Towards the end of Parshas Ki Tetzei, the Torah delivers two commandments related to the ger, yasom, and almanah - the stranger, orphan, and widow. The first commandment relates to judgments. Lo sateh mishpat. The subsequent lesson delivered after the commandment states vezacharta ki eved hayisa b'Mitzrayim vayifdacha Hashem Elokecha misham al ken anochi metzavcha la'asos es hadavar hazeh - remember that you were slaves in Egypt and Hashem redeemed you from there, Therefore, I command you to perform this act.
Immediately following these verses, the Torah delivers the commandment to leave some of the harvest to the stranger, orphan, and widow. The subsequent statement is almost identical to the first: vezacharta ki eved hayisa b'eretz Mitzrayim al ken anochi metzavcha la'asos es hadavar hazeh. There are two subtle differences between this phrase and the one stated regarding judgments. This second phrase does not include the passage stating the Divine redemption from Egypt and, second, this second phrase includes the word eretz - land - when referring to Egypt whereas the first verse does not. Why are there these two slight differences?
Zechirah - remembering - is an integral part of Judaism. Often, we employ memory to remind us of events and stimulate us to action. Zechiras yetzias Mitzraym, zecher l'Mikdash are all memories that are utilized to stimulate action on our part. However, there are times when we are implored to remember not to spur us to action but rather to remind us what we should not do.
These verses do not refer to the exile from Egypt. Instead, they require us to remember our lives while dwelling in Egypt. The verses commanding us to act kindly in judgment ask us to remember our Egyptian experience. We are asked to remember the persecution and inequality that we suffered while enslaved and treated as a sub-human component of Egyptian society. Though, too often, upon removing the shackles of enslavement, a persecuted people lashes out and avenges its plight with as great a cruelty as they endured, the Torah commands us to do the opposite. We must remember the pain and suffering we endured while enslaved in Egypt specifically so that we will not do the same to others. We are commanded to do so by Hashem Who redeemed us from that enslavement. As an act of appreciation for this salvation, we are commanded to adhere to the laws.
This command refers to a general outlook on life. We are required to remember the overall plight of persecution and enslavement. We are required to remember that we were fortunate enough to be redeemed from it by Hashem. Therefore, we must treat others in a way that will not inflict the pain that we had to persevere unto others.
The second commandment requires to remember not just the general picture of persecution and enslavement but also the daily life experiences while living in Egypt; the struggles for food, sustenance, basic life necessities. We need to remember the cruelty, the harsh laws, the corruption that occurred daily so that we will avoid those same pitfalls in our own society.
The first commandment includes a reference to the redemption from Egypt and refers to Mitzrayim not merely as a land but also as an idea. The general ideas of life in Egypt must be incorporated into our minds so that we do not develop a society that is similar to Egypt. The second commandment asks us to remember details of life in the land of Egypt itself. Therefore, it emphasizes the word eretz - land- and need not include the redemption. Focus is to be made on life in the land of Egypt so that we will institute specific laws and rules that avoid the cruelty experienced during Egyptian bondage.
The subtle differences implore us to remember the overall Egyptian experience as well as the details of that experience so that we will create a society and communities of justice and fairness, ultimately bringing the ultimate redemption.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Shoftim
Parshas Shoftim describes the laws of annointing a king. The Torah seems to imply that there is a need to have a king rule the people once we have established ourselves in the Land. Yet, in Sefer Shmuel, Bnei Yisrael are rebuked for requesting a king to rule over them. One of the answers to this apparent contradiction bases its reasoning on specific words used in the command in parshas Shoftim versus those used in the request in Sefer Shmuel. In parshas Shoftim we are told som tasim ALECHA melech - we are to place a king UPON us. Whereas the request in sefer Shmuel utilizes the term lanu - for us - rather than alecha - upon us. The term alecha implies an understanding that the king is above us. He is the ruler and we are his subjects. As long as he adheres to the laws of the Torah, his authority is unquestioned and final. However, the term lanu implies that the king works for us, for the people. Therefore, the request was that the king should do the people's bidding and submit to the will of the people rather than being the authoritative figure described in the commandment.
In further detailing the laws of the king, the Torah warns the king l'vilti rum levavo me'echav - not to become haughty and pompous and raise himself above his brethren. This concept seems to contradict the previously stated distinction of the words alecha and lanu and the underlying premise that the king is supposed to be 'upon' the people, above them as ruler. Which one is it? Is the king supposed to be with us or above us?
A bit later in the parsha, the laws of war are discussed. The Torah tells us that prior to embarking on a military campaign, a rallying speech is given by the Kohen hamashuach encouraging the people to be confident in victory for Hashem leads them in battle and will assure victory. The verse tells us that the opening phrase of the Kohen's speech is shema Yisrael. The Talmud explains that this informs Bnei Yisrael that even if they only possess the merit of reciting the Shema they are still worthy of Divine salvation.
After this speech, the officers of the people continue by informing Bnei Yisrael of those who should return home and not accompany the army into battle. The last category of the excused are described as mi ha'ish hayarei v'rach halevav - those who are afraid. The Talmud explains that this means that those who are afraid that their sins will prevent them from exiting the battle unscathed are excused. The Talmud then questions what sins would be ones to be afraid of and responds that even a sin as seemingly minor as speaking between putting on the tefilin shel yad and the tefillin shel rosh without repeating a blessing is one to fear.
Didn't the Talmud just state that even the merit of merely reciting Shema was sufficient to assure salvation? It seems that one need not do more than that. Yet, the Talmud then states that even the slightest sin could potentially ruin the other merits and prevent victory. Which is it?
Chazal explain that Jewish royalty is, in a sense, a manifestation of malchus shamayim. The role of the king is to assure that Bnei Yisrael properly observe Torah and mitzvos. The honor given to the human king aids us in honoring Hashem. Therefore, a king who attempts to pardon his honor ein kvodo machul - the pardon is not valid. After all, it is not his honor to pardon. It is the honor of Hashem. The result of this attitude towards Jewish royalty is that all - both the king and the people - are commanded to give the proper honor to malchus shamayim. The laws pertaining to the king as well as the laws pertaining to the people emphasize this point, they just manifest themselves in different ways. The people are required to accept the rule of the king upon themselves since this rule is actually malchus shamayim, which the king is charged with upholding. Asking the king to submit to our will is comparable to asking malchus shamayim to submit to our will. Nonetheless, the king is equally enjoined to sumbit to malchus shamayim. He must remain humble and modest and understand that, he too, must submit to the will of Hashem and is implored not to become haughty.
This idea is correlated to the preparations for war. War carries with it the danger of assuming kochi v'otzem yadi asah li es hachayil hazeh. People, armies, kings can assume that it was their power, preparation, or strategy that caused the victory. Therefore, the Torah informs us that the most important factoid for one to have upon entering the battlefield is that ultimate victory is in the hands of Hashem. Therefore, the opening phrase of the Kohen's speech is Shema Yisrael. If we have the merit of saying the Shema every day with unwavering belief and confidence, if we state that phrase with understanding that Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, if we accept ol malchus shamayim daily with belief that Hashem controls everything, then we can be confident of victory on the battlefield as well. That single merit, that unwavering faith and belief, is enough to overcome all other flaws, shortcomings, and mistakes.
However, if even after we have heard the words of the Kohen and are assured that unwavering belief and faith will win the day, we still are yarei and rach levav - we are still filled with fear and trepidation - then that is a sign that our belief is lacking. If our belief is lacking then even the slightest sin is one to fear. As with the appointment of a king, everything is determined by our commitment and submission to malchus shamayim.
If the king sumbits to malchus shamayim, the people do the same and manifest this through observance of Torah and mitzvos as well as adhering to the Torah-based instructions of the king, then the merit of reciting the Shema daily with belief and conviction will overcome all other shortcomings and assure Divine salvation in all of our endeavors.
In further detailing the laws of the king, the Torah warns the king l'vilti rum levavo me'echav - not to become haughty and pompous and raise himself above his brethren. This concept seems to contradict the previously stated distinction of the words alecha and lanu and the underlying premise that the king is supposed to be 'upon' the people, above them as ruler. Which one is it? Is the king supposed to be with us or above us?
A bit later in the parsha, the laws of war are discussed. The Torah tells us that prior to embarking on a military campaign, a rallying speech is given by the Kohen hamashuach encouraging the people to be confident in victory for Hashem leads them in battle and will assure victory. The verse tells us that the opening phrase of the Kohen's speech is shema Yisrael. The Talmud explains that this informs Bnei Yisrael that even if they only possess the merit of reciting the Shema they are still worthy of Divine salvation.
After this speech, the officers of the people continue by informing Bnei Yisrael of those who should return home and not accompany the army into battle. The last category of the excused are described as mi ha'ish hayarei v'rach halevav - those who are afraid. The Talmud explains that this means that those who are afraid that their sins will prevent them from exiting the battle unscathed are excused. The Talmud then questions what sins would be ones to be afraid of and responds that even a sin as seemingly minor as speaking between putting on the tefilin shel yad and the tefillin shel rosh without repeating a blessing is one to fear.
Didn't the Talmud just state that even the merit of merely reciting Shema was sufficient to assure salvation? It seems that one need not do more than that. Yet, the Talmud then states that even the slightest sin could potentially ruin the other merits and prevent victory. Which is it?
Chazal explain that Jewish royalty is, in a sense, a manifestation of malchus shamayim. The role of the king is to assure that Bnei Yisrael properly observe Torah and mitzvos. The honor given to the human king aids us in honoring Hashem. Therefore, a king who attempts to pardon his honor ein kvodo machul - the pardon is not valid. After all, it is not his honor to pardon. It is the honor of Hashem. The result of this attitude towards Jewish royalty is that all - both the king and the people - are commanded to give the proper honor to malchus shamayim. The laws pertaining to the king as well as the laws pertaining to the people emphasize this point, they just manifest themselves in different ways. The people are required to accept the rule of the king upon themselves since this rule is actually malchus shamayim, which the king is charged with upholding. Asking the king to submit to our will is comparable to asking malchus shamayim to submit to our will. Nonetheless, the king is equally enjoined to sumbit to malchus shamayim. He must remain humble and modest and understand that, he too, must submit to the will of Hashem and is implored not to become haughty.
This idea is correlated to the preparations for war. War carries with it the danger of assuming kochi v'otzem yadi asah li es hachayil hazeh. People, armies, kings can assume that it was their power, preparation, or strategy that caused the victory. Therefore, the Torah informs us that the most important factoid for one to have upon entering the battlefield is that ultimate victory is in the hands of Hashem. Therefore, the opening phrase of the Kohen's speech is Shema Yisrael. If we have the merit of saying the Shema every day with unwavering belief and confidence, if we state that phrase with understanding that Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, if we accept ol malchus shamayim daily with belief that Hashem controls everything, then we can be confident of victory on the battlefield as well. That single merit, that unwavering faith and belief, is enough to overcome all other flaws, shortcomings, and mistakes.
However, if even after we have heard the words of the Kohen and are assured that unwavering belief and faith will win the day, we still are yarei and rach levav - we are still filled with fear and trepidation - then that is a sign that our belief is lacking. If our belief is lacking then even the slightest sin is one to fear. As with the appointment of a king, everything is determined by our commitment and submission to malchus shamayim.
If the king sumbits to malchus shamayim, the people do the same and manifest this through observance of Torah and mitzvos as well as adhering to the Torah-based instructions of the king, then the merit of reciting the Shema daily with belief and conviction will overcome all other shortcomings and assure Divine salvation in all of our endeavors.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
R'eh
Parshas R'eh leads with a vision of the spiritual climax of the journey of Bnei Yisrael that began with the exodus from Egypt. V'hayah ki y'viacha Hashem Elokecha el ha'aretz asher ata ba shamah l'rishtah...ki im el hamakom asher yivchar Hashem Elokeichem mikol shivteichem lasum es shmo sham l'shichno sidrashu uvasa shamah. Bnei Yisrael are about to enter the Holy Land and are assured that there will be a special place in this special land: the place of the Beis HaMikdash.
As we reach this spiritual climax the Torah informs us of two interesting, seemingly mundane, laws. Firstly, although prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash people were allowed to bring certain sacrifices anywhere in the land, after the building of the Beis HaMikdash the bringing of sacrifices was restricted to the confines of the Beis HaMikdash.
Second, although prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash if one wanted to have a meal of meat he was required to bring a korban Shelamim (no meat was allowed to be eaten if it was not part of a korban), afterwards Bnei Yisrael would be allowed to eat meat through the laws of shechitah wherever they reside, rather than bringing a korban.
Why, at this wondrous moment of spirituality informing us of the building of the Beis HaMikdash where the shechinah will reside in this world, does the Torah limit the kedusha of korbanos to the one site and introduce the seemingly mundane laws of shechitah - laws that change the previous status of kedusha through the bringing of korbanos to the secular one of shechitah?
The Torah is teaching us two lessons. Once we enter Eretz Yisrael and are no longer constantly receiving overt miracles in every aspect of life, like the manna, or living under the ananei hakavod, then we need to grasp reality. This transition has two parts. The first is a realization that seemingly mundane, secular, unholy acts can actually be made holy and sacred. Shechitah, if done according to the dictates of halachah, raises the seemingly mundane act of slaughter into one that resembles a korban. Indeed, Chazal explain that this is the reason why the laws of shechitah are introduced here, in connection to korbanos. Therefore, it is specifically now when we enter the Land and are told of the building of the Beis HaMikdash that the Torah needs to inform us that the Beis HaMikdash is not the only holy place. We need to infuse kedusha into each and every part of our lives in each and every place that we are, even if it is the seemingly most physical, mundane act like eating.
But there is a second lesson. Even though every part of our lives needs to be infused with kedusha, we must recognize that there are times and places of greater kedusha. Therefore, we must set aside times and specific places to reach greater levels of kedusha. These times and places are to be the instruments to stimulate us to greater levels even after we are removed from those times and places. They are to be used to springboard us to the next plateau of holiness in which we can establish ourselves until we can move to a higher one.
Shabbos is holier than other days of the week. Batei Medrash, shuls are holier than our offices. We need to incorporate the holiness of Shabbos and the beis medrash into our weekdays and homes and offices so that we can bring greater kedusha to each part of our lives. And then, each Shabbos, each time we enter the beis medrash, we are implored to strive to reach the holiness it represents and raise ourselves, even slightly, to another plateau.
The Torah is not limiting the kedusha through these two laws. Instead, it is expanding it by introducing kedusha to our non-miraculous, everyday lives. It is giving us the formula to turn every facet of our lives into ones that are infused with kedusha.
As we reach this spiritual climax the Torah informs us of two interesting, seemingly mundane, laws. Firstly, although prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash people were allowed to bring certain sacrifices anywhere in the land, after the building of the Beis HaMikdash the bringing of sacrifices was restricted to the confines of the Beis HaMikdash.
Second, although prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash if one wanted to have a meal of meat he was required to bring a korban Shelamim (no meat was allowed to be eaten if it was not part of a korban), afterwards Bnei Yisrael would be allowed to eat meat through the laws of shechitah wherever they reside, rather than bringing a korban.
Why, at this wondrous moment of spirituality informing us of the building of the Beis HaMikdash where the shechinah will reside in this world, does the Torah limit the kedusha of korbanos to the one site and introduce the seemingly mundane laws of shechitah - laws that change the previous status of kedusha through the bringing of korbanos to the secular one of shechitah?
The Torah is teaching us two lessons. Once we enter Eretz Yisrael and are no longer constantly receiving overt miracles in every aspect of life, like the manna, or living under the ananei hakavod, then we need to grasp reality. This transition has two parts. The first is a realization that seemingly mundane, secular, unholy acts can actually be made holy and sacred. Shechitah, if done according to the dictates of halachah, raises the seemingly mundane act of slaughter into one that resembles a korban. Indeed, Chazal explain that this is the reason why the laws of shechitah are introduced here, in connection to korbanos. Therefore, it is specifically now when we enter the Land and are told of the building of the Beis HaMikdash that the Torah needs to inform us that the Beis HaMikdash is not the only holy place. We need to infuse kedusha into each and every part of our lives in each and every place that we are, even if it is the seemingly most physical, mundane act like eating.
But there is a second lesson. Even though every part of our lives needs to be infused with kedusha, we must recognize that there are times and places of greater kedusha. Therefore, we must set aside times and specific places to reach greater levels of kedusha. These times and places are to be the instruments to stimulate us to greater levels even after we are removed from those times and places. They are to be used to springboard us to the next plateau of holiness in which we can establish ourselves until we can move to a higher one.
Shabbos is holier than other days of the week. Batei Medrash, shuls are holier than our offices. We need to incorporate the holiness of Shabbos and the beis medrash into our weekdays and homes and offices so that we can bring greater kedusha to each part of our lives. And then, each Shabbos, each time we enter the beis medrash, we are implored to strive to reach the holiness it represents and raise ourselves, even slightly, to another plateau.
The Torah is not limiting the kedusha through these two laws. Instead, it is expanding it by introducing kedusha to our non-miraculous, everyday lives. It is giving us the formula to turn every facet of our lives into ones that are infused with kedusha.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Eikev
In parshas Eikev, Moshe Rabbeinu continues to recount events of the journey through the desert. A central part of Moshe's monologue is the description of events surrounding the giving of the first set of Luchos, the subsequent breaking of those Luchos, followed by the giving of the second set of Luchos. During this monologue, the Torah utilizes three different terms in describing the Luchos. At times, the Luchos are referred to as Luchos; at times they are called Luchos avanim- Luchos of stone; and at times they are referred to as Luchos Habris- Luchos of the covenant.
Before Moshe Rabbeinu receives the second set of Luchos, he is commanded to fashion an Ark in which the Luchos can be placed. Moshe builds this Ark prior to his ascent to receive the second Luchos. Interestingly, the Torah utilizes three different terms in describing the Ark. At times, the Ark is referred to as Aron; at times it is called Aron Etz- the Ark of wood; and at times it is referred to as Aron Bris Hashem- the Ark of the covenant of Hashem. It seems that the three terms utilized to describe the Luchos parallel the three terms utilized to describe the Aron. One term (Luchos and Aron) seems to be a bland description; one term (Luchos avanim and Aron etz) seems to focus on the physical attributes; and one term (Luchos habris and Aron bris Hashem) emphasize the spiritual significance of these items. What is the significance of these terms?
The first set of Luchos were given with great fanfare. Kolos uverakim, v'hahar bo'er ba'aish, Moshe yedabeir v'ha'Elokim ya'anenu vekol. The second set of Luchos were given with more modesty. They were received on Yom Kippur, a solemn day of introspection and repentance. Both events were great events in the annals of Jewish history. Bnei Yisrael did not react to the giving of the first Luchos properly but that does not diminish the awesomeness of the event. Nonetheless, lessons can be learned from each event independently as well as the totality of the rubric called Matan Torah.
The terms utilized to describe the Luchos as well as the Aron Kodesh are explaining something quite simple. The Luchos and the Aron are great in their own right. However, what one accomplishes through them is dependent upon his/her attitude towards them. The Torah has great potential within it. Nonetheless, it is given in as bland a way as something so special can be given. It is Luchos, placed in an Aron. The question that each individual needs to answer is: will I look at the Luchos and the Aron as stones and wood, as physical items that are placed in a shul or on shelves; or will I turn the Luchos and the Aron into Luchos Habris and Aron Bris Hashem, spiritual pillars that supply the sustenance to achieve the greatest levels of avodas Hashem? If the lessons of the Torah are not internalized then the Luchos are merely physical stones that can be shattered. However, if the Luchos become Luchos habris then even when attempts are made to destroy the physical manifestation of that covenant, we are assured that osyos porchos - the letters continue to live on, aiding and supporting us in our continuous avodas Hashem.
Moshe's charge to us is to accept the Luchos and place them in the Aron, to guard the physical manifestation of each and to internalize the spiritual potential that they deliver, turning that spiritual potential into actual, tangible actions so that our spiritual lives attach themselves to real, physical actions, and our physical lives are constantly imbued with spirituality and kedusha.
Before Moshe Rabbeinu receives the second set of Luchos, he is commanded to fashion an Ark in which the Luchos can be placed. Moshe builds this Ark prior to his ascent to receive the second Luchos. Interestingly, the Torah utilizes three different terms in describing the Ark. At times, the Ark is referred to as Aron; at times it is called Aron Etz- the Ark of wood; and at times it is referred to as Aron Bris Hashem- the Ark of the covenant of Hashem. It seems that the three terms utilized to describe the Luchos parallel the three terms utilized to describe the Aron. One term (Luchos and Aron) seems to be a bland description; one term (Luchos avanim and Aron etz) seems to focus on the physical attributes; and one term (Luchos habris and Aron bris Hashem) emphasize the spiritual significance of these items. What is the significance of these terms?
The first set of Luchos were given with great fanfare. Kolos uverakim, v'hahar bo'er ba'aish, Moshe yedabeir v'ha'Elokim ya'anenu vekol. The second set of Luchos were given with more modesty. They were received on Yom Kippur, a solemn day of introspection and repentance. Both events were great events in the annals of Jewish history. Bnei Yisrael did not react to the giving of the first Luchos properly but that does not diminish the awesomeness of the event. Nonetheless, lessons can be learned from each event independently as well as the totality of the rubric called Matan Torah.
The terms utilized to describe the Luchos as well as the Aron Kodesh are explaining something quite simple. The Luchos and the Aron are great in their own right. However, what one accomplishes through them is dependent upon his/her attitude towards them. The Torah has great potential within it. Nonetheless, it is given in as bland a way as something so special can be given. It is Luchos, placed in an Aron. The question that each individual needs to answer is: will I look at the Luchos and the Aron as stones and wood, as physical items that are placed in a shul or on shelves; or will I turn the Luchos and the Aron into Luchos Habris and Aron Bris Hashem, spiritual pillars that supply the sustenance to achieve the greatest levels of avodas Hashem? If the lessons of the Torah are not internalized then the Luchos are merely physical stones that can be shattered. However, if the Luchos become Luchos habris then even when attempts are made to destroy the physical manifestation of that covenant, we are assured that osyos porchos - the letters continue to live on, aiding and supporting us in our continuous avodas Hashem.
Moshe's charge to us is to accept the Luchos and place them in the Aron, to guard the physical manifestation of each and to internalize the spiritual potential that they deliver, turning that spiritual potential into actual, tangible actions so that our spiritual lives attach themselves to real, physical actions, and our physical lives are constantly imbued with spirituality and kedusha.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Va'eschanan
Parshas Va'eschanan begins with Moshe's plea to Hashem to rescind the decree denying him access to Eretz Yisrael. Moshe's plea is a personal one. Why doesn't Moshe resort to a communal plea? The medrash informs us that while Moshe was on Har Sinai receiving the Today's he witnessed a Shiur being given by Rabbi Akiva. Distraught by his inability to comprehend the discussion, Moshe asks why the Torah is not being given through the great Rabbi Akiva. Only when he hears a debate finalized with the term halachah l'Moshe misinai is he comforted. Moshe is the premier and optimal teacher of Torah. Why doesn't Moshe request entry into the Land to benefit Bnei Yisrael rather than merely for himself?
Moshe informs Bnei Yisrael that immediately following his plea Hashem became angry with him because of Bnei Yisrael - vayisaber Hashem be l'maanchem. The end of the verse implies that Hashem's anger was not due to the original sin but rather due to the request. Vayomeir Hashem ailaiy rav lach al tohsef dabeir ailay od badavar hazeh. The anger was due to Moshe's personal request so why are Bnei Yisrael being blamed?
Later in the parsha Moshe tells of the events surrounding Matan Torah. In introducing the awesome occasion and special opportunity, Moshe describes the Torah as aish - fire. The term aish is used to describe the Torah fourteen times in this parsha. Why is that the term chosen?
When one throws a piece of metal into a fire, the metal does not burn. It gets hot, it might soften or harden but it does not burn. If one throws a piece of wood onto a fire in a short time it will burn. Paper will burn even quicker and straw almost immediately. The fire is no different for each of these items. The reaction is different not because the fire is different but rather because the items are different. Ultimately, the result is dependent upon the combustibility of the item.
Similarly, the Torah acts as a fire. Its impact is dependent upon the willingness of the individual to be impacted by the fire. The more a person is willing to be influenced and guided by Torah, the greater the impact. Moshe is emphasizing this lesson to Bnei Yisrael.
Understanding this idea leads Moshe to a personal request rather than a communal one. Emphasizing the ability for each individual to control Torah's impact on his or her life, defines the power of the individual to achieve the greatest growth in Torah. Although Moshe is unquestionably the greatest Teacher, the ultimate impact and influence that Torah has is dependent on us as individuals. How willing are we to be completely enveloped in Torah? Moshe is not blaming Bnei Yisrael for the denial of his request to enter Eretz Yisrael, he is complimenting them. Moshe recognizes that he cannot make a communal plea because the individuals in the community can reach greatness through their own efforts, irrespective of the awesome and incomparable teaching and influence of Moshe Rabbeinui.
His claim must be a personal one and that is the one that is denied. At this tome too, Moshe Rabbeinu teaches us the formula to assuring that Toras Moshe remains with us forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)