Parshat Beha'alotcha
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parshat Beha'alotcha 16 Sivan 5777 /June 10, 2017 Daf Yomi: Bava Basra 139; Nach Yomi: Mishlei 12 Weekly Dvar Torah A project of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL SPONSORED BY THE HENRY, BERTHA AND EDWARD ROTHMAN FOUNDATION ROCHESTER, NY,CLEVELAND, OHIO, CIRCLEVILLE, OHIO Self Control Rabbi Moshe Gorelick Rabbi Emeritus, Young Israel of North Bellmore The model of a majestic and dynamic leader, Moshe Rabbeinu, defied Pharaoh, confronted HaShem with the concerns of B’nai Yisrael, and for 40 years led the people in the wilderness. As their liaison to HaShem, Moshe delivered to them the Divine Torah. In spite of these and other manifold achievements, Moshe’s leadership was often challenged. Two episodes in Parshat Behaalotcha underscore this fact. The first, known as Kivrot Hata’avah, occurred when the Israelites expressed their hunger for the flesh pots of Egypt and dared Moshe to provide for their immediate gratification. The second episode describes the criticism of his sister and brother, Miriam and Aaron, who said, “Has HaShem spoken only through Moshe… has He not spoken to us as well?” (12:2). HaShem comes to Moshe’s defense, declaring unequivocally, “When a prophet of HaShem rises among you, I make myself known to him in a vision… I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant, Moshe…with him I speak mouth-to-mouth, plainly and not through riddles.” Let us focus on the first episode, the Kivrot Hata’avah — B’nai Yisrael’s inordinate craving for the supposed delicacies of Egypt. The Israelites voiced dissatisfaction with the manna from heaven. “If only we had meat to eat… we remember the fish we used to eat freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, the garlic” (11:4-5). Stunned by these gluttonous cravings and demands, Moshe’s reaction does not address their request directly. Instead, he cries out to HaShem: “Why have you dealt ill with your servant… was it I who conceived this people… did I bear them? I cannot by myself carry all these people; it is too much for me. If You, HaShem, would deal thus with me, kill me…and let me see no more of my wretchedness” (11:11-15). What caused Moshe Rabbeinu to unleash such a torrent of frustration? The Torah records other episodes of discontent and rebelliousness but in those instances, Moshe did not exhibit such psychological stress. On the contrary, he responded firmly and vigorously. Ordinarily, he would berate the people for their unseemly behavior, and if the occasion called for it, even beg HaShem not to destroy the people. His reaction at Kivrot Hata’avah was atypical. Why here does Moshe Rabbeinu feel helpless and powerless in the face of the people’s discontent? Why here was he severely shaken? Rav Soloveitchik ZT”L points out that Kivrot Hata’avah represents the people’s regression into a pagan way of life. According to Torah Hashkafah, the individual must submit to a moral, ethical and religious discipline. “Judaism teaches that man’s divine image manifests itself in his self-control, in his subordination of cravings and lusts, to the will of G-d.” Such is not the case in a pagan world view whose deities do not make moral demands on people. On the contrary, they, themselves, live a life of lust and immorality. The Kivrot Hata’avah episode revealed that the Egyptians’ pagan lifestyle had caught hold of the B’nai Yisrael. Rashi points out that their request for “flesh” was an implicit desire for sensual pleasure without restraint. Didn’t they have abundant cattle, and didn’t the manna provide diverse tastes according to the desire of the individual? Chazal suggest an earlier verse – “And they marched from the mountain of HaShem” (10:33) – alludes to the cause of Israel’s backsliding. The “mountain” refers to Sinai and all it signifies. In essence, Chazal imply that the message of Sinai had not been internalized. The people did hear the words of HaShem, but they failed to assimilate the message and allow it to register into their personal lives. A truly religious person does not merely live by rules, but more importantly, integrates their values into his lifestyle. In this manner, Sinai is not merely an historic event. It is an everlasting inspiration that enriches and deepens a person’s Avodat HaShem, service to G-d, in every aspect of human behavior. Shabbat Shalom. The Weekly Sidra "The Most Humble of Them All" Rabbi Moshe Greebel Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis In the Torah there are quite a few instances where the relationship of P’sukim (verses) seems very difficult to comprehend. Yet, with the assistance of our Rabbanim of blessed memory, such difficulties do become resolved so that we can comprehend to some degree, the intricacies involved. This mailing will attempt to do the same for us. In this week’s Sidra we find the following: “And Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe because of the Kushite (Ethiopian) woman whom he had taken (actually, Tziporah was a Midianite); for he had taken a Kushite woman. And they said, ‘Has HaShem indeed spoken only by Moshe? Has He not spoken also by us?’ And HaShem heard it. And the man Moshe was very humble, more than any other men which were upon the face of the earth.” (Bamidbar 12:1-3) 1. What in particular did Miriam mean by ‘Has HaShem indeed spoken only by Moshe? Has He not spoken also by us?’ 2. How does the humility of Moshe Rabbeinu tie into this particular episode? As can be expected, some degree of background information will be necessary to resolve these two questions. The Gemarah in Shabbos87a speaks of three requests that Moshe made of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, which were indeed granted to him. Concerning one of these, the appeal to separate from his wife, the Gemarah relates the following: “And he separated himself from his wife. What did he (Moshe) interpret? He applied a fortiori argument to himself, reasoning (the following). The B’nai Yisroel, with whom the Sh’china (Divine Presence) spoke only on one occasion (at the giving of the Torah on Sinai), and He appointed them a time (to separate from their wives). For, the Torah said, ‘Be prepared for the third day: come not near a woman.’ (Sh’mos 19:15) (Moshe said,) ‘I, with whom the Sh’china speaks at all times and does not appoint me a (particular) time, how much more so (must I separate from my wife from now on)?’ And how do we know that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave His approval? Because it is written, ‘Go say to them (B’nai Yisroel), “Return to your tents (your wives,)”’ (ibid. 5:27), which is followed by, ‘But as for you (Moshe), stand you here by Me.’ (ibid. 5:28)” As we shall soon see, it was of this divorce, that Miriam, and ultimately Aharon, spoke against their brother Moshe. Yet, how did Miriam come to find that the divorce actually took place? In the Midrash Sifri B’ha’aloscha Piska #41, we have our answer: “From where did Miriam discover that Moshe separated himself from (the Mitzvah of) being fruitful and multiplying? She saw Tziporah, who was not enhanced with the adornments of (married) women. She (Miriam) said to her, ‘Why are you not enhanced with the adornments of women?’ She (Tziporah) responded, ‘Your brother does not mind this at all.’ Hence, Miriam directly knew, and related it to her brother (Aharon), and they both spoke against him (Moshe).” The complaint against Moshe by his siblings was that they were N’vi’im (prophets) too because HaKadosh Baruch Hu has also ‘spoken by us,’ and at no time did they have to separate themselves from their spouses. How then, could Moshe be so cruel as to cast away the honorable Tziporah? Of course, HaKadosh Baruch Hu shortly rebukes them in that there was a tremendous difference between their status of being N’vi’im and that of Moshe. In any event, our first question is resolved. What then, can be said for the introduction of the humility of Moshe at this juncture in the Torah? Several answers are offered. According to the commentary of the Z’kan Aharon (published 1913, Rav Avraham Chayim Danzigerkorn of blessed memory), Miriam and Aharon were not sufficiently insolent to make this complaint behind the back of their brother. Rather, they stated it straight to his face. Yet, even though Moshe was justified in his actions of divorcing Tziporah, due to his extreme humility, he would not argue with his siblings. Rather, he simply sat there and suffered their abuse in silence. Hence, the Torah makes note of his immeasurable humility. The commentary of the VaiDaber Moshe (Rav Moshe Falk 19th century of blessed memory) explains the Torah inserting the humility of Moshe in the following manner. In the Gemarah of Yoma 22b, we learn this: “….. For, Rabbi Yochanan had said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ben Y’hotzedek, ‘One should not appoint anyone administrator of a community, unless he (the administrator) carries a basket of vermin on his back, so that if he became arrogant, one could tell him, “Turn around!”’” Now, as per the VaiDaber Moshe, initially Miriam and Aharon were under the false impression that the reason their brother Moshe was the administrator of all the B’nai Yisroel was due to the fact of ‘The Kushite woman (Tziporah was actually a Midianite) whom he had taken,’ which would have been the ‘Basket of vermin on his back.’ However, HaKadosh Baruch Hu immediately stated to them that the true reason for the appointment of Moshe as the administrator of the B’nai Yisroel had nothing whatsoever to do with any basket of vermin on his back, but rather, that he was inordinately humble in and of himself, more so than any other person, and no basket of vermin on his back was ever necessary, for he was the exception to the rule.