[Par-reg.w] for parshat bhaalotcha - shiur
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Jun 6 05:34:35 EDT 2011
**********************************************************
***
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***
PARSHAT BEHA'ALOTCHA
Three books in one? So claim Chazal in regard to Sefer
Bamidbar! And what's more, one of those three books
contains
only two psukim!
[This statement is based on the 'sugya' in Shabbat 116a
(top
of the daf) concerning the two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-nso'a
ha-aron...' (that we recite when we take out the Sefer
Torah
/ see Bamidbar 10:35-36).]
To better appreciate the deeper meaning of this
statement, this week's shiur discusses an important
thematic
transition that takes place in Parshat Beha'alotcha.
INTRODUCTION
As anyone familiar with Chumash knows, the text of
Chumash in the actual Sefer Torah does not contain any
symbols
of punctuation. Nonetheless, in Parshat Beha'alotcha we
find
a very peculiar exception, as the two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-
nso'a ha-aron ...' are delimited by two upside down
'nun's' - acting like parenthesis, and thus causing these
psukim to 'stand out'.
For this 'technical' reason alone, we can certainly
assume that these two psukim must be special.
In an attempt to understand the reason for this
phenomenon,
the following shiur discusses the thematic importance of
these
two psukim by considering their location at a very pivotal
position in Sefer Bamidbar.
HIGH HOPES
To appreciate the internal structure of Sefer
Bamidbar,
we must first consider what its theme 'should have' been.
To
do so, let's quickly review the primary themes of the
previous
three books, as we have discussed in our series of
shiurim.
Sefer Breishit focused on God's choice of Avraham
(and
his offspring) to become His special nation ['bechira'].
Sefer Shmot described God's redemption of His nation from
Egypt, their subsequent journey to Har Sinai to receive
the
Torah, and construction of the mishkan - the symbol of
God's
presence in their midst. Finally, in Sefer Vayikra, Bnei
Yisrael received additional laws relating to both the
mishkan
and 'kedusha' [holiness] in their land and their daily
lives.
At this point, Bnei Yisrael were now ready to continue
their
journey from Har Sinai to inherit the 'Promised Land'.
Hence,
Sefer Bamidbar 'should have' been the story of that
journey
and their inheritance of the land. Tragically, in Sefer
Bamidbar those goals are never attained; however - by
considering those high expectations - we can better
appreciate
its content and structure.
For example, Sefer Bamidbar began by describing how
Bnei
Yisrael prepared for their journey to Eretz Canaan by
organizing the army while establishing the mishkan at the
center of their camp.
Note how this theme (of Bnei Yisrael's preparation
for
this journey) continues throughout the narrative in the
first
ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar:
* The army is organized and counted (chapters 1-2)
* The mishkan is placed at the focal point of the camp
(2-5)
* The national leaders participate in its dedication (7)
* The levi'im are appointed to become the spiritual
leaders
(chapters 3->4 & 8)
* The entire nation offers pesach rishon & sheni
(chapter 9)
* Final instructions are given re: how and when to
travel(10)
Had nothing 'gone wrong', it would have been
precisely at
this point (after chapter 10 in Sefer Bamidbar) that Bnei
Yisrael should have begun their magnificent journey to the
Promised Land. Instead, the next sixteen chapters (i.e.
chapters 11-26) discuss exactly the opposite, i.e. how
(and
why) Bnei Yisrael did not inherit the Land. In those
chapters, the Torah describes numerous incidents when Bnei
Yisrael rebelled against God, culminating with God's
decision
not to allow that generation to enter the land.
[The final ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar (27-36)
discuss
how the second generation prepares to enter the Land.]
THREE BOOKS
This analysis can help us appreicate the location of
the
two psukim of 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron', as they lie at
this
junction that divides Sefer Bamidbar into two distinct
sections:
A) Chaps. 1-10 - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for this
journey
B) Chaps. 11-26 - The actual journey (i.e. what went
wrong)
The last two psukim of chapter 10 ['va-yehi bi-nso'a
ha-
aron...'] form the divider between these two sections!
With this background, we can appreciate why Chazal
consider
Sefer Bamidbar as three books.
As the first ten chapters - preparation for travel -
form
a complete unit, they can be considered a 'book'.
Similarly,
chapters 11-36, describing the failure of the first
generation, also form a complete unit, and hence can also
be
considered a 'book'. However, even though the two psukim
of
'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron...' form a divider, we must
still
explain why Chazal consider them as a book as well.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN
One could suggest that these two psukim serve as more
than
just a buffer. Albeit their brevity, they do describe the
ideal fashion in which Bnei Yisrael should have traveled
on
their journey to inherit the Land. [For example, compare
with
Shmot 23:20-27, which describes God's original plan for
how
Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land.]
To emphasize what 'could have been' in contrast to
what
actually took place, the Torah intentionally delimits
these
two psukim with upside down nun's.
If so, then the 'three books' of Sefer Bamidbar would
be:
BOOK ONE - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey
(1-10)
This 'book' is followed by two 'versions' of that
journey:
BOOK TWO - the ideal (two psukim) - what 'could have
been'
BOOK THREE - the actual journey that 'failed'
(i.e. chapters 11-36)
To accent the tragedy of book three, the Torah first
presents a 'glimpse' of what 'could have been' in book two
-
the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have
travelled, had they not sinned.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
So what went wrong? What caused Bnei Yisrael to sin
at
the incidents of the 'mit'onenim', the 'mit'avim' and the
'meraglim' etc.?
Chazal find a 'hint' in the pasuk (which immediately
precedes 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron') that describes Bnei
Yisrael's departure from Har Sinai":
"And they travelled from God's mountain..."(see
10:33-34).
The Midrash comments:
"Like a child leaving school - running away, in the
same
manner Bnei Yisrael ran away from Har Sinai a three
day
distance, for they studied [too much] Torah at Har
Sinai..."
[Quoted in first Tosafot on Masechet Shabbat
116a].
This Midrash compares Bnei Yisrael's stay at Har
Sinai to
a 'school year' [quite appropriate for this time of year].
Even though they studied God's laws at Har Sinai, it seems
as
though the spirit of those laws were not internalized.
The
people were indeed looking forward to leaving Har Sinai,
but
they were not looking forward to keeping God's laws in
Eretz
Canaan.
Technically speaking, they may have been 'prepared' for
this
journey, but they most definitely were not spiritually
'ready'. [See further iyun section.]
In this manner, the Midrash is highlighting the
underlying reason that led to these sins. Once Bnei
Yisrael
left with the 'wrong attitude', it was inevitable that
they
would sin.
But who is to blame? Certainly, first and foremost
the
people themselves; but if we follow the 'school' analogy
of
this Midrash, we should also consider the possibility that
the
'faculty' may share some of the responsibility as well.
As we study Sefer Bamidbar, we will see how certain
incidents may even allude to this possibility. However,
the
first 'early warning' of teacher 'burn-out' is found
already
in Parshat Beha'alotcha.
HAS MOSHE 'HAD ENOUGH'?
Beginning with chapter 11, and in almost every
incident
when Bnei Yisrael sin in Sefer Bamidbar, we find a growing
strain in the relationship between Moshe Rabbeinu and the
people. Not only do the people constantly complain to
Moshe
about their plight in chapter 11, even his own brother and
sister criticize him in chapter 12!
In chapters 13-14, the meraglim [spies] incite a
national
rebellion calling for new leadership to take them back to
Egypt (see 14:1-5), while in chapter 16 (Parshat Korach)
we
find yet another rebellion against the leadership of both
Moshe and Aharon.
So, what went wrong?
The first sign of this leadership crisis already
surfaces
in the case of mit'avim (see 11:4-14), immediately after
Bnei
Yisrael left Har Sinai. Let's note Moshe's petition to
God in
reaction to Bnei Yisrael's complaint about the stale taste
of
the manna:
"... And Moshe pleaded to God: Why have You dealt so
harshly
with Your servant, and why have I not enjoyed Your favor
that
You have laid the burden of this people upon me? I cannot
carry all this people by myself for it is too much for me.
If
you would deal thus with me, kill me rather..."
(11:11-15).
In contrast to the Moshe Rabbeinu that we were
familiar
with from Sefer Shmot - who consistently defends Bnei
Yisrael
before God when they sin, now in Sefer Bamidbar Moshe's
attitude appears to be quite the opposite -he would rather
die
than continue to be their leader!
Note as well the obvious textual parallels that
highlight
this contrast. Compare:
* "lama hareyota le-avdecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) - with
"lama hareyota la-am ha-zeh..." (Shmot 5:22)
["Why have you dealt so harshly with Your people - for
what purpose have you sent me, for since I have gone
to
Pharaoh in Your Name, things have only become
worse..."]
* "lama lo matzati chein be-einecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11)
-
with
"ve-ata im matzati chein be-einecha..."(see Shmot
33:13,16)
["And now, if I have found favor in Your eyes, let me
know Your ways so I can find favor in Your eyes - and
see
that they are Your people... and how will I know that
I
and Your people have indeed found favor - when You
allow
Your Presence to travel with us..."]
and
* "If this is my plight [to lead them]- I'd rather
die..."
(11:15)
"If You forgive their sin [fine]... but if not erase me
from
Your book that you have written..." (see Shmot
32:30-32)
[In the above comparisons, note as well the Torah's
use
of key phrases such as 'charon af Hashem', 'ra'a',
'matzati cheyn be-einecha' etc.]
Is it not ironic that after the incident of 'chet
ha-egel'
Moshe is willing to die in order to save his nation (see
Shmot
32:32), while now he would rather die than lead his
nation!
In Sefer Shmot, Moshe was always 'sticking out his neck'
to
defend Bnei Yisrael, while now he appears to have 'given
up'.
[Note Rashi on Bamidbar 11:28 where he quotes the Sifri
that
explains how Eldad's & Meidad's prophecy at this
incident
was that 'Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead Bnei
Yisrael
into the Land instead'. This Midrash suggests as well
that
the failure of Moshe's leadership already begins with
this
incident of the mit'avim and is not solely due to his
sin at
'mei meriva' in chapter 20. / See further iyun section.]
This parallel, suggesting a possible flaw in Moshe
Rabbeinu himself, must bother every student of Chumash.
Could
it be that Moshe Rabbeinu reacted in an improper manner?
Is
it possible that the greatest prophet of all times, who
received the Torah and taught it to Bnei Yisrael, just
'gives
up'?
Is Moshe Rabbeinu - who took Bnei Yisrael out of
Egypt
and faithfully led them to Har Sinai - now unable to lead
them
on the last leg of their grand journey from Har Sinai to
Eretz
Canaan?
To answer yes would be blasphemous, yet answering no
would appear to be rather naive.
TOO HOLY TO LEAD
One could suggest that the contrast between Moshe's
reaction to chet ha-egel and his reaction to the mit'avim
stems from the motive behind each sin.
Despite the severity of chet ha-egel, Bnei Yisrael's
sin
was the result of a misguided desire to fill the spiritual
vacuum created by Moshe's absence. [See shiur on Parshat
Ki
Tisa.] In contrast, the sin of the mit'avim seems to have
been totally physical - an uncontrollable lust for food
['hit'avu ta'ava'].
Chet ha-egel presented an educational challenge that
Moshe Rabbeinu is willing to accept, i.e. to take this
misguided desire and channel it in the proper direction.
[Note commentators who understand the building of the
mishkan
as a 'tikkun' for the misguided intentions that led to
chet ha-
egel.]
However, after the lustful sin of the mit'avim, Moshe
Rabbeinu simply 'gives up'. He is unable to fathom how
this
nation, after spending an entire year at Har Sinai, have
become so preoccupied with such mundane desires. Moshe
simply
does not have the educational tools to deal with such a
low
level of behavior. [In other words - Moshe was hired to
be a
teacher, not a baby-sitter!]
God's immediate reaction to Moshe's petition may
reflect
this aspect of Moshe's leadership. God finds it necessary
to
take some of the ruach (spirit) from Moshe and transfer it
to
the seventy elders (see 11:16-17). God realizes that
Moshe
must now share some of his leadership responsibilities
with
elders who can possibly deal more realistically with this
type
of crisis.
One could suggest an additional insight. In Sefer
Bamidbar, Moshe Rabbeinu could be considered 'over
qualified'
or 'too holy' to lead the people.
After spending some six months on Har Sinai, Moshe
Rabbeinu
is on a spiritual level far higher than that of his
nation.
It is not that Moshe Rabbeinu is incapable of leading,
rather
the nation is on too low a level to benefit from his
leadership. Quite simply, 'over-qualified' for the job.
[Iy"h, we'll return to this topic in our shiur on Parshat
Chukat.]
Ultimately, Yehoshua will be chosen to lead Bnei
Yisrael
into the Promised Land. As the dedicated student of Moshe
Rabbeinu, and the experienced leader of his own tribe (and
of
the entire army in the battle against Amalek), Yehoshua
possesses the necessary leadership qualities. He is also
sufficiently 'down to earth', and therefore will be able
to
lead Bnei Yisrael into the 'land'.
The lesson that we can learn from this Parsha is
certainly not 'how to criticize' Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather,
it
should remind us when teaching - to keep in mind the
emotional
needs of our students; and when studying - to keep in mind
the
potential of how much we can gain from our teachers.
shabbat shalom
menachem
===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. See Shmot 34:30-35 in relation to the 'masveh' - the
veil
- which Moshe wore after his descent from Har Sinai.
How does this relate to the above shiur?
2. Considering the parallel between Har Sinai and Gan
Eden,
why do you think that the sin of the mit'avim ('ta'ava')
is
significant? [Relate to Breishit 3:6-8!]
3. In relation to the Midrash quoted in the shiur on:
'Va-
yis'u me-har Hashem ....' (10:33) : 'ke-tinok ha-boreiach
mi-
bet ha-sefer'
[like a child running away from school]
Most children stay in school because they must.
Usually,
school attendance is not an outcome of total
identification
with the importance of education, rather a result of
parental
coercion. A child's joy on the last day of school usually
does not stem from recognition of his academic
achievements,
but more likely from his expectations for having fun
during
vacation. This, according to Chazal, was the level of
Bnei
Yisrael after their year at Har Sinai. They did not fully
appreciate the privilege of receiving the Torah. Instead
of
looking forward to transferring the ideals of the Har
Sinai
into daily life in Eretz Yisrael, they were more
interested in
just getting on with normal life, while 'running away'
from
their spiritual obligations.
4. Note how later on in Sefer Bamidbar, Moshe's initial
reaction to most every complaint is 'va-yipol al panav' -
and
"he fell on his face"./ See meraglim, korach and mei
meriva.
Thus, Moshe's reaction to the mit'avim is not an
isolated
event. It opens an entire chain of incidents in which
Moshe
Rabbeinu's leadership appears to falter, concluding with
the
events of mei meriva (20:7-13) where God decides that
Moshe
cannot lead Bnei Yisrael into the Promised Land.
As we explained, the famous Midrash concerning the
'nevu'a
of Eldad and Meidad (the two elders who were not included
with
the other seventy / read 11:26-29) reflects this
connection
between Moshe's reaction to the sin of the mit'avim and
his
ultimate fate of not entering Eretz Yisrael. Even though
the
Torah does not specify precisely what Eldad & Meidad had
said,
the Midrash fills it in for us:
"Moshe meit ve-Yehoshua machnisam la-aretz" - Moshe is
going
to die and Yehoshua will lead them into the Land (Rashi
11:26).
Although this interpretation is not the obvious
'pshat' of
these psukim (as we can discern from Moshe Rabbeinu's
reaction
to Yehoshua's complaint / see 11:26-29), the Midrash may
be
alluding to the overall pshat of this parsha in Sefer
Bamidbar. In the very same 'parsha' where Moshe is unable
to
deal with the mundane complaints of the people, the
Midrash
already sees his ultimate inability to lead Am Yisrael
into
Eretz Yisrael.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20110606/f6ea1acb/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhal1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34210 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20110606/f6ea1acb/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-reg.w
mailing list