Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:35:49 +0300 From: Menachem Leibtag Subject: BHALOTCHA - shiur from 5758 To: all@tanach.org, parsha@tanach.org, yhe-parsha.ml@vbm-torah.org Reply-to: tsc@bezeqint.net Priority: normal Reply To: Menachem Leibtag Error-To: Listproc Error X-ListMember: cypess@ymail.yu.edu [all@tanach.org] *************************************************************** THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag *************************************************************** PARSHAT BHA'ALOTCHA [revised 5758] THREE books in one? So claim Chazal in regard to Sefer Bamidbar! And what's more, one of those three books contains only the TWO psukim of: "va'yhi bin'so'ah ha'aron..." (10:35-36)! [i.e. the two psukim which we recite when we take out the Sefer Torah.] Is it possible that a mere two psukim can be considered an entire "sefer"? In Part I of this week's shiur, we answer this question by conducting an overall analysis of Sefer Bamidbar. In Part II we return to the opening pasuk of the Parsha to discuss the famous question raised by Rashi concerning "chalsha daato shel Aharon..." INTRODUCTION As anyone familiar with Chumash knows, rarely do we find any symbols of punctuation in the Sefer Torah. Nonetheless, the two psukim of "va'yhi binosah ha'aron..." are an exception, for the Torah surrounds them with two upside down "nun's" (acting like parenthesis), causing these psukim to 'stand out'. For this 'technical' reason alone, we can already assume that there must be something special about these two psukim. But from a thematic perspective as well, these two psukim are special for they stand at a very pivotal location in Sefer Bamidbar. Let's explain why. Recall our explanation from last week's shiur how the narrative of Sefer Bamidbar describes Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai towards Eretz Canaan. This narrative divides very neatly into two distinct sections: 1) Chaps. 1->10 - Bnei Yisrael's PREPARATION for this journey 2) Chaps. 11->36 - The actual JOURNEY (and what went wrong) Thus, the two psukim of "va'yhi binso'ah ha'aron..." (10:35-36) - the final two psukim of chapter 10, act as a divider between these two sections. In our shiur, we must explain not only WHY these two psukim are delimited, but also WHY Chazal consider them an entire 'BOOK'. To do so, we must first consider what SHOULD HAVE happened in Sefer Bamidbar in contrast to what actually took place. HIGH HOPES Already in Sefer Breishit, God had set His plan for Bnei Yisrael to become His special nation in the Promised Land. In order that they would accomplish this goal, God had redeemed Bnei Yisrael from Egypt and given them the Torah. Theoretically (at least), they should now be ready to inherit that land. As we explained in last week's shiur, Sefer Bamidbar begins with a description of how Bnei Yisrael are to travel with the Mishkan at their center. This was significant for the return of the SHCHINA to the Mishkan reflected Bnei Yisrael's atonement for "chet ha'egel". It was now God's hope that Bnei Yisrael are finally ready to continue upon their journey from Har Sinai towards the Promised Land. Thus, it is quite understandable why the first ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar [BOOK I] could be considered a 'book' for they discuss a complete topic - Bnei Yisrael's technical AND spiritual preparation for this journey. For example: * The Mishkan is placed at the focal point of the camp (1->5). * The national leaders participate in its dedication (7). * The Leviim are appointed to become the spiritual leaders (8). * The entire nation gathers to offer the Korban Pesach (9), etc. In a similar manner, we can consider chapters 11->26 as a 'book' [BOOK III] for they explain WHY Bnei Yisrael do not enter the land. But why should the two psukim in the middle [BOOK II], which form merely a buffer, be considered a "sefer" as well? One could suggest that 'BOOK II' serves as more than just a buffer, for its two psukim (10:35-36) describe the fashion in which Bnei Yisrael SHOULD have traveled on their journey to inherit the Land. [Compare w/Shmot 23:20-27.] Despite its brevity, BOOK II represents the IDEAL manner in which Bnei Yisrael were to travel - i.e what SHOULD have happened. By intentionally delimiting these two psukim with upside down "nun's", the Torah accents the tragedy of Sefer Bamidbar. In this manner, BOOK I - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey - is followed by two 'versions' of that journey: BOOK II - the IDEAL journey (two psukim) BOOK III - the ACTUAL journey (the remainder of the 'sefer') To accent the tragedy of BOOK III, the Torah first presents a 'glimpse' of what 'could have been' in BOOK II - the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have travelled, had they not sinned. WHAT WENT WRONG ? So what went wrong? What leads to sins of the "mitonnim", the "mi'tavim" and the "meraglim" etc.? Chazal find a 'hint' in the pasuk (which immediately precedes "va'yhi b'nosah ha'aron") that describes Bnei Yisrael's departure from Har Sinai": "And they travelled FROM God's mountain..." (see 10:33-34) RASHI comments: like a child 'running away' from school! Rashi 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. They people were looking forward to LEAVING Har Sinai much more than they were looking forward to keeping God's laws in Eretz Canaan. Even though they may have been technically 'prepared' for this journey, they most definitely were not spiritually 'ready'. [See further iyun section.] But who is to blame? Certainly, first and foremost the people themselves. But if we follow Rashi's "mashal" [of Har Sinai Elementary School], we must also consider the possibility that the teacher may share some of the responsibility as well. We will now show how Sefer Bamidbar may allude to this possibility as well. HAS MOSHE 'HAD ENOUGH'? Beginning with chapter 11, in almost every account of Bnei Yisrael's sins in Sefer Bamidbar it appears as though Moshe Rabeinu's leadership falters. Not only do the people constantly complain to him in chapter 11, even his own brother and sister criticize him in chapter 12! Then in chapters 13->14, the "meraglim" call for a national rebellion against him, and later (in chapter 16) Korach leads yet another rebellion. So, what went wrong? One could suggest that the core of the problem already surfaces in the case of "mi'tavim" (see 11:4-14). First of all, 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 Rabeinu who we are familiar with from Sefer Shmot - who consistently defends Bnei Yisrael 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: * "lama ha'rey'ota l'AVDECHA..." (Bamidbar 11:11) "lama ha'rey'ota l'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 cheyn b'eynecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) "v'ata im matzati cheyn b'enyecha..." (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..."] * "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'ah", "ma'tzati cheyn b'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 as well 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 "mitavim" 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 Rabeinu himself, must bother every student of Chumash. Could it be that Moshe Rabeinu reacted in an improper manner? Is it possible that the greatest "navi" of all times, who received the Torah and taught it to Bnei Yisrael, just 'gives up'?! Is Moshe Rabeinu - 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 "mitavim" 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 "mitavim" seems to have been totally physical - an uncontrollable lust for food. ["hi'tavu ta'ava"] "Chet ha'egel" presented an educational challenge that Moshe Rabeinu is willing to accept, i.e. to take this misguided desire and channel it in the proper direction. However, after the lustful sin of the "mi'tavim" Moshe Rabeinu simply 'gives up'. He is unable to fathom how a 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. God's immediate reaction to Moshe's petition reflects this very problem in 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 now 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 Rabeinu could be considered 'over qualified' or 'too holy' to lead the people. After spending some six months on Har Sinai, Moshe Rabeinu is on a spiritual level far higher than that of his nation. It is not that Moshe Rabeinu is incapable of leading, rather the nation is on too low a level to benefit from his leadership. Quite simply, 'the leader' and 'the led' do not match. 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 "MITAVIM" ("ta'avah") is significant? 3. In relation to the Rashi quoted in the shiur on:" va'yisu m'har Hashem ...." (10:33) :"k'tinok ha'borayach m'bet hasefer" [like a child running away from school] Most children stay in school because they must. Usually, school attendance is not a 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 his 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 "mi'tavim" is not an isolated event. It opens an entire chain of incidents in which Moshe Rabeinu'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 "n'vuah" 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 "mitavim" 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 v'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 Rabeinu'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. ======================== PARSHAT BHAALOTCHA / PART II "CHALSHA DA'ATO SHEL AHARON" The first Rashi in this week's Parsha quotes the famous Midrash which explains the juxtaposition between the first topic in Parshat Bha'alotcha - for Aharon to light the Menorah (8:1-5), and the last topic in Parshat Naso - the twelve day dedication ceremony of the Mizbayach (7:1-88): "Why is the parsha of the Menorah juxtaposed to "chanukat ha'nssiim" (the special offering brought by the princes of each tribe)? - When Aharon saw the daily dedication offering by the 'nssiim', he became DEPRESSED, because neither he, nor his shevet, took part in this ceremony. - God assured Aharon saying: Do not worry, YOUR PORTION IS GREATER than theirs, for you are to light and attend to the MENORAH every morning and evening." IS AHARON REALLY 'LEFT OUT'? Ramban immediately questions the basic assumption of this Midrash? Could it be that Aharon is depressed because he felt 'left out'? After all, each "nasi" enjoyed only ONE day of special attention, while Aharon was at the center of attention during each of those TWELVE DAYS! Did he not offer all of the korbanot on each of those days, as well as the ktoret and korban tamid? Furthermore, during the miluim ceremony (Vayikra 8:1-36) which preceded the dedication, he and his children enjoyed seven days of 'exclusive attention'. For what possible reason could Aharon have felt 'left out'? In his commentary, Ramban is unable to find a satisfying explanation of this Midrash according to "pshat". Instead, he suggests that the intention of the Midrash is not to explain the psukim, but rather to show a biblical source for the Hasmonean revolt: "Even though Aharon did not participate in the dedication of the mizbayach of the Mishkan, in the merit of his descendants - the Hasmoneans - the mizbayach of the Second Temple will be dedicated. Furthermore, in commemoration of that event, a Menorah will be lit in every home, even after the destruction of the Temple (see Ramban 8:1). One could suggest an alternative explanation of the Midrash, without the need of limiting its significance to the events of the Hasmonean revolt. COALITION POLITICS The opening statement of the Midrash - "chalsha da'ato shel Aharon" (Aharon became depressed) - requires explanation. [Ramban raises this question, but does not answer it directly.] Considering that Aharon is indeed at the center of attention and very busy during each day of the dedication ceremony, why should he become depressed? To understand Aharon's reaction (according to the Midrash) we must consider the political realities of his predicament. Bnei Yisrael are about to leave Har Sinai and begin their journey to conquer and inherit the Land of Israel. Although Aharon is indeed a very key figure during Bnei Yisrael's short stay in the desert, he is apprehensive about what will take place once Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai. Most likely, the focus of national attention will shift from Har Sinai and the Mishkan to the excitement of military initiatives and political enterprise. As Bnei Yisrael begin their conquest of Eretz Canaan, it will be specifically the twelve "nssiim" (the tribal leaders) who will hold the highest positions of national leadership. They will establish economic policy; they will make treaties with foreign dignitaries; they will make the speeches at national gatherings; they will lead the nation in war. In modern phraseology, they will become the Ministers of Defence and the Treasury; Secretaries of State and Foreign Affairs. Thus, it is quite unerstandable why Aharon becomes depressed. When he sees the attention which the twelve "nssiim" receive, he realizes the insignificance of his position within the emerging national leadership. What ministry post will he receive? In his own eyes, he is merely the "shamash" (a beadle/ attendant) taking care of the Mishkan for his job is very technical. Will he have any influence at the national level? At best, he may possibly be appointed "sar ha'datot" - the Minister of Religion. Within a short time, Aharon fears, he will be far away from the public focus. AN IMPORTANT CABINET POST Thus far, we have suggested a reason for Aharon's depression (according to the Midrash). What is significance of God's consolation -that he will light the Menorah? Although the Midrash is well aware of Aharon's numerous responsibilities in the Mishkan, it chooses specifically the Menorah to symbolize an additional aspect of his national duties, i.e. teaching God's laws to the people. This double purpose is mentioned in the blessing to Shevet Levi in Parshat v'Zot ha'bracha: "They shall TEACH Your laws to Yaakov, and your instructions to Yisrael, they shall offer Your incense... and offer the 'olah' ("kalil") on Your mizbayach..." (Devarim 33:10) In reality, teaching actually becomes the PRIMARY duty of the Kohanim and Leviim. Since their work is divided into 24 week shifts, the average kohen or levi finds himself working in the Mishkan only two weeks a year. Therefore, most of their time is spent teaching and judging the people (see Devarim 17:8-10), for their cities are scattered throughout the twelve tribes of Israel (see Bamidbar 35:1-8 and Yehoshua 21:1-40). Thus, the Menorah may symbolize specifically this duty of the Kohanim - "chinuch", teaching. Just as the Menorah spreads light in all directions, so too the kohanim spread the Torah to the entire nation. This understanding explains why Aharon is consoled when told that it is his job to light the Menorah. Continuing our "mashal" from the political arena, Aharon and his "shevet" are consoled by being given the mitzvah to light the Menorah. This mitzvah reminds them that they are destined to control the Ministry of Education and Justice (as well as the Ministry of Religion) - a cabinet position no less important than any other. shabbat shalom, menachem ================================== FOR FURTHER IYUN - PART II: 1. What is the reason, according to pshat, for the juxtaposition of these two parshiot? 2. Notice that the final psukim of perek 7, which summarize the korbanot brought by the nssiim, are actually referring to the first day of the dedication ceremony when all the nssiim brought their korbanot together, at the same time (read 7:10-11 carefully!). Furthermore, 7:89 - the dibur to Moshe - also takes place on the first day. Therefore, Bha'alotcha opens in the 'afternoon' of the first day of the dedication of the Mishkan. The only avodah left, which did not begin in the morning, is the lighting of the Menorah, for it is lit "m'erev ad boker" - from evening to morning! This may explain why this mitzvah is included at this time. 3. Compare this juxtaposition between the dibur to Moshe (7:89), and his relationship to Aharon (8:1-5) and the Nsiim (7:1-88) to the psukim which describe Moshe descent from Har Sinai- according to Shmot 34:29-32! Relate this to the connection between Har Sinai and the function of the Mishkan! ======================= ********************************************************* To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE to this shiur: send e-mail to: lists@tanach.org with the following message in first line of TEXT: join all or leave all ********************************************************* Previous shiurim are available on the TSC WEBSITE: http://www.tanach.org *********************************************************** If you would like to support the TSC Project or dedicate a shiur, please e-mail: ml@tanach.org *********************************************************** Internet & e-mail list hosting for the TSC provided courtesy of: The Yerushalayim Network (http://www.yerushalayim.net) a Centennial Project of the Orthodox Union (http://www.ou.org) *********************************************************** Copyright (c) 1999 Menachem Leibtag. All rights reserved.