[Par-reg] For Parshat Bhaalotcha
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Jun 4 12:54:30 EDT 2015
*********************************************
****************
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/attachments/20150604/adde988e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/attachments/20150604/adde988e/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list