The Haftarah of Chukas relays the story of the shofet Yiftach. The most obvious connection between the parsha and the haftarah seems to be the description of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael given by Moshe in the parsha and Yiftach in the haftarah. Nonetheless, there seems to be a more intertwined connection that connects Yiftach to an even earlier period in Jewish history, thereby delivering an additional message.
Yiftach is chased away from his home by his brothers and achieves great success on his own. There is obvious animosity between the family, yet when they come to him for help, Yiftach responds positively. Yiftach puts aside the history of animosity because he understands that, irrespective of any issues, one must answer the call of a Jew in need.
Avraham Avinu had a similar experience. Avraham understood that there was a riv bein mikne roeh Lot uven roeh mikne Avram - there was conflict between his people and Lot's. Avraham could no longer live in the same vicinity as Lot and so they part ways. Nonetheless, when Avraham heard of the trouble that befell Lot and the danger he was in, he sprang to action, putting aside all their differences to come to the aid of a brother in need.
The Navi tells us that Yiftach's family returned to ask him to be their leader. Yiftach responds halo atem s'naisem osi vategarshuni mibeis avi u'madua basem elai ata - you hate me and chased me away so why do you come back now. This same claim is made by Yitzchak Avinu. After Yitzchak achieves great success in the land of the Plishtim he is chased away and battles with the Plishtim about water wells. Upon witnessing the remarkable, heaven-sent success of Yitzchak, Avimelech approaches Yitzchak to suggest a treaty between them. Yitzchak responds madua basem elai v'atem s'naisem osi vateshalchuni me'itchem - why do you come to me? You hate me and chased me away from you. Yiftach's connection is not only with Avraham but continues with Yitzchak.
Just prior to Yiftach's commencement of the war against Amon, he prays to Hashem. The verse states vayidar Yiftach neder Lashem - Yiftach makes a neder (promise) to Hashem. If Hashem will grant him success in battle then he promises something in return. Yaakov Avinu acted similarly. Upon leaving his parents' home, Yaakov has a dream. Upon awakening, he realizes that he is in a special place and the verse states vayidar Yaakov neder - Yaakov makes a neder. He, too, says that if Hashem will watch over him and grant him success in his endeavors then he will do things in return.
These comparisons of Yiftach with epsisodes and acts of Avraham, Yitzvhak, and Yaakov are also acts that find comparisons in parshas Chukas. Moshe Rabbeinu is told that he will not be able to bring Bnei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. His role will end prior to their entry. Yet, immediately after this pronouncement by Hashem, Moshe begins the battles necessary to assure Bnei Yisrael's entry into the Land, even while knowing that the sooner they enter the land the sooner will end his role. He immediately confronts Midyan to assure Bnei Yisrael's success because when Bnei Yisrael are in need the call must be answered regardless of the personal consequences.
The idea of water wells also plays a prominent role in the parsha. The punishment of Moshe and Aharon occur through the well and Bnei Yisrael sing about the wonders of the well. The water well can cause great damage but it can also bring about miracles and salvation. The wells of Yitzchak brought about pain, anguish, and hatred but they also brought great bracha of success (Meah Shearim).
Lastly, Chukas also tells us of a neder made by Bnei Yisrael. After the battle with Canaan results in one Jew being taken captive, Bnei Yisrael seek salvation and make a neder to Hashem - vayidar Yisrael neder Lashem - if Hashem brings about their salvation then they will do something in return.
It is not merely that there are comparisons in both the parsha and the haftarah to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, but that they are the same comparisons. There are numerous stories of the Avos but parshas Chukas and the haftarah of Chukas make reference to the same specific stories of the Avos: Avraham's battle against those that harm his family, Yitzchak's episode with the well, Yaakov's neder. What is the lesson?
If anyone had reason NOT to battle against the goyim, it was Avraham. Avraham epitomized chesed. Avraham was widely accepted by his neighbors and countrymen as nesi Elokim. War against his countrymen and neighbors would surely diminish his standing, endanger his security, and impact his influence upon others, hence undermine his life's mission. Avraham could have easily rationalized that the long term benefit of maintaining peaceful relationships outweighed the short term requirements of coming to the aid of his family. Instead, Avraham acted as a warrior. His brother was in need and he did not hesitate for even a moment to come to his aid. The potential consequences of his actions were inconsequential relative to the importance of helping a Jew in need.
If anyone had reason to act in violence against Avimelech, it was Yitzchak. Yitzchak epitomized gevurah and mishpat. Avimelech expelled Yitzchak from his land and actively and overtly hated him. Yitzchak could have easily rationalized that there could be nothing positive from negotiation or reconciliation with Avimelech. Yet, Yitzchak acted in peace. Yitzchak chose the path of peace hoping that even a partial avoidance of confrontation would benefit his family.
Rarely are life's circumstances clearly black and white. We are often unsure of the proper path to take and there are often valid arguments for each side. Sometimes, the headstrong need to act in peace and the passive need to act with strength and aggressiveness. Our knowledge of the right path is limited. There is only one thing we can do to assure success: neder Lashem. We must seek out the guidance of Hashem and His Torah, ask for his kindness and protection so that whatever decision is made will procure positive results. The parsha is informing us that whether we choose to act forcefully or peacefully with the nations of the world, the formula for success is simple: neder Lashem. The Torah is informing us that if we make a neder Lashem, if we put our trust and faith in Hashem, if we earnestly pray for his guidance and protection then the decision made - regardless of the position in which it falls on the spectrum - will be a successful one. Whether the decision employs the chesed of Avraham or the battles of Avraham, the gevurah of Yitzchak or the peace treaties of Yitzchak, the battles of Moshe and Yiftach or the peaceful miracles of the well and the reconciliation of Yiftach and his family, ultimately, success is dependent upon the extent, the power, and the commitment of our neder Lashem.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Korach
The sin of Korach and his followers seems to be their rebellion against the authority of Moshe Rabbeinu and the position of Aharon HaKohen. In parshas Beha'aloscha the Torah informs us of the appointment of the seventy Elders. The Elders are asked to join Moshe Rabbeinu in the Ohel Moed where Hashem, through Moshe, will bestow the Shechinah upon them. Eldad and Meidad are designated to be part of this group of seventy. Yet, they choose to remain in the camp and not join Moshe and the other Elders in the Ohel Moed. This, too, seems like a blatant rebellion against Moshe's command and authority. Yet they are not severely chastised for their actions as was Korach. In fact, Moshe defends their actions against the prosecution of Yehoshua. What is so different about the seemingly rebellious actions of Eldad and Meidad and those of Korach?
Second: the haftarah speaks of the annointment of the first king of Israel - Shaul Hamelech - by Shmuel Hanavi. What is the connection between the parsha and the Haftarah?
Third: the haftarah tells us that Shmuel was not pleased with the request of Bnei Yisrael for a king to lead them. Displaying his displeasure, Shmuel vows to bring a sign from Heaven proving he is right. Shmuel states hisyatzvu u'reu - stand and see. After witnessing the extraordinary sign that Shmuel brings, the verse states vayiru kol ha'am m'od es Hashem v'es Shmuel - the people feared Hashem and Shmuel. These phrases are very similar to those stated at the splitting of the sea. There, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael hisyatzvu u'reu es yeshuas Hashem - stand and witness the salvation brought by Hashem. Similarly, after the splitting of the sea the verse tells us vayiru ha'am es Hashem vaya'aminu Bashem u'v'Moshe avdo - the people feared Hashem and believed in Hashem and his servant Moshe. What is the connection between the episode of the splitting of the sea and that of the anointment of Shaul as king?
The concept of always questioning and seeking greater understanding is an inherent quality of the Jewish people, essential for our existence and growth. Yahadus encourages questions and salutes inquiry as a tool for personal growth. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that questions are to be utilized to better understand the depths of an idea or practice, to learn the meaning behind something and thereby improve and enhance one's avodas Hashem. Questions are not to be used as a method of undermining authority, disparaging one's motives, or as personal affronts to individuals. Questioning authority for its sake, questioning leadership as a personal crusade is unacceptable. Respect for the Torah and Rabbinic authority is of paramount importance and a foundational element in Judaism.
Eldad and Meidad did not question Moshe Rabbeinu or his authority. They did not question a halacha nor the request and command of Moshe Rabbeinu. They simply questioned the need for others to help in the leadership role of the people alongside Moshe Rabbeinu, fully confident that Moshe could lead Bnei Yisrael without any help. Korach, on the other hand, questioned Moshe's authority. Korach did not question the concept behind a decision or halacha. (In fact, in the initial stages of the conversation, Moshe was not angry at Korach, assuming he was merely questioning for the sake of learning and furthering his avodas Hashem. It is only after Korach goes from tent to tent garnering support that Moshe's anger is kindled, realizing that Korach's motives were merely to stir controversy and rebellion.)
While standing at the sea, Bnei Yisrael see the impassable sea in front of them, the powerful Egyptian army behind them and the impenetrable desert on either side. Panic sets in. Chazal tell us that they broke into various factions; some wanted to cross the sea, others wanted to return to Egypt, etc. None of these were acts of rebellion. They were simply debating the appropriate course of action to be taken under the circumstances.
The haftarah contrasts the request of a king with the rebellion of Korach. The initial request for a king is met with anger by Shmuel as it is seen as an act of rebellion against Hashem and existing authority. However, even after the remorse of the people is expressed, the decision to proceed with a new royal governmental structure is not overturned. Why not? If it is, indeed, a regretful act of rebellion, then why proceed?
Early in the episode described in the haftarah, Shmuel asks the people to affirm that he has never harmed anyone. Shmuel does so out of concern that the request for a king is actually a rebellion against authority and, ultimately, Hashem. Once the people affirm Shmuel's righteousness, Shmuel realizes that this is actually not an act of rebellion. Bnei Yisrael are merely searching for the optimal system of government. Their experience causes them to question the system of Judges and, therefore, recommend a government headed by a king. This is similar to the debate that occurred at the Sea, when Bnei Yisrael did not rebel with their varying factions but were merely debating the most appropriate course of action. The linguistic similarities presented in the haftarah to Krias Yam Suf further emphasize the contrast between the rebellious act of Korach and the episode of requesting a king. The former describes the rebellious questioning of individuals, authority, and leadership while the latter describes the questioning nature of the Jewish people in their constant striving towards self improvement.
Inquiring, questioning properly and appropriately, are essential ingredients for personal and communal growth. Judaism encourages this with an appropriate realization of halachic, Rabbinic and, of course, Divine authority. Korach's questions were rebellious at their core. Acts of that nature need to be eliminated from a functioning society. However, questioning to improve with the appropriate deference to authority leads to a refined individual and a refined community.
Second: the haftarah speaks of the annointment of the first king of Israel - Shaul Hamelech - by Shmuel Hanavi. What is the connection between the parsha and the Haftarah?
Third: the haftarah tells us that Shmuel was not pleased with the request of Bnei Yisrael for a king to lead them. Displaying his displeasure, Shmuel vows to bring a sign from Heaven proving he is right. Shmuel states hisyatzvu u'reu - stand and see. After witnessing the extraordinary sign that Shmuel brings, the verse states vayiru kol ha'am m'od es Hashem v'es Shmuel - the people feared Hashem and Shmuel. These phrases are very similar to those stated at the splitting of the sea. There, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael hisyatzvu u'reu es yeshuas Hashem - stand and witness the salvation brought by Hashem. Similarly, after the splitting of the sea the verse tells us vayiru ha'am es Hashem vaya'aminu Bashem u'v'Moshe avdo - the people feared Hashem and believed in Hashem and his servant Moshe. What is the connection between the episode of the splitting of the sea and that of the anointment of Shaul as king?
The concept of always questioning and seeking greater understanding is an inherent quality of the Jewish people, essential for our existence and growth. Yahadus encourages questions and salutes inquiry as a tool for personal growth. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that questions are to be utilized to better understand the depths of an idea or practice, to learn the meaning behind something and thereby improve and enhance one's avodas Hashem. Questions are not to be used as a method of undermining authority, disparaging one's motives, or as personal affronts to individuals. Questioning authority for its sake, questioning leadership as a personal crusade is unacceptable. Respect for the Torah and Rabbinic authority is of paramount importance and a foundational element in Judaism.
Eldad and Meidad did not question Moshe Rabbeinu or his authority. They did not question a halacha nor the request and command of Moshe Rabbeinu. They simply questioned the need for others to help in the leadership role of the people alongside Moshe Rabbeinu, fully confident that Moshe could lead Bnei Yisrael without any help. Korach, on the other hand, questioned Moshe's authority. Korach did not question the concept behind a decision or halacha. (In fact, in the initial stages of the conversation, Moshe was not angry at Korach, assuming he was merely questioning for the sake of learning and furthering his avodas Hashem. It is only after Korach goes from tent to tent garnering support that Moshe's anger is kindled, realizing that Korach's motives were merely to stir controversy and rebellion.)
While standing at the sea, Bnei Yisrael see the impassable sea in front of them, the powerful Egyptian army behind them and the impenetrable desert on either side. Panic sets in. Chazal tell us that they broke into various factions; some wanted to cross the sea, others wanted to return to Egypt, etc. None of these were acts of rebellion. They were simply debating the appropriate course of action to be taken under the circumstances.
The haftarah contrasts the request of a king with the rebellion of Korach. The initial request for a king is met with anger by Shmuel as it is seen as an act of rebellion against Hashem and existing authority. However, even after the remorse of the people is expressed, the decision to proceed with a new royal governmental structure is not overturned. Why not? If it is, indeed, a regretful act of rebellion, then why proceed?
Early in the episode described in the haftarah, Shmuel asks the people to affirm that he has never harmed anyone. Shmuel does so out of concern that the request for a king is actually a rebellion against authority and, ultimately, Hashem. Once the people affirm Shmuel's righteousness, Shmuel realizes that this is actually not an act of rebellion. Bnei Yisrael are merely searching for the optimal system of government. Their experience causes them to question the system of Judges and, therefore, recommend a government headed by a king. This is similar to the debate that occurred at the Sea, when Bnei Yisrael did not rebel with their varying factions but were merely debating the most appropriate course of action. The linguistic similarities presented in the haftarah to Krias Yam Suf further emphasize the contrast between the rebellious act of Korach and the episode of requesting a king. The former describes the rebellious questioning of individuals, authority, and leadership while the latter describes the questioning nature of the Jewish people in their constant striving towards self improvement.
Inquiring, questioning properly and appropriately, are essential ingredients for personal and communal growth. Judaism encourages this with an appropriate realization of halachic, Rabbinic and, of course, Divine authority. Korach's questions were rebellious at their core. Acts of that nature need to be eliminated from a functioning society. However, questioning to improve with the appropriate deference to authority leads to a refined individual and a refined community.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Shelach
Throughout the episode of the spies, the terms used to describe Bnei Yisrael are edah and Bnei Yisrael. There is one exception. After the debate between Kalev and Yehoshua on the one hand and the rest of the spies on the other, Bnei Yisrael exclaim nitnah rosh v'nashuva mitzraymah - let us appoint new leadership and return to Egypt. The verse then states vayipol Moshe v'Aharon al pneihem lifnei kol KEHAL ADAS BNEI YISRAEL - Moshe and Aharon fell (prostrated) before all of kehal adas Bnei Yisrael. Here, three terms are used to describe the Jewish People: kehal, adas, Bnei Yisrael.
The Ramban explains that the reason Moshe and Aharon 'fell on their faces' was out of despair and hopelessness. They were perplexed and simply did not know what to do to rectify the situation. Tragically, it is particularly at this moment that Moshe and Aharon were needed most to provide leadership and guidance. There is conflict among the spies. Bnei Yisrael are confused. This is precisely the time for Moshe and Aharon to rise up and provide clarity. Why, then, are they falling on their faces in despair and hopelessness?
At the end of parshas Shelach, we read the portion defining the mitzvah of tzitzis. The verse states v'lo sasuru acharei levavchem v'acharei eineichem - do not stray after your hearts and eyes. Rashi explains that lo tasuru should be understood 'k'mo mitur ha'aretz. The term taturu is similar to the term used defining the mission of the spies discussed earlier in the parsha. Rashi explains further: halev v'ha'ayin heim meraglim laguf...ha'ayin roeh vehalev chomed vehaguf oseh es ha'aveiros - the heart and the eyes are the spies for the body...the eye sees, the heart desires, and the body performs the transgression.
Rashi's explanation requires clarification. Firstly, Rashi compares the wandering after the eyes and heart to the spies. However, the spies saw and did NOT desire.They saw Eretz Yisrael, admitted that it is indeed a land flowing with milk and honey and still did NOT want to enter the land. This seems to be the opposite reaction to the one Rashi describes.
Second, the verse itself seems to conflict with Rashi's explanation. Rashi states that the eye sees and then the heart desires. If that were the case then the verse should have stated its phrases in reverse order and stated v'lo sasuru acharei eineichem v'acharei levavchem. But, in fact, the verse states the heart before the eyes - v'lo sasuru acharei levavchem v'acharei eineichem - implying that the heart desires before the eye sees.
We are told of many instances of Bnei Yisrael complaining and sinning in the desert. Often, the subsequent punishment included fatalities of even thousands of people. Yet, the episode of the spies resulted in the loss of 600,000 lives, an entire generation was destroyed. It is hard to believe that after hearing the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu, hearing the claims of Moshe and Aharon, hearing the testimony of Yehoshua and Kalev, that there was not even one person who believed them and sided with them. Even if no one completely agreed, there had to be some who had some doubts regarding the testimony of the spies. Yet, the entire generation was eventually destroyed.
The term edah is often used to connote a negative element amongst the Jewish people. The term Bnei Yisrael is usually used to connote a positive element amongst the Jewish people. It is used when we are worthy of the exalted name of Yisrael. The term kehal is at times used to connote a negative element and at times used to connote a positive element. For instance, when Bnei Yisrael complain of lack of water, the verse states vayiKAHALu al Moshe v'Aharon. Yet, we know that the mitzvah of HAKHEL signifies a very positive event.
At this point of their journey, Moshe and Aharon were expecting to bring Bnei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael in short order. Therefore, as leaders, they needed to prepare Bnei Yisrael for practical, every day life, a life quite dissimilar than the one filled with constant miracles they were currently experiencing in the desert. Specifically now, they were attempting to teach Bnei Yisrael an essential life lesson: life is complex. Not everything is black and white. There are times filled with conflict and confusion. Each individual needs to make decisions and not constantly rely on others to decide for them. The debate between Yehoshua and Kalev on one hand and the other spies on the other simply laid out the facts. The leaders - Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua, Kalev - expressed their opinion. Others disagreed. It was now time for each individual to take a stand. Straddling the fence on the issue was unacceptable. It was time to take a stand and decide to do the right thing, to pick a side and insist on implementing that decision. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces, as if to say, 'there is nothing more for us to do. The decision is now each of yours'.
Similarly, it is for this reason that the verse refers to the Jewish people as kehal adas bnei Yisrael in this instance. Whether a person was categorized amongst the negative edah, the confused kehal, or the positive Bnei Yisrael, now was the time for individuals to stand up and be counted.
This is the explanation of Rashi at the end of the parsha as well. There are, indeed, times when the eyes see, the heart desires, and the body sins. However, there are other times when it is precisely the weakness of the heart that causes the eyes to have a distorted view. This was what Rashi means when he compares lo sasuru to kemo metur ha'aretz. The comparison to the spies is specifically the weakness of the heart that made them, and consequently Bnei Yisrael, stray. Their weak hearts distorted the view of a land that they admitted was flowing with milk and honey. The subtle difference between Rashi's explanation of the verse and the actual episode of the spies, as well as the difference between Rashi's explanation and the order of the terms in the verse, delivers the dual lesson. The eyes can lead the body astray. Beware, however, of the weak heart which can distort even a proper viewing of the eyes.
If, instead, we follow the lead of the spies described in the haftarah during the time of Bnei Yisrael's entry into the land then we will be able to overcome all obstacles ki nasan Hashem b'yadeinu. Rak chazak ve'ematz.
The Ramban explains that the reason Moshe and Aharon 'fell on their faces' was out of despair and hopelessness. They were perplexed and simply did not know what to do to rectify the situation. Tragically, it is particularly at this moment that Moshe and Aharon were needed most to provide leadership and guidance. There is conflict among the spies. Bnei Yisrael are confused. This is precisely the time for Moshe and Aharon to rise up and provide clarity. Why, then, are they falling on their faces in despair and hopelessness?
At the end of parshas Shelach, we read the portion defining the mitzvah of tzitzis. The verse states v'lo sasuru acharei levavchem v'acharei eineichem - do not stray after your hearts and eyes. Rashi explains that lo tasuru should be understood 'k'mo mitur ha'aretz. The term taturu is similar to the term used defining the mission of the spies discussed earlier in the parsha. Rashi explains further: halev v'ha'ayin heim meraglim laguf...ha'ayin roeh vehalev chomed vehaguf oseh es ha'aveiros - the heart and the eyes are the spies for the body...the eye sees, the heart desires, and the body performs the transgression.
Rashi's explanation requires clarification. Firstly, Rashi compares the wandering after the eyes and heart to the spies. However, the spies saw and did NOT desire.They saw Eretz Yisrael, admitted that it is indeed a land flowing with milk and honey and still did NOT want to enter the land. This seems to be the opposite reaction to the one Rashi describes.
Second, the verse itself seems to conflict with Rashi's explanation. Rashi states that the eye sees and then the heart desires. If that were the case then the verse should have stated its phrases in reverse order and stated v'lo sasuru acharei eineichem v'acharei levavchem. But, in fact, the verse states the heart before the eyes - v'lo sasuru acharei levavchem v'acharei eineichem - implying that the heart desires before the eye sees.
We are told of many instances of Bnei Yisrael complaining and sinning in the desert. Often, the subsequent punishment included fatalities of even thousands of people. Yet, the episode of the spies resulted in the loss of 600,000 lives, an entire generation was destroyed. It is hard to believe that after hearing the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu, hearing the claims of Moshe and Aharon, hearing the testimony of Yehoshua and Kalev, that there was not even one person who believed them and sided with them. Even if no one completely agreed, there had to be some who had some doubts regarding the testimony of the spies. Yet, the entire generation was eventually destroyed.
The term edah is often used to connote a negative element amongst the Jewish people. The term Bnei Yisrael is usually used to connote a positive element amongst the Jewish people. It is used when we are worthy of the exalted name of Yisrael. The term kehal is at times used to connote a negative element and at times used to connote a positive element. For instance, when Bnei Yisrael complain of lack of water, the verse states vayiKAHALu al Moshe v'Aharon. Yet, we know that the mitzvah of HAKHEL signifies a very positive event.
At this point of their journey, Moshe and Aharon were expecting to bring Bnei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael in short order. Therefore, as leaders, they needed to prepare Bnei Yisrael for practical, every day life, a life quite dissimilar than the one filled with constant miracles they were currently experiencing in the desert. Specifically now, they were attempting to teach Bnei Yisrael an essential life lesson: life is complex. Not everything is black and white. There are times filled with conflict and confusion. Each individual needs to make decisions and not constantly rely on others to decide for them. The debate between Yehoshua and Kalev on one hand and the other spies on the other simply laid out the facts. The leaders - Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua, Kalev - expressed their opinion. Others disagreed. It was now time for each individual to take a stand. Straddling the fence on the issue was unacceptable. It was time to take a stand and decide to do the right thing, to pick a side and insist on implementing that decision. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces, as if to say, 'there is nothing more for us to do. The decision is now each of yours'.
Similarly, it is for this reason that the verse refers to the Jewish people as kehal adas bnei Yisrael in this instance. Whether a person was categorized amongst the negative edah, the confused kehal, or the positive Bnei Yisrael, now was the time for individuals to stand up and be counted.
This is the explanation of Rashi at the end of the parsha as well. There are, indeed, times when the eyes see, the heart desires, and the body sins. However, there are other times when it is precisely the weakness of the heart that causes the eyes to have a distorted view. This was what Rashi means when he compares lo sasuru to kemo metur ha'aretz. The comparison to the spies is specifically the weakness of the heart that made them, and consequently Bnei Yisrael, stray. Their weak hearts distorted the view of a land that they admitted was flowing with milk and honey. The subtle difference between Rashi's explanation of the verse and the actual episode of the spies, as well as the difference between Rashi's explanation and the order of the terms in the verse, delivers the dual lesson. The eyes can lead the body astray. Beware, however, of the weak heart which can distort even a proper viewing of the eyes.
If, instead, we follow the lead of the spies described in the haftarah during the time of Bnei Yisrael's entry into the land then we will be able to overcome all obstacles ki nasan Hashem b'yadeinu. Rak chazak ve'ematz.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Beha'aloscha
Parshas Beha'aloscha delivers a major shift in the attitude of Bnei Yisrael in the desert. The Talmud tells us that Parshas Beha'aloscha actually contains three distinct parshiyos: the portion prior to the verse of vayehi binsoa ha'aron; the parsha of vayehi binsoa ha'aron; and the portion after vayehi binsoa ha'aron. There is a noticeable distinction between the description of Bnei Yisrael before and after the portion of vayehi binsoa. The second half of Beha'aloscha describes an ungrateful, complaining nation living with an attitude of entitlement. The parsha also presents a leadership challenge. Moshe Rabbeinu is challenged like he hasn't been challenged before through numerous episodes. Similarly, his approach to leadership has some subtle changes as well.
Many parhiyos earlier - in parshas Yisro - we also witness lessons in leadership. There is an interesting similarity between parshas Yisro and Beha'aloscha. In Beha'aloscha, Moshe Rabbeinu states lo uchal anochi levadi laseis es kol ha'am hazeh ki khaveid mimeni - I am unable to carry the burden of this entire nation for they are too heavy for me. In parshas Yisro, while conveying a lesson to Moshe Rabbeinu, Yisro states ki khaveid mimcha hadavar lo tuchal asohu levadecha - the burden (of the people) is too great for you to carry alone. The language used to describe Moshe's inability to carry the burden of the people alone is similar. However, the responses are radically different.
Yisro tells Moshe to gather anshei chayil, yirei Elokim anshei emes sonay botza. Rashi explains that the people to be gathered by Moshe to aid in judging the nation should be ones who are ashirim she'ain tzrichin l'hachanif u'l'hakir panim - rich, powerful men who have no need to show extra kindness to anyone else. They are self sufficient and will, therefore, be capable of making cold, calculated, rational, halachic decisions without unnecessary external influences.
In Beha'aloscha, Moshe is told by Hashem to gather shivim ish miziknei ha'am asher yadata ki haim ziknei ha'am v'shotrav. Rashi explains that the seventy Elders to be gathered to aid in leading the nation were the shotrim - officers - who withstood punishment in Egypt for their refusal to inflict punishment on the people. They burdened extra persecution due to their compassion for Bnei Yisrael. As Rashi continues - vehayu merachamim aleihem - they had mercy upon Bnei Yisrael. The leaders sought in Beha'aloscha are not cold and calculated, unaffected by external influences. Rather, they are merachamim - merciful and compassionate, kind and considerate, always concerned about feelings and emotions of others, not restricted by uncompromising intellectual and rational decision making processes.
The comparative language describing the burdens of leadership combined with the disparate solutions inform us that Jewish leadership requires both qualities. There are times when strict judgement is necessary and there are times when mercy and compassion are the order of the day. Though there are times when one of these elements is more prominent than the other, leaders must find a way to combine these qualities to deliver an effective and optimal solution.
Jewish leadership parallels Jewish life. In our prayers on the High Holidays we say im kevanim im ka'avadim. There are times when Bnei Yisrael are considered servants and subjects and times when we are considered children of Hashem. Im kevanim rachameinu k'racheim av al banim - when considered children we ask for mercy, like that of a father to his son. Im ka'avadim eineinu lecha tluyos at shetachaneinu - when considered servants we look for mishpat - judgement - that is proper. This, too, is the idea of Avinu malkeinu. In some ways we are children looking to our Father and in some ways we are subjects looking to our King. These two ideas are not separate and distinct. It is not that there are specific times for one over the other. Perhaps there are times when one is more prominent than the other but both elements of beloved child and loyal servant are aspects of our personality that are constant.
Manhigei Yisrael - Jewish leaders must recognize that both elements constantly exist and, therefore, their leadership must always contain both mishpat/judgement and rachamim/compassion and mercy.
Many parhiyos earlier - in parshas Yisro - we also witness lessons in leadership. There is an interesting similarity between parshas Yisro and Beha'aloscha. In Beha'aloscha, Moshe Rabbeinu states lo uchal anochi levadi laseis es kol ha'am hazeh ki khaveid mimeni - I am unable to carry the burden of this entire nation for they are too heavy for me. In parshas Yisro, while conveying a lesson to Moshe Rabbeinu, Yisro states ki khaveid mimcha hadavar lo tuchal asohu levadecha - the burden (of the people) is too great for you to carry alone. The language used to describe Moshe's inability to carry the burden of the people alone is similar. However, the responses are radically different.
Yisro tells Moshe to gather anshei chayil, yirei Elokim anshei emes sonay botza. Rashi explains that the people to be gathered by Moshe to aid in judging the nation should be ones who are ashirim she'ain tzrichin l'hachanif u'l'hakir panim - rich, powerful men who have no need to show extra kindness to anyone else. They are self sufficient and will, therefore, be capable of making cold, calculated, rational, halachic decisions without unnecessary external influences.
In Beha'aloscha, Moshe is told by Hashem to gather shivim ish miziknei ha'am asher yadata ki haim ziknei ha'am v'shotrav. Rashi explains that the seventy Elders to be gathered to aid in leading the nation were the shotrim - officers - who withstood punishment in Egypt for their refusal to inflict punishment on the people. They burdened extra persecution due to their compassion for Bnei Yisrael. As Rashi continues - vehayu merachamim aleihem - they had mercy upon Bnei Yisrael. The leaders sought in Beha'aloscha are not cold and calculated, unaffected by external influences. Rather, they are merachamim - merciful and compassionate, kind and considerate, always concerned about feelings and emotions of others, not restricted by uncompromising intellectual and rational decision making processes.
The comparative language describing the burdens of leadership combined with the disparate solutions inform us that Jewish leadership requires both qualities. There are times when strict judgement is necessary and there are times when mercy and compassion are the order of the day. Though there are times when one of these elements is more prominent than the other, leaders must find a way to combine these qualities to deliver an effective and optimal solution.
Jewish leadership parallels Jewish life. In our prayers on the High Holidays we say im kevanim im ka'avadim. There are times when Bnei Yisrael are considered servants and subjects and times when we are considered children of Hashem. Im kevanim rachameinu k'racheim av al banim - when considered children we ask for mercy, like that of a father to his son. Im ka'avadim eineinu lecha tluyos at shetachaneinu - when considered servants we look for mishpat - judgement - that is proper. This, too, is the idea of Avinu malkeinu. In some ways we are children looking to our Father and in some ways we are subjects looking to our King. These two ideas are not separate and distinct. It is not that there are specific times for one over the other. Perhaps there are times when one is more prominent than the other but both elements of beloved child and loyal servant are aspects of our personality that are constant.
Manhigei Yisrael - Jewish leaders must recognize that both elements constantly exist and, therefore, their leadership must always contain both mishpat/judgement and rachamim/compassion and mercy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)