<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16441" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT BEHA'ALOTCHA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Three books in one? So claim Chazal in
regard to Sefer<BR>Bamidbar! And what's more, one of those three books
contains<BR>only two psukim!<BR> [This statement is based on the 'sugya'
in Shabbat 116a (top<BR> of the daf) concerning the two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-nso'a<BR> ha-aron...' (that we recite when we take out the Sefer
Torah<BR> / see Bamidbar 10:35-36).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To better appreciate the
deeper meaning of this<BR>statement, this week's shiur discusses an important
thematic<BR>transition that takes place in Parshat Beha'alotcha.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> As anyone
familiar with Chumash knows, the text of<BR>Chumash in the actual Sefer Torah
does not contain any symbols<BR>of punctuation. Nonetheless, in Parshat
Beha'alotcha we find<BR>a very peculiar exception, as the two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-<BR>nso'a ha-aron ...' are delimited by two upside down <BR>'nun's' - acting
like parenthesis, and thus causing these<BR>psukim to 'stand
out'.<BR> For this 'technical' reason alone, we can
certainly<BR>assume that these two psukim must be special.<BR>In an attempt to
understand the reason for this phenomenon,<BR>the following shiur discusses the
thematic importance of these<BR>two psukim by considering their location at a
very pivotal<BR>position in Sefer Bamidbar.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>HIGH HOPES<BR> To
appreciate the internal structure of Sefer Bamidbar,<BR>we must first consider
what its theme ‘should have’ been. To<BR>do so, let’s quickly review the
primary themes of the previous<BR>three books, as we have discussed in our
series of shiurim.<BR> Sefer Breishit focused on God’s
choice of Avraham (and<BR>his offspring) to become His special nation
['bechira'].<BR>Sefer Shmot described God’s redemption of His nation
from<BR>Egypt, their subsequent journey to Har Sinai to receive the<BR>Torah,
and construction of the mishkan – the symbol of God’s<BR>presence in their
midst. Finally, in Sefer Vayikra, Bnei<BR>Yisrael received additional laws
relating to both the mishkan<BR>and 'kedusha' [holiness] in their land and their
daily lives.<BR> At this point, Bnei Yisrael were now ready to continue
their<BR>journey from Har Sinai to inherit the 'Promised Land'.
Hence,<BR>Sefer Bamidbar ‘should have’ been the story of that journey<BR>and
their inheritance of the land. Tragically, in Sefer<BR>Bamidbar those
goals are never attained; however - by<BR>considering those high expectations –
we can better appreciate<BR>its content and
structure.<BR> For example, Sefer Bamidbar began by
describing how Bnei<BR>Yisrael prepared for their journey to Eretz Canaan
by<BR>organizing the army while establishing the mishkan at the<BR>center of
their camp.<BR> Note how this theme (of Bnei Yisrael's
preparation for<BR>this journey) continues throughout the narrative in the
first<BR>ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar:<BR> * The army is
organized and counted (chapters 1-2)<BR> * The mishkan is
placed at the focal point of the camp (2-5)<BR> * The national
leaders participate in its dedication (7)<BR> * The levi'im are
appointed to become the spiritual leaders<BR> (chapters
3->4 & 8)<BR>* The entire nation offers pesach rishon
& sheni (chapter 9)<BR> * Final instructions are given re:
how and when to travel(10)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Had nothing 'gone wrong',
it would have been precisely at<BR>this point (after chapter 10 in Sefer
Bamidbar) that Bnei<BR>Yisrael should have begun their magnificent journey to
the<BR>Promised Land. Instead, the next sixteen chapters (i.e.<BR>chapters
11-26) discuss exactly the opposite, i.e. how (and<BR>why) Bnei Yisrael did not
inherit the Land. In those<BR>chapters, the Torah describes numerous
incidents when Bnei<BR>Yisrael rebelled against God, culminating with God's
decision<BR>not to allow that generation to enter the land.<BR> [The final
ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar (27-36) discuss<BR> how the second
generation prepares to enter the Land.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THREE BOOKS<BR> This
analysis can help us appreicate the location of the<BR>two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-nso'a ha-aron', as they lie at this<BR>junction that divides Sefer
Bamidbar into two distinct<BR>sections:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A) Chaps. 1-10 - Bnei Yisrael's preparation
for this journey<BR>B) Chaps. 11-26 - The actual journey (i.e. what went
wrong)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The last two psukim of
chapter 10 ['va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-<BR>aron...'] form the divider between these
two sections!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> With this background, we can appreciate why
Chazal consider<BR>Sefer Bamidbar as three books.<BR> As
the first ten chapters - preparation for travel - form<BR>a complete unit, they
can be considered a 'book'. Similarly,<BR>chapters 11-36, describing the
failure of the first<BR>generation, also form a complete unit, and hence can
also be<BR>considered a 'book'. However, even though the two psukim
of<BR>'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron...' form a divider, we must still<BR>explain why
Chazal consider them as a book as well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN<BR> One could suggest
that these two psukim serve as more than<BR>just a buffer. Albeit their
brevity, they do describe the<BR>ideal fashion in which Bnei Yisrael should have
traveled on<BR>their journey to inherit the Land. [For example, compare
with<BR>Shmot 23:20-27, which describes God's original plan for how<BR>Bnei
Yisrael would conquer the land.]<BR> To emphasize what
'could have been' in contrast to what<BR>actually took place, the Torah
intentionally delimits these<BR>two psukim with upside down
nun's.<BR> If so, then the 'three books' of Sefer
Bamidbar would be:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BOOK ONE - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their
journey (1-10)<BR> This 'book' is followed by two
'versions' of that journey:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BOOK TWO - the ideal (two psukim) - what
'could have been'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BOOK THREE - the actual journey that
'failed'<BR>
(i.e. chapters 11-36)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To accent the tragedy of book three, the
Torah first<BR>presents a 'glimpse' of what 'could have been' in book two
-<BR>the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have<BR>travelled, had they
not sinned.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHAT WENT WRONG?<BR> So
what went wrong? What caused Bnei Yisrael to sin at<BR>the incidents of
the 'mit'onenim', the 'mit'avim' and the<BR>'meraglim'
etc.?<BR> Chazal find a 'hint' in the pasuk (which
immediately<BR>precedes 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron') that describes
Bnei<BR>Yisrael's departure from Har Sinai":<BR> "And
they travelled from God's mountain..."(see 10:33-34).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The Midrash comments:<BR>
"Like a child leaving school - running away, in the same<BR>
manner Bnei Yisrael ran away from Har Sinai a three day<BR>
distance, for they studied [too much] Torah at Har<BR>
Sinai..."<BR> [Quoted in
first Tosafot on Masechet Shabbat 116a].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This Midrash compares Bnei
Yisrael's stay at Har Sinai to<BR>a 'school year' [quite appropriate for this
time of year].<BR>Even though they studied God's laws at Har Sinai, it seems
as<BR>though the spirit of those laws were not internalized. The<BR>people
were indeed looking forward to leaving Har Sinai, but<BR>they were not looking
forward to keeping God's laws in Eretz<BR>Canaan.<BR> Technically
speaking, they may have been 'prepared' for this<BR>journey, but they most
definitely were not spiritually<BR>'ready'. [See further iyun
section.]<BR> In this manner, the Midrash is
highlighting the<BR>underlying reason that led to these sins. Once Bnei
Yisrael<BR>left with the 'wrong attitude', it was inevitable that they<BR>would
sin.<BR> But who is to blame? Certainly, first and
foremost the<BR>people themselves; but if we follow the ‘school’ analogy
of<BR>this Midrash, we should also consider the possibility that
the<BR>'faculty' may share some of the responsibility as
well.<BR> As we study Sefer Bamidbar, we will see how
certain<BR>incidents may even allude to this possibility. However,
the<BR>first 'early warning' of teacher 'burn-out' is found already<BR>in
Parshat Beha'alotcha.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>HAS MOSHE 'HAD ENOUGH'?<BR>
Beginning with chapter 11, and in almost every incident<BR>when Bnei Yisrael sin
in Sefer Bamidbar, we find a growing<BR>strain in the relationship between Moshe
Rabbeinu and the<BR>people. Not only do the people constantly complain to
Moshe<BR>about their plight in chapter 11, even his own brother and<BR>sister
criticize him in chapter 12!<BR> In chapters 13-14, the
meraglim [spies] incite a national<BR>rebellion calling for new leadership to
take them back to<BR>Egypt (see 14:1-5), while in chapter 16 (Parshat Korach)
we<BR>find yet another rebellion against the leadership of both<BR>Moshe and
Aharon.<BR> So, what went wrong?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The first sign of this
leadership crisis already surfaces<BR>in the case of mit'avim (see 11:4-14),
immediately after Bnei<BR>Yisrael left Har Sinai. Let's note Moshe's
petition to God in<BR>reaction to Bnei Yisrael's complaint about the stale taste
of<BR>the manna:<BR>"... And Moshe pleaded to God: Why have You dealt so
harshly<BR>with Your servant, and why have I not enjoyed Your favor that<BR>You
have laid the burden of this people upon me? I cannot<BR>carry all this
people by myself for it is too much for me. If<BR>you would deal thus with
me, kill me rather..." (11:11-15).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In contrast to the Moshe
Rabbeinu that we were familiar<BR>with from Sefer Shmot - who consistently
defends Bnei Yisrael<BR>before God when they sin, now in Sefer Bamidbar
Moshe's<BR>attitude appears to be quite the opposite -he would rather
die<BR>than continue to be their leader!<BR> Note as
well the obvious textual parallels that highlight<BR>this contrast.
Compare:<BR> * "lama hareyota le-avdecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) -
with<BR> "lama hareyota la-am ha-zeh..." (Shmot
5:22)<BR> ["Why have you dealt so harshly with Your people -
for<BR> what purpose have you sent me, for since I have gone
to<BR> Pharaoh in Your Name, things have only become
worse..."]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * "lama lo matzati chein
be-einecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) -<BR>with<BR> "ve-ata im
matzati chein be-einecha..."(see Shmot 33:13,16)<BR> ["And
now, if I have found favor in Your eyes, let me<BR> know Your
ways so I can find favor in Your eyes - and see<BR> that they
are Your people... and how will I know that I<BR> and Your
people have indeed found favor - when You allow<BR> Your
Presence to travel with us..."]<BR>and<BR> * "If this is my
plight [to lead them]- I'd rather
die..."<BR> (11:15)<BR> "If You
forgive their sin [fine]... but if not erase me
from<BR> Your book that you have written..." (see
Shmot 32:30-32)<BR> [In the above comparisons, note as well
the Torah's use<BR> of key phrases such as 'charon af Hashem',
'ra'a',<BR> 'matzati cheyn be-einecha' etc.]<BR> Is it
not ironic that after the incident of 'chet ha-egel'<BR>Moshe is willing to die
in order to save his nation (see Shmot<BR>32:32), while now he would rather die
than lead his nation!<BR>In Sefer Shmot, Moshe was always 'sticking out his
neck' to<BR>defend Bnei Yisrael, while now he appears to have 'given
up'.<BR> [Note Rashi on Bamidbar 11:28 where he quotes the Sifri
that<BR> explains how Eldad's & Meidad's prophecy at this
incident<BR> was that 'Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead Bnei
Yisrael<BR> into the Land instead'. This Midrash suggests as
well that<BR> the failure of Moshe's leadership already begins with
this<BR> incident of the mit'avim and is not solely due to his sin
at<BR> 'mei meriva' in chapter 20. / See further iyun
section.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This parallel, suggesting
a possible flaw in Moshe<BR>Rabbeinu himself, must bother every student of
Chumash. Could<BR>it be that Moshe Rabbeinu reacted in an improper
manner? Is<BR>it possible that the greatest prophet of all times,
who<BR>received the Torah and taught it to Bnei Yisrael, just
'gives<BR>up'?<BR> Is Moshe Rabbeinu - who took Bnei
Yisrael out of Egypt<BR>and faithfully led them to Har Sinai - now unable to
lead them<BR>on the last leg of their grand journey from Har Sinai to
Eretz<BR>Canaan?<BR> To answer yes would be blasphemous,
yet answering no<BR>would appear to be rather naive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>TOO HOLY TO LEAD<BR> One
could suggest that the contrast between Moshe's<BR>reaction to chet ha-egel and
his reaction to the mit'avim<BR>stems from the motive behind each
sin.<BR> Despite the severity of chet ha-egel, Bnei
Yisrael's sin<BR>was the result of a misguided desire to fill the
spiritual<BR>vacuum created by Moshe's absence. [See shiur on Parshat
Ki<BR>Tisa.] In contrast, the sin of the mit'avim seems to have<BR>been
totally physical - an uncontrollable lust for food<BR>['hit'avu
ta'ava'].<BR> Chet ha-egel presented an educational
challenge that<BR>Moshe Rabbeinu is willing to accept, i.e. to take
this<BR>misguided desire and channel it in the proper direction.<BR>[Note
commentators who understand the building of the mishkan<BR>as a 'tikkun' for the
misguided intentions that led to chet ha-<BR>egel.]<BR>
However, after the lustful sin of the mit'avim, Moshe<BR>Rabbeinu simply 'gives
up'. He is unable to fathom how this<BR>nation, after spending an entire
year at Har Sinai, have<BR>become so preoccupied with such mundane
desires. Moshe simply<BR>does not have the educational tools to deal with
such a low<BR>level of behavior. [In other words - Moshe was hired to be
a<BR>teacher, not a baby-sitter!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> God's immediate reaction
to Moshe's petition may reflect<BR>this aspect of Moshe's leadership. God
finds it necessary to<BR>take some of the ruach (spirit) from Moshe and transfer
it to<BR>the seventy elders (see 11:16-17). God realizes that
Moshe<BR>must now share some of his leadership responsibilities with<BR>elders
who can possibly deal more realistically with this type<BR>of
crisis.<BR> One could suggest an additional
insight. In Sefer<BR>Bamidbar, Moshe Rabbeinu could be considered 'over
qualified'<BR>or 'too holy' to lead the people.<BR> After spending some
six months on Har Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu<BR>is on a spiritual level far higher
than that of his nation.<BR>It is not that Moshe Rabbeinu is incapable of
leading, rather<BR>the nation is on too low a level to benefit from
his<BR>leadership. Quite simply, ‘over-qualified’ for the job.<BR>[Iy"h,
we'll return to this topic in our shiur on
Parshat<BR>Chukat.]<BR> Ultimately, Yehoshua will be
chosen to lead Bnei Yisrael<BR>into the Promised Land. As the dedicated
student of Moshe<BR>Rabbeinu, and the experienced leader of his own tribe (and
of<BR>the entire army in the battle against Amalek), Yehoshua<BR>possesses the
necessary leadership qualities. He is also<BR>sufficiently 'down to
earth', and therefore will be able to<BR>lead Bnei Yisrael into the
'land'.<BR> The lesson that we can learn from this
Parsha is<BR>certainly not 'how to criticize' Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather,
it<BR>should remind us when teaching - to keep in mind the emotional<BR>needs of
our students; and when studying - to keep in mind the<BR>potential of how much
we can gain from our teachers.<BR> <BR> shabbat
shalom<BR> menachem<BR>===================<BR>FOR FURTHER
IYUN</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. See Shmot 34:30-35 in relation to the
'masveh' - the veil<BR>- which Moshe wore after his descent from Har
Sinai.<BR> How does this relate to the above shiur?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. Considering the parallel between Har Sinai
and Gan Eden,<BR>why do you think that the sin of the mit'avim ('ta'ava')
is<BR>significant? [Relate to Breishit 3:6-8!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. In relation to the Midrash quoted in the
shiur on: 'Va-<BR>yis'u me-har Hashem ....' (10:33) : 'ke-tinok ha-boreiach
mi-<BR>bet ha-sefer'<BR>[like a child running away from
school]<BR> Most children stay in school because they
must. Usually,<BR>school attendance is not an outcome of total
identification<BR>with the importance of education, rather a result of
parental<BR>coercion. A child's joy on the last day of school
usually<BR>does not stem from recognition of his academic achievements,<BR>but
more likely from his expectations for having fun during<BR>vacation. This,
according to Chazal, was the level of Bnei<BR>Yisrael after their year at Har
Sinai. They did not fully<BR>appreciate the privilege of receiving the
Torah. Instead of<BR>looking forward to transferring the ideals of the Har
Sinai<BR>into daily life in Eretz Yisrael, they were more interested in<BR>just
getting on with normal life, while 'running away' from<BR>their spiritual
obligations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4. Note how later on in Sefer Bamidbar,
Moshe's initial<BR>reaction to most every complaint is 'va-yipol al panav' -
and<BR>"he fell on his face"./ See meraglim, korach and mei
meriva.<BR> Thus, Moshe's reaction to the mit'avim is
not an isolated<BR>event. It opens an entire chain of incidents in which
Moshe<BR>Rabbeinu's leadership appears to falter, concluding with the<BR>events
of mei meriva (20:7-13) where God decides that Moshe<BR>cannot lead Bnei Yisrael
into the Promised Land.<BR> As we explained, the famous
Midrash concerning the 'nevu'a<BR>of Eldad and Meidad (the two elders who were
not included with<BR>the other seventy / read 11:26-29) reflects this
connection<BR>between Moshe's reaction to the sin of the mit'avim and
his<BR>ultimate fate of not entering Eretz Yisrael. Even though
the<BR>Torah does not specify precisely what Eldad & Meidad had said,<BR>the
Midrash fills it in for us:<BR> "Moshe meit ve-Yehoshua machnisam
la-aretz" - Moshe is going<BR> to die and Yehoshua will lead them into the
Land (Rashi<BR> 11:26).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Although this interpretation is
not the obvious 'pshat' of<BR>these psukim (as we can discern from Moshe
Rabbeinu's reaction<BR>to Yehoshua's complaint / see 11:26-29), the Midrash may
be<BR>alluding to the overall pshat of this parsha in Sefer<BR>Bamidbar.
In the very same 'parsha' where Moshe is unable to<BR>deal with the mundane
complaints of the people, the Midrash<BR>already sees his ultimate inability to
lead Am Yisrael into<BR>Eretz Yisrael.<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>