Rejection of the Land of Israel, Rejection of the Land of the Torah


This week’s Parshah gets its name from the event with the spies, leaders of the tribes, who were sent to scout out the land of Israel and provide information the Jews’ invasion. Ten of the spies, instead of following orders by simply providing facts about the land and its inhabitants, evaluated the situation and concluded that the Jews could not conquer the land. Despite attempts by Joshua and Caleb, the two remaining spies, to reassure the nation that victory was possible, the nation believed the other spies and almost revolted against Moses and Aaron. As a result of this lack of trust, G-d condemned the nation to wander for forty years in the desert until the current generation had died off. Then and only then would the Jews invade the Land of Israel.



Joshua and Caleb’s argument for entering the land was quite simple:



“If God is satisfied with us, He will bring us to this Land and give it to us, a Land that flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 14:8).



This would seem to be an unbeatable argument. Essentially, since G-d is all powerful, if He wills to give us the land of Israel, nothing will stand in His way.



The other spies must agree to this. Or do they? Perhaps this is the basis for our Sages comment that when the spies said: “They [the inhabitants of the land of Israel] are stronger then us” (Numbers 13:31) that “[the spies] said this in reference to the most High, as it were” [meaning the natives were stronger than G-d] (Rashi on Numbers 13:31 citing Sota 35a).



[[See Sifsei Chachamim on Rashi]]



As strange as it may seem, the other spies denied that G-d was all powerful. Still, such heresy happened frequently in the desert.
[[See my devar Torah on parshas Veyera]]


The Psalmist summarizes this whole event saying “And they despised the desirable land, they had no faith in His word” (Psalms 106:24).



G-d promised us the land and the spies and the nation had no faith in this promise.



But where in the Torah do we see G-d promising us the land?



Contextually, it is at the beginning of the whole event with the spies:



“God spoke to Moses, saying, Send out men for yourself to explore the Canaanite territory that I am about to give the Israelites…” (Numbers 13:1-2).



But we find it much earlier, at the dawn of our national history, at the burning bush:



[[See also Genesis 12:1 and 12:7 and Kli Yakar.]]



“God said, 'I have indeed seen the suffering of My people in Egypt. I have heard how they cry out because of what their slave-drivers [do], and I am aware of their pain. I have come down to rescue them from Egypt's power. I will bring them out of that land, to a good, spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, the territory of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Yebusites” (Exodus 3:7-8).



[[Compare to Genesis 12:1]]



My teacher R. Moshe Lichtman, in his book Eretz Yirael in the Parashah (pages 123-124), cites R. Moshe Tzuriel who notes that in the above quoted passage from the Burning Bush, we only find rescuing the Jews from Egypt and bringing them into the Land of Israel, there is no mention of giving the Torah. Why should this be the case? Is the Torah secondary to the Land of Israel?



Clearly, the Torah is of primary importance, even over the land of Israel. I remember seeing I think it was the Maharal, I don’t remember where, who said that the Torah was given outside of the Land of Israel to teach us that it is not dependant on the Land of Israel. As Rav Saadia Gaon stated, “Our nation is a nation only because of the Torah” (Emunos ViDeos 3) and, I do not like getting involved in the disputes of the greatest of Torah scholars but it would appear to me that claim to the land is ultimately contingent on Torah observance (Deuteronomy 11:16-17 and Maharsha on Sanhedrin 91a). However, we still must answer why the above passage does not mention the Torah.



[[See also Rav Soloveitchik somewhere in On Repentence, and Rav Schach in his letters somewhere. See also Tosafos on Kesubos 110b which seems to imply it is better to not follow Torah outside the land then not follow Torah living in the land but I know that this whole issue is discussed in A Question of Redemption, this requires further thought]]



R. Tzuriel answers that the Torah was not mentioned because the Torah is meant to be kept in the Land of Israel. The Ramban states explicitly:



“The main [fulfillment] of all the commandments is for those who live in the Land of Hashem” (Ramban on Leviticus 18:25).



[[See also Ramban on Genesis 26:5 and how he utilizes 2 Kings 17:26 and Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:18, and Rav Yaakov Weinberg Talks about Chinuch, page 73]]



Now we can better understand the severity of what the Psalmist meant when he said “they had no faith in His word” (Psalms 106:24). The Spies rejected not some pretty farmland but something which is at the heart of the Jewish-National-Religious existence.



We all grew up supporting Israel by giving money, buying Israeli products, lobbying, etc. In no way do I wish to diminish the importance of such benevolent actions. However, more then giving of our time and money, G-d wants us to live in Israel.



Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai



Eretz Yisrael in the Parashah is available at http://www.devorapublishing.com/. (If you can ask me and I can probably get it for a small discount and signed)

Parshas Behaalosecha

This is in the merit of my grandmother, Esther bat Mazal. May she have
speedy and complete recovery.

Question:

“Moses said to his father-in-law, Chovev son of Reuel the Midianite, 'We are
now on our way to the place that God promised to give us. Come with us and
we will let you share the benefit of all the good things that God has
promised Israel.'
'I would rather not go,' replied [Chovev]. 'I wish to return to my land and
my birthplace.' 'Do not abandon us,' said [Moses]. 'After all, you are
familiar with the places where we are going to camp in the desert, and you
can be our guide.
If you go with us, we will share with you whatever good God grants us'”
(Numbers 10:29-34).

Why does the Torah not record Chovev’s response, whatever it was?


Have a plan

Everything seeming to be going perfectly. The Jews had received the Torah,
erected the Tabernacle, and were ready to conquer the land of Israel. This
is evident from the tone in the following conversation between Moses and his
father in law:

“Moses said to his father-in-law, Chovev son of Reuel the Midianite, 'We are
now on our way to the place that God promised to give us. Come with us and
we will let you share the benefit of all the good things that God has
promised Israel.'
'I would rather not go,' replied [Chovev]. 'I wish to return to my land and
my birthplace.' 'Do not abandon us,' said [Moses]. 'After all, you are
familiar with the places where we are going to camp in the desert, and you
can be our guide.
If you go with us, we will share with you whatever good God grants us'”
(Numbers 10:29-34).

However, very quickly, the journey encountered a serious of setbacks, caused
by groups of Jews sinning, delaying the traveling. These holdups culminated
with the sin of the spies in next week’s Torah portion, Parshas Shelach,
where G-d decreed that the Jews remain in the desert forty years.

What happened?

Our Sages spot an answer in a most innocent passage:

“[The Israelites] marched [the distance of] a three day journey from the
mountain of Hashem [Mount Sinai]. The Ark of Hashem’s covenant traveled
three days ahead of them in order to find them a place to settle” (Numbers
10:33).

“They turned away from Hashem” (Shabbas 116a).
“That day they turned away from Hashem” (Taanis 29a).

The Sifre, the halachic medrish on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy,
states on this verse that the Jews left Mount Sinai like children running
away from the schoolhouse.

[See first Tosafos on Shababs 116a and Ramban on Numbers 11:35]

How do our Sages derive all of this from a seemingly innocent verse?

The Maharsha (on Shabbas) points out that never do we see Mount Sinai
referred to as Har Hashem. Sometimes Sinai is referred to as Har Elokim but
this uses a different name of G-d. Har Hashem elsewhere always refers to
Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount. The Maharsha says that Mount Moriah is
referred to as Har Hashem because it has eternal holiness while Sinai, which
only had holiness around the time of the giving of the Torah, is called Har
Elokim.

We can say that since the verse uses Har Hashem, implying eternal holiness,
to refer to Mount Sinai, that the Jews by leaving were rejecting eternal
holiness.

[See also Torah Temimah on this verse and Rashi on Taanis 29a ViAmar Rebbi
Chama…]

It appears to me that this fits in well with the Sifre’s statement that they
fled like children leaving school. It seems inconceivable that the nation
that gladly accepted the Torah now wanted nothing more to do with it.
Rather, they wanted a vacation. But they did not want just any vacation,
they wanted a complete vacation during which they would not learn any Torah
at all. Thus, they rejected eternal holiness.

[See Rashi on Numbers 11:5 which perhaps also relates to their motivations]

Such a vacation is completely unacceptable and thus was deemed turning away
from Hashem. Nothing is wrong with breaks and time off. However, even then,
we don’t cease to be Jews and thus we still must learn a little Torah.

In Ethics of our Fathers, it says “Shammai said: Make your Torah fixed”
(Avos 1:15).
What exactly does it mean for Torah to be fixed?

One of Rashi’s explanations is that we must set aside time to learn each
day.


The Rambam states:

“Every Jew* is obligated to learn Torah, whether he is rich or poor,
physically complete or disabled, or whether he is young or an old person of
failing strength. Even if he is a poor person supported by charity and
begging, and even if he had a wife and children, he still has to set aside
time during the day and by night for Torah study, for it is written, ‘...but
you shall engage in it by day and night’ (Joshua 1:8)” (Mishnah Torah, Laws
of Torah Study 1:8, translation from
http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/MadaTT.html)

* In context, the Rambam really translates to ‘every Jewish male.’ I however
did not modify the online translation given that perhaps Women are exempt
from the commandment to learn (Mishnah Torah, Laws of Torah Study 1:1) but
they still must know and review Jewish law (Rema’s gloss on the Shulchan
Aruch Yoreh Deah 246:6). However, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan,
considered women learning an obligation in these times (Likutei Halachos on
Sota, page 21) and supported Sarah Schenirer’s Bais Yaakov school.
(Historically, Rav Yaakov Ettliner, Rav Hirsch’s teacher, reached the same
conclusion about two hundred years earlier.) The halachic issues behind
women learning are very complicated and much ink has been spilled trying to
understand the key Rambam in Laws of Torah Study 1:13. Practically speaking,
it would seem to me that one can absolutely rely on Rav Dr. Aharon
Lichtenstein’s ruling, see
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/torah_study_for_women.htm which was sort
of the position assumed in Beth Tfiloh. Regardless, I would think that the
daily obligation to learn does not apply to women. Those interested in this
issue should see
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/08/women-learning-gemara.html and should
ask their Rav.


This requirement to learn every day is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh
Deah 246:1).

[It also is upheld by the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch and also
codified in the Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh Deah 246:7]

As Jews, our hearts and minds and especially our souls, need Torah learning.
Without Torah learning, to paraphrase Rabbi Akiva, we are like fish out of
water.

It is essential that we all learn something every day both morning and
night. This becomes even more pertinent when away from school, Yeshiva, or
college with an active Hillel. To succeed, one needs a plan, one needs to
know what one wants to accomplish. And ideally, one should learn with a
friend. (See Avos 4:18)

When deciding what to learn, one has many options.

Our Sages tell us that one learns what one enjoys (Avoda Zara 19a). This
does not exclude what one finds boring, we don’t learn because we enjoy it
but because we are commanded. However, this certainly can be used to
prioritize. Find intellectual stimulation.

I would say that first and foremost, one should go through the parshah each
week. One can use an Artscroll Chumash and when one seems something
interesting, look at the commentary. http://bible.ort.org/intro1.asp?lang=1
is a great resource for learning the Five Books of Moses.

Knowing practical Jewish Law is also important. Important laws regarding
interpersonal conduct can be found at
http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/ and
http://www.torah.org/advanced/business-halacha/5757/ Laws relating to G-d
can be found at http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha/

Regarding the best of Tanach, Chabad has the entire Tanach with Rashi
translated online.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255

Jewish Philosophy and ideas can be found on many sites. Aish HaTorah has put
up many essays written by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. They are fascinating,
scholarly, and easy to read.
http://www.aish.com/search/article_search_results.asp?article_author=Rabbi+Aryeh+Kaplan&title_text=&date_amount=&date_option=year

Torah.org has many other fascinating online resources. Check out
http://www.torah.org/learning/texts.php3

The Orthodox Union has many links. See http://www.ou.org/torah/index



Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai

Parshas Nasso



This is in the merit of my grandmother, Esther bat Mazal. May she have a complete and speedy recovery.





Question:



"God spoke to Moses, telling him to speak to Aaron and his sons, saying:

This is how you must bless the Israelites. Say to them:



'May God bless you and keep watch over you.

'May God illuminate His countenance for you and grant you grace.

'May God lift His continence toward you and grant you peace'.



Let them place My Name upon the Israelites and I will bless them" (Numbers 6:22-27).



(The words of the blessing are quite vague. This question is not about them.) It is quite clear from "Let them place My Name upon the Israelites and I will bless them" (6:27) that it is G-d who actually blesses the people, not the priests. Furthermore, G-d does not need intermediaries. So why have this whole service?





I will be including in my divrei Torah, short notes which are primarily for myself. They will be contained in double brackets, [[abc]]. I highly suggest that you ignore them.





Abstinence





This week's Torah portion contains the section of the Nazir (Numbers 6:1-21), a person who undertakes the optional Nazirite vow for a certain amount of time, which include certain restrictions such as not drinking wine, not cutting hair, etc.



Obviously, the fact that this system is included in our Torah means that it has some function and importance. However, how are we to view the individuals who undertake this vow and abstain from certain things? Should they be viewed favorably, unfavorably, or both? The answer is very important because it will influence how we view the physical world. Do we embrace the physical world or try to escape it?



Looking at the verses themselves, we find what seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand, it seems to say quite clearly:



"As long as he is a nazirite, he is holy to God" (Numbers 6:8).



However, among the offerings the Nazir must bring after completing the time of his vow, it says he must bring:



"…one unblemished yearling female sheep for a sin offering…" (Numbers 6:14).



The nazir offering a sin offering implies that he somehow sinned. This would seem to mean we should view him negatively.



This two readings are manifest in a dispute in the Talmud:



"Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar Berebi says: What is the implication of the phrase 'and he [the priest] shall provide him [the Nazir] atonement for having sinned regarding the person' (Numbers 6:11)? By which person then did he sin? Rather [we must conclude] that it refers to his denying himself wine. This is an a-fortiori argument. Just as one who only withholds from himself wine is called a sinner, how much more so for one who denies for himself all sorts of things!

Rebbi Elazar stated: He is called holy as it says "he shall be holy, the growth of hair on his head shall grow" (Numbers 6:5). And just as he who denies himself only one thing is called holy, how much more so for one who denies himself everything!" (Taanis 11a).



Before proceeding, it is important to state that neither opinion is as radical as might appear:

1. Rebbi Eliezer who condemns the nazir does not advocate hedonism.

2. Similarly, Rebbi Elazar does not advocate starvation.



[[See Torah Temimah regarding the choice of verses. See Bach on Taanis regarding the pairing of Shmuel to Rebbi Elazar]]





This dispute seems to carry into the middle ages, this time between the Rambam and the Ramban.



The Rambam states:



"A person might say, 'since envy, desire, [pursuit of] honor, and the like, are an evil path and drive a person from the world, [see Pirkei Avos 4:21] I shall separate from them to a very great degree and move away from them to the opposite extreme.' For example, he will not eat meat, nor drink wine, nor live in a pleasant home, nor wear fine clothing, but rather, [wear] sackcloth and course wool and the like – just as the pagan priests do.

This, too, is an evil path and it is forbidden to walk upon it. Whoever follows this path is a called a sinner, that behold, it says regarding the Nazir 'and he [the priest] shall provide him [the Nazir] atonement for having sinned regarding the person' (Numbers 6:11). Our Sages declared, if the nazir who only abstains from wine requires atonement, how much more so does one who abstains from everything.

Therefore, our Sages commanded man to abstain only from those things that the Torah denies him and not to forbid himself permitted things by vows and oaths [of abstention]. Thus our Sages stated: Are not those things which the Torah has prohibited sufficient for you that you most forbid additional things to yourself? [Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:1]

This general statement also refers to those who fact constantly. They are not following a good path, [for] our sages have forbidden a man to mortify himself by fasting. Of all the above, and their like, Solomon directed and said 'Do not be overly righteous and do not be overly clever, why make yourself desolate?' [Ecclesiastes 7:16]" (Hilchos Deos 3:1).



A commentary (by Rabbis Za'ev Abramson and Eliyahu Touger) however notes that the Rambam elsewhere says "Whoever takes a vow in order to stabilize his temperaments and correct his deeds, is zealous and praiseworthy" (Hilchos Nedarim 13:23). We see that the Rambam does not condemn vows of abstention when their purpose is to help one conquer his or her evil inclination and return to the middle path (Hilchos Deos 1:4). This is contrasted with abstention for its own sake, which here the Rambam forbids.



[[Commentary states it is interesting to note Rebbi Eliezer HaKappar, the source for the evil of envy, desire, and honor (Avos 4:21), also condemns the Nazir. Compare and contrast the Rambam's mention of pagans with that of the Ramchal's in his discussion of abstinence. See also Rambam's opinion regarding the Nazir in Morah Nevuchim pages 327 and 372 in the Friedlander translation, which require further thought. Finally, see Nazir 4b.]]



This all leads us directly to the Rama's explanation of the Rambam:



"…As Maimonides stated, spiritual healing corresponds to physical. Man must divert his evil inclinations from the extreme to the middle way. This is the basic idea of the Nazirite, when he abstains, because he observes that he has a weakness for worldly pleasures. He must go to the other extreme, in order to attain the middle way. Therefore, the Torah states, 'he shall be holy' (Numbers 6,5), since the holiness of the Nazirite will only really be in evidence, later on, after he has completed the days of his Naziriteship. Only then will he have attained the middle way, not at the time of taking the vow, when he had sinned and was imperfect. This is the meaning of the statement, 'and make atonement for that he sinned…'. This is because the abstention of the Nazirite is evil in itself, since all extremes are bad. The Nazirite was only commanded to abstain in order to achieve a good purpose, the attainment of the middle way" (Studies in Bamidbar, by Nechama Leibowitz, page 58. It does not give the source for the Rema's statement).



In other words, the Nazir is holy because he is working on himself. However, he is sinning because abstention in truth is extreme and bad.



[[If this interpretation is correct, it means that he is allowed to sin – abstain – for the purpose of improving himself. Very strange. One possible, but unlikely reading is that he is saying that the fact he needed to take the vow is a sin or indicates he is a sinner. This is unlikely given what Nechama writes on page 59.]]



In contrast to the Rambam is the Ramban. He holds that the abstention is positive and interprets the Nazir's sin as follows:



"This man sins against himself when he forsakes his vows of abstinence, when the days of his separation are fulfilled. He had separated himself to be holy unto the Lord and by rights he should always continue to live a life of holiness and separation to God, in accordance with the verse: 'And I raised up your sons for prophets and of your young men for Nazirites' (Amos 2:11). There the Nazirite is equated to the prophet. Similarly the Torah states 'All the days of his separation he shall be holy unto the Lord'. Now that he returns to defile himself with worldly passions, he requires atonement" (Ramban on Numbers 6:6, quoted by Nechama on page 56).



[[See however the piece from Toras HaAdam that Rav Hershberg showed to me where the Ramban criticizes the Rambam for his asceticism]]



In other words, the fact that the holy Nazir is choosing to no longer be holy is a sin.





Both the Rambam and the Ramban are able to interpret the sources to support their own position.



This is a very incomplete picture of a dispute that runs very deep. I have presented the views of both the Rambam and Ramban. While we certainly cannot decide between two authorities of such stature, we do need to live our lives and cannot live according to both. G-d willing, with this information, we will be able to form more mature and informed views on this matter.



[[I think this is also related to their disagreement about Kedoshim Tihiyu. See Rambam Sefer HaHitzvos clal 4 verses Ramban on Leviticus 19:2 where he mentions Nazir. I know the Ramban writes on clal 4, I wonder what he says. Maybe this dispute is also related to their disagreement about the World to Come. Or maybe it is unrelated but interesting to note the contrast of opinions.]]



Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai