe's inhibition. We will then be able to extrapolate to the last two instances.
In the first instance Zimri ask Moshe a question. But before even giving Moshe the opportunity to answer he also offered criticism (or even an accusation.) Moshe surly had a very good answer (as stated above), but he abstained from presenting it. Had Moshe answered, an outside observer might have concluded that Moshe is attempting to defend his actions in order to maintain authority. In other words Moshe's answer might have been misinterpreted as trying to safeguard his personal interests, G-d forbid.
Moshe then, decided not to give a legal ruling and leave the matter to others, lest it be misinterpreted. Moshe did not want to be involved under these circumstances.
In the second instance the daughters of Tzlofchad came and asked for a legal ruling from Moshe, but along with the problem-statement they also added that their Father was not in the camp of Korach. Had they simply made a she'ela (presented their case and seeked advise) Moshe would have been very likely to give them ruling (as stated above). However, once they mentioned that their father was not on Korach's side (i.e., he was on Moshe's side) Moshe was no longer willing to give them a ruling. Had Moshe paskended a ruling, to an outside observer it may have been misinterpreted as if the daughters of Tzlofchad bribed Moshe to receive their father's portion. In other words, an outside oberserver may have misinterpreted Moshe's answer as a pay-back for their father's support, G-d forbid.
Again, Moshe decided not to give a legal ruling under these circumstances, lest it be misinterpreted. Instead he left it to Hashem to answer.
So, we see how great a leader Moshe was! In either cases, he could have answered and ruled, and yet when there's even a tiny chance that his actions may be misinterpreted he removed himself from the situation and deferred to others. Moshe's integrity is exemplary to the nth degree.
We can now also understand what happened in the last two instances:
In the instnace of the tribe of Menashe approaching Moshe regarding the ruling on the matter of the daughters of Tzlofchad: even though the ruling came from Above, and the matter at hand is only a derivative of the original matter, Moshe told the tribe of Menash: "I cannot hand this file. Because the genesis of this file was not for me to handle, I will not touch it even now." Again, Moshe demonstrating exemplary integrity.
In the last instance of the burial society approaching Moshe because they did not want to loose out on the very special Pascal sacrifice: there are varying opinions as to why their were ritually impure. According to one option they were impure at that point in time because they just handled the burial of Datan and Aviran. According to a different option they were impure because their were carrying the bones of Yosef to the Land of Israel.
If we go with the opinion that the burial society was impure due to handling Datan and Aviran's (i.e., Moshe's nephews') burial, had Moshe benefited the burial society in any way (such as ruling for them a second Passover), an out side observer may have misinterpreted this as payback for their services. In other words, in may have been misinterpreted as Moshe having vested interest in their actions.
If we go with the second option that the burial society was impure due to handling Yosef's bones, had Moshe benefited the burial society in any way, an outside observer may have misinterpreted this as payback for doing Moshe's work for him -- Moshe was handling Yosef's bones at first, and had given the task over to the burial society. Again, Moshe's ruling may have been misinterpreted as a form of payback.
All in all we get a glimpse into Moshe's personality and leadership, specifically by what he wasn't saying. His abstention from matters that may have had a tiny chance of being misconstrued is a true testament of his character and integrity as the proto-leader of the Jewish nation.
Please G-d may we merit many more leaders in Moshe's image, speedily!
Good Shabbos.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Pinchas' gift
B"H
Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 25:11,13 reads:
פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם ולא כליתי את בני ישראל בקנאתי
והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם
Loosely translated:
Pinchas son of El'azar son of Aaron the Kohen (i.e., priest) has turned away my wrath from the Jewish people in his act of zealousness for Me, and I shall therefore not annihilate the Jewish people in my jealousy... And it shall be to him an eternal covenant of priesthood.
Two questions pop out immediately:
1) Why does the Torah find it necessary to list the entire lineage of Pinchas back to Aaron the Kohen.
2) Why was to covenant of priesthood bestowed upon Pinchas, for priesthood is not something that's transferable, purchasable or giftable -- it's can only be hereditaraly given from father to son. Nowhere else in scripture such an unusual gift can be found.
An explanation, but first some background:
Rashi on 25:11 writes:
The tribes were disapproving of Pinchas' actions saying: have you seen the son of Puti, whose mother's father has fattened calves for idol-worship. This person (=Pinchas) has murdered an prince of a tribe of the Jewish nation. Therefore scripture has traces his linage to Aaron the High-Priest.
Why did Rashi uses the long winded "whose mother's father fattened calves for idol-worship" where it could more simply stated "whose grandfather fattened..."?
Yitro (Pinchas' maternal grandfather) was the high-priest of Midian. In his capacity as high-priest he would take calves and feed them to satiation but he wouldn't stop there. After the calves were satiated he continued to stuff them with food until they could hardly function, and then he stuffed them with more food still. The sole purpose of this exercise was to really fatten the calves. But for what purpose, you might ask... Answer: for the sole purpose of bringing a delicious, fat dribbling, juicy sacrifice to idols.
Essentially, Yitro was performing acts of cruelty to animals just for the loathsome activity of idol-worship. Indeed he embodied the attribute of cruelty. (This, of course, was before he turned away from idol-worship and in fact converted to the Jewish belief.)
There's a known principle (need citation) that a father's character traits are inherited by his daughters, while a mother's character traits are inherited by her sons.
So, in saying "whose mother's father fattened calves for idol-worship", the tribes were claiming that Yitro has given his character trait of cruelty to his daughter and she has given it, in turn, to Pinchas. Indeed, with this line of thought, they reasoned that Pinchas has killed Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, not out of zealousness to G-d, but rather out of cruelty!!! They were prepared to kill him for that....
To settle the matter, the Torah writes "Pinchas, son of El'azar, son of Aaron the Koeh". This is to say, don't look at Pinchas' pedigree on his mother's side, but rather on his father's side. Who's his father? El'azar son of Aharon the Kohen. About Aharon the Kohen it is stated in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) Ch. 1:12:
אהרון - אוהב שלום ורודף שלום אוהב את הברייות ומקרבן לתורה
Loosely transslated:
Aaron (the Kohen) -- loves peace, chases after peace, loves all creatures and draws them closer to the creator.
So, we find that Aaron's attribute is that of love. Since Aaron is the prototype and first Kohen, we must conclude that this attribute of love is inherited by all priests, since priesthood is modeled after Aaron.
So, the Torah is telling us: one might conclude that Pinchas killed Zimri out of cruelty, but know this: Pinchas has done so only out of love for the Jewish nation, in order to stop the plague that was ravaging the Jewish nation at the time -- his turned away G-d wrath.
This then explains why priesthood was gifted to Pinchas: he always had that attribute of love for the Jewish people, though up to this point it was buried and concealed within him -- it did not manifest in the open. But now, that he has demonstrated his love for the Jewish nation, in the most grandiose way, he essentially taken that attribute of love and pulled it out from obscurity and into plain sight. The most appropriate gift to give him, then, is to officially brand him a Kohen -- "loves peace, chases after pease, loves all creatures...."
Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 25:11,13 reads:
פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם ולא כליתי את בני ישראל בקנאתי
והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם
Loosely translated:
Pinchas son of El'azar son of Aaron the Kohen (i.e., priest) has turned away my wrath from the Jewish people in his act of zealousness for Me, and I shall therefore not annihilate the Jewish people in my jealousy... And it shall be to him an eternal covenant of priesthood.
Two questions pop out immediately:
1) Why does the Torah find it necessary to list the entire lineage of Pinchas back to Aaron the Kohen.
2) Why was to covenant of priesthood bestowed upon Pinchas, for priesthood is not something that's transferable, purchasable or giftable -- it's can only be hereditaraly given from father to son. Nowhere else in scripture such an unusual gift can be found.
An explanation, but first some background:
Rashi on 25:11 writes:
The tribes were disapproving of Pinchas' actions saying: have you seen the son of Puti, whose mother's father has fattened calves for idol-worship. This person (=Pinchas) has murdered an prince of a tribe of the Jewish nation. Therefore scripture has traces his linage to Aaron the High-Priest.
Why did Rashi uses the long winded "whose mother's father fattened calves for idol-worship" where it could more simply stated "whose grandfather fattened..."?
Yitro (Pinchas' maternal grandfather) was the high-priest of Midian. In his capacity as high-priest he would take calves and feed them to satiation but he wouldn't stop there. After the calves were satiated he continued to stuff them with food until they could hardly function, and then he stuffed them with more food still. The sole purpose of this exercise was to really fatten the calves. But for what purpose, you might ask... Answer: for the sole purpose of bringing a delicious, fat dribbling, juicy sacrifice to idols.
Essentially, Yitro was performing acts of cruelty to animals just for the loathsome activity of idol-worship. Indeed he embodied the attribute of cruelty. (This, of course, was before he turned away from idol-worship and in fact converted to the Jewish belief.)
There's a known principle (need citation) that a father's character traits are inherited by his daughters, while a mother's character traits are inherited by her sons.
So, in saying "whose mother's father fattened calves for idol-worship", the tribes were claiming that Yitro has given his character trait of cruelty to his daughter and she has given it, in turn, to Pinchas. Indeed, with this line of thought, they reasoned that Pinchas has killed Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, not out of zealousness to G-d, but rather out of cruelty!!! They were prepared to kill him for that....
To settle the matter, the Torah writes "Pinchas, son of El'azar, son of Aaron the Koeh". This is to say, don't look at Pinchas' pedigree on his mother's side, but rather on his father's side. Who's his father? El'azar son of Aharon the Kohen. About Aharon the Kohen it is stated in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) Ch. 1:12:
אהרון - אוהב שלום ורודף שלום אוהב את הברייות ומקרבן לתורה
Loosely transslated:
Aaron (the Kohen) -- loves peace, chases after peace, loves all creatures and draws them closer to the creator.
So, we find that Aaron's attribute is that of love. Since Aaron is the prototype and first Kohen, we must conclude that this attribute of love is inherited by all priests, since priesthood is modeled after Aaron.
So, the Torah is telling us: one might conclude that Pinchas killed Zimri out of cruelty, but know this: Pinchas has done so only out of love for the Jewish nation, in order to stop the plague that was ravaging the Jewish nation at the time -- his turned away G-d wrath.
This then explains why priesthood was gifted to Pinchas: he always had that attribute of love for the Jewish people, though up to this point it was buried and concealed within him -- it did not manifest in the open. But now, that he has demonstrated his love for the Jewish nation, in the most grandiose way, he essentially taken that attribute of love and pulled it out from obscurity and into plain sight. The most appropriate gift to give him, then, is to officially brand him a Kohen -- "loves peace, chases after pease, loves all creatures...."
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Why disguise?
B"H
Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 21:1 reads as follows:
וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד ישב הנגב כי בא ישראל דרך האתרים
Loosely translated:
And the Canaanite king of Arad, who dwells in the Negev, heard that the Jews arrived through Atarim.
Rashi brings an interesting interpretation that the Amalekites were the ones who attacked the Jews at this point, but they disguised themselves as Canaanites by speaking the Canaanite tongue. (Some versions of Rashi, as well as other sources such as Yalkut Shimoni, hold that the Jews also changed their dress to that of the Canaanites.) Whatever the exact disguise was aside, Rashi points out the reason for the disguise: So that the Jews pray to Hashem to save them from the Canaanites and since they were in reality battling Amalek, the Jews' prayers would have no effect.
So a question stands out here:
If Amalek wanted to deceive the Jews so that their prayers are off-target then why did they not employ the same deceptive tactic in Shmot (Exodus) 17:8, as it is written:
ויבא עמלק וילחם עם ישראל ברפידם (=And Amalek came and battled with the Jews in Refidim)? Clearly they didn't attempt to disguise themselves in this case.
So, what's the difference between the first battle in Shmot 17:8 and the second one in Bamidbar 21:1?
An explanation:
In the first battle the Jews were fresh out of Egypt. Ahead of them was 40 years (in hindsight) of miraculous existence: the food was taken care by Mana, the water by Miriam's portable well, the clothing grew with them, the land ahead of them was flattened by the clouds of glory, etc... They were totally exempt from worldly-worries. The analog nowadays is a Jew living his/her entire life in the 4 cubits of Torah study -- shunning away from involvement with the mundane world.
At this time comes Amalek, undisguised, and does battle with the Jews. More than a purely physical battle, this was an ideological battle: the Amalekite's claim was that both Jews and Amalek come from the same forefather Abraham. Their issue with the Jews was the preferential treatment that the Jews are being given. After all the Jews and the Amalekites were cousines, why is it then that the Jews can live this miraculous life and the Amalekites cannot. Perhaps G-d forbid, the Jews don't deserve this either? Perhaps the Jews are like any other nation out there? The attack was on the Jew's belonging in the 4 cubits of Torah.
To make such claims, the Amalekites needed to come as themselves -- the grandchildren of Abraham. They of course lost that battled proving once-and-for-all that a Jew does indeed belong in the 4 cubit of Torah.
However, Amalek was defeated but wasn't out yet. Amalek was just waiting for another opportunity to battle the Jews. The opportunity presented itself in this second battle: the Jews were about to enter the land of Cannaan (=Israel). What's ahead of them is many centuries of working the land, paying the mortgage, selling one's ware at the market place, etc... In other words, mundane daily existence.
Comes Amalek and says, the battle over miraculous existence we lost, but now you're entering a phase of mundane existence. We will do battle again! To make such a declaration they disguised themselves as Canaanites, dwellers of the ארץ כנען (=the land of Canaan), representing ארציות (=mundane life).
Of course they lost the second battle as well. Their mistake: divine providence extends beyond the 4 cubits of Torah, even into the lowest levels (i.e., ארציות) of Jewish existence.
This teaches us that even when a Jew is involved in mundane life he should maintain his connection to the divine, for that's where his protection comes from. As a matter of fact, he/she is given the opportunity to infuse the mundane daily life with the holiness of Torah through the performance of physical mitzvot (commandments) thereby fulfilling the verse "בכל דרכך דעהו" (=Know G-d in all your dealings.)
Good Shabbos!
Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 21:1 reads as follows:
וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד ישב הנגב כי בא ישראל דרך האתרים
Loosely translated:
And the Canaanite king of Arad, who dwells in the Negev, heard that the Jews arrived through Atarim.
Rashi brings an interesting interpretation that the Amalekites were the ones who attacked the Jews at this point, but they disguised themselves as Canaanites by speaking the Canaanite tongue. (Some versions of Rashi, as well as other sources such as Yalkut Shimoni, hold that the Jews also changed their dress to that of the Canaanites.) Whatever the exact disguise was aside, Rashi points out the reason for the disguise: So that the Jews pray to Hashem to save them from the Canaanites and since they were in reality battling Amalek, the Jews' prayers would have no effect.
So a question stands out here:
If Amalek wanted to deceive the Jews so that their prayers are off-target then why did they not employ the same deceptive tactic in Shmot (Exodus) 17:8, as it is written:
ויבא עמלק וילחם עם ישראל ברפידם (=And Amalek came and battled with the Jews in Refidim)? Clearly they didn't attempt to disguise themselves in this case.
So, what's the difference between the first battle in Shmot 17:8 and the second one in Bamidbar 21:1?
An explanation:
In the first battle the Jews were fresh out of Egypt. Ahead of them was 40 years (in hindsight) of miraculous existence: the food was taken care by Mana, the water by Miriam's portable well, the clothing grew with them, the land ahead of them was flattened by the clouds of glory, etc... They were totally exempt from worldly-worries. The analog nowadays is a Jew living his/her entire life in the 4 cubits of Torah study -- shunning away from involvement with the mundane world.
At this time comes Amalek, undisguised, and does battle with the Jews. More than a purely physical battle, this was an ideological battle: the Amalekite's claim was that both Jews and Amalek come from the same forefather Abraham. Their issue with the Jews was the preferential treatment that the Jews are being given. After all the Jews and the Amalekites were cousines, why is it then that the Jews can live this miraculous life and the Amalekites cannot. Perhaps G-d forbid, the Jews don't deserve this either? Perhaps the Jews are like any other nation out there? The attack was on the Jew's belonging in the 4 cubits of Torah.
To make such claims, the Amalekites needed to come as themselves -- the grandchildren of Abraham. They of course lost that battled proving once-and-for-all that a Jew does indeed belong in the 4 cubit of Torah.
However, Amalek was defeated but wasn't out yet. Amalek was just waiting for another opportunity to battle the Jews. The opportunity presented itself in this second battle: the Jews were about to enter the land of Cannaan (=Israel). What's ahead of them is many centuries of working the land, paying the mortgage, selling one's ware at the market place, etc... In other words, mundane daily existence.
Comes Amalek and says, the battle over miraculous existence we lost, but now you're entering a phase of mundane existence. We will do battle again! To make such a declaration they disguised themselves as Canaanites, dwellers of the ארץ כנען (=the land of Canaan), representing ארציות (=mundane life).
Of course they lost the second battle as well. Their mistake: divine providence extends beyond the 4 cubits of Torah, even into the lowest levels (i.e., ארציות) of Jewish existence.
This teaches us that even when a Jew is involved in mundane life he should maintain his connection to the divine, for that's where his protection comes from. As a matter of fact, he/she is given the opportunity to infuse the mundane daily life with the holiness of Torah through the performance of physical mitzvot (commandments) thereby fulfilling the verse "בכל דרכך דעהו" (=Know G-d in all your dealings.)
Good Shabbos!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)