A Quick Punishment Leads Directly to Teshuvah

Parshat Chukat

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Bamidbar 21:5-8 contains what we might consider to be the quickest sin, punishment, retribution, and repentant turnaround in all of the Torah.

               

“The people spoke out against God and Moses, 'Why did you take us out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread and no water! We are getting disgusted with this wasteless/ insubstantial food.' God sent poisonous snakes against the people, and when they began biting the people, a number of Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, 'We have sinned by speaking against God and you. Pray to God, and have Him take the snakes away from us.'”

                

God then gives Moshe the solution for those who have been bitten: a copper snake raised on a pole (one international symbol for pharmacy), for people to gaze upon in order to be healed (this is a simplistic understanding of how the snake “worked”).

                

Chasam Sofer asks, why now, after 40 years in the wilderness, are the people complaining about the Manna? To further his question, we can wonder how the new generation might be expressing the sentiment that the manna doesn’t produce waste! If most of them were born, and they all grew up in the wilderness, then this is the only reality they know! How could they complain that the manna is just absorbed in the body, if they’ve never experienced waste-producing food?

                

He suggests that once they encountered other nations, and engaged with them in trade, they discovered the foods the Edomites (and others) ate, and had their first major exposure to the digestive system. However, the wheat they may have eaten did not produce waste, so they felt the Manna had destroyed their bodies.

                

Rabbenu Bachaye notes that the whole purpose of the Manna while they were traveling was to train them to have trust and faith in God. The moment they spoke falsehoods about God, they were punished with snakes, the symbol of speaking falsehoods (think Garden of Eden). [He quotes the Medrash Tanchuma that the punishment of snakes is measure for measure in a different way: the snake who eats anything and it all tastes the same to him will come and punish those who complain about eating the one thing that has many possible flavors.]

                

Rabbi Abraham Sabba (Tzror Hamor) suggests that their immediate response to the snakes of “We have sinned” brought immediate atonement for their sin. That God told Moshe to create a “Saraph” (5:8), even though Moshe made a “Nachash” (5:9) (both words seem to refer to a snake image) indicates that God’s intent was for the copper snake to serve as a healer for their ailments of the soul (refuat ha’nefesh).

                

No matter what the copper snake was meant to heal, and no matter the reason for the complaints at this time, the fact remains that the whole ordeal seems to begin and end very quickly. Even though the complaint about the Manna is understandable to us in 20/20 hindsight, the complaint about water makes no sense! Didn’t they see what just happened a chapter ago when they complained about water?

                

Could it be that they’re complaining about the new reality which will soon be upon them, that they’re going to have to shlep water and actually work hard to get the food they need once the Manna runs out and the well runs dry?

                

It’s hard to know, as the Torah doesn’t give us much background to the complaining.

                

But one thing is clear. When the guilty are punished with a swift retribution from God, without conversations or confrontations, without raised voices and ire between sides, an understanding is quickly reached.

                

Note how the Torah does not tell us that their food situation or water situation changed or improved. The tale concludes with the people owning up to their sin and with Moshe building the copper snake to help heal those who were bitten.

                

Then they move on to their next destination.

                

While I am not suggesting an overhaul of the justice system in this country (though with DNA testing, we often hear stories of innocent people sitting on death row for years), there are times – such as in the recent horrific shooting in the Charleston, S.C church, as well as other mass shootings in the country – where the perpetrator is known, there are multiple witnesses, and the blood is on his hands, where the swift punishment would drive the message home. A speedy trial without lengthy deliberations, as necessary.

                

It worked in the Torah! For the first time, the people immediately admit their guilt, and they don’t even get what they want!

                

Alas, God is the only One Who can be so sure. Until such a time when He chooses to punish accordingly again, we can marvel at how quickly the lesson is learned, and hope that in our own human way we can learn from His incredible example. 

Tzaraat or Death? Disastrous Results of Haughtiness and Denying God

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 After the Korach episode, Moshe is told by God to tell his nephew Elazar to take the fire pans of those who perished bringing the k’toret, and hammer them out in order for them to become covers for the miz’be’ach.

 “And Elazar the Kohen took the copper pans that were offered by those who were burned, and he hammered them into covers for the miz’be’ach. [It was to serve as] a reminder to the Children of Israel, in order that no stranger – who is not of the seed of Aharon – will come close to burn the k’toret before God. And he will not be like Korach and like his cohorts, as God spoke, in the hand of Moshe, to him.” (17:4-5) 

Many commentaries note that the last phrase, “as God spoke, in the hand of Moshe, to him,” seems out of place. Some, such as the Da’at Zekenim, suggest that though these words appear at the end of 17:5, they refer directly to Elazar’s actions of 17:4.

 The phrase “And he will not be like Korach and like his cohorts” is also enigmatic. It could refer to Elazar who, unlike Korach, will be doing exactly what God instructed; it could refer to the non-Kohen who, unlike Korach, avoids bringing k’toret; it could refer to the punishment itself (as opposed to the behavior), that no perpetrator will be swallowed by the ground!

 Rashi (and many others) focuses on the strange phrase “B’yad Moshe” (in the hand of Moshe), suggesting that the verse is teaching us that those who argue over Kohanic rights will be punished with Tzara’at, just as Moshe was punished “in his hand” with tzara’at in Shmot 4:6. This suggests that being swallowed by the ground or consumed by a fire is not a punishment which will be assigned to any future k'toret burners.

 Rashi supports this teaching using the example of King Uzziah (Divrei Hayamim II:26:19) who was afflicted with tzara’at for the rest of his life after he approached the Temple to burn k’toret, despite not being a Kohen.

 But there are problems with Rashi’s teaching. The phrase “B’yad Moshe” appears over 15 times in the Torah. It usually refers to how Moshe presented the law, which descended from the mountain “in Moshe’s hand,” and it doesn’t seem to ever refer to the “punishment” Moshe received at the burning bush. One could even argue that the tzara’at that Moshe received at the burning bush wasn’t even a punishment, as it only lasted for 5 seconds, and was meant to be a sign that God had sent him! Furthermore, where at the burning bush does Moshe burn k’toret or covet the Priesthood?

 Rashi is likely referring to the passage in the Talmud Sanhedrin 110a that says

“someone who hangs on to ‘machloket’ (the need to maintain a fight) violates the rule to not be like Korach and his cohorts. Rav Ashi says, he deserves to get tzara’at – because in this case it refers to [a punishment literally] in the hand of Moshe, and in Shmot Moshe was told to bring his hand into his shirt [in order to receive the tzara’at].”

 How is one parallel to the other? Even if Moshe was punished, how is his circumstance similar to Korach’s?

The Kli Yakar advances this question further, suggesting that if we’re going to try to learn a punishment of tzara’at for challenging authority, we’d be better off learning it from Miriam’s story, when she spoke about her brother’s leadership, claiming similar strengths as a prophetess, and got tzara’at as a result!

 We know that tzara’at was a punishment for seven sins: lashon hora, murder, swearing in vain, immorality, haughtiness, theft and stinginess. (Arakhin 16a) Note that wanting the Priesthood is not on the list.

 Kli Yakar notes that God’s worldview of punishment is “measure for measure.” The Talmud (Shabbat 97a) says, we learn from Moshe that one who suspects others unjustly is punished on his body. Moshe suspected that the Israelites would not believe he was sent by God (Shmot 4:1), assuming he had made everything up. This is exactly what Korach accused Moshe of – fabricating a law that serves his own purposes and makes him (and Aharon) important, without any real Divine instruction.

 Were Moshe’s accusation at the burning bush true, the people would have been subject to tzara’at. Since it was not true, that punishment was put on Moshe, measure for measure. The Kli Yakar explains that this sort of pronouncement fits in with the sins of lashon hora and haughtiness, which the Israelites would have been displaying had they indeed not believed that Moshe was sent by God.

 The reason why Korach and his cohorts met the end that they met was because in addition to bringing k’toret, they denied God completely. They were culpable for two punishments, (tzaraa'at and death) and they received the greater one (death) following the principle of “Kim leh b’d’raba mineh.”

 The strange conclusion of our verse, therefore is teaching the following: the flattened out pans are meant to serve as a reminder for all non-Kohanim not to bring k’toret, because while we are confident they will not be like Korach and his cohorts who denied God’s law and were guilty of all kinds of sins, they are still challenging Moshe’s prophesy that the Priesthood belongs to the family of Aharon alone, as they are thinking their worthiness trumps the priestly bloodline. This is a sin of haughtiness which is punishable with tzara’at. 

Elazar’s role, therefore, is significant only in that he is a Kohen who is representing that Moshe’s prophesy of the Divine assignment of the priesthood is true.

 For everyone else, the lesson is clear. There are different ways of challenging authority. Asking legitimate questions in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is not only valid. It is significantly important. And if there is something wrong with the authority, it is imperative to find the truth and to bring it out.

 On the other hand, saying Moshe or Aharon are unworthy because “I am more worthy” or because “I deny God’s role in appointing you,” is an offense that is beyond the pale. It is not only arrogance which drives such an approach, but it comes from a place that is far deeper and darker than a respectable desire to understand.

 There are no Moshes and Aharons today. No one is given Divine Authority for any position. When we need to challenge leadership, we must always come from the first approach – a genuine pursuit of truth aimed towards understanding, in order to know how to proceed.

 Korach and his cohorts wanted to bring Moshe and Aharon down simply because they didn’t like them. We dare not look to destroy anyone’s life on account of any hateful vendetta.

Pharoah - Yes!; Pharaoh - No

Parshat Shlach

 by Rabbi Avi Billet

 Last weekend earned some off-the-track Jewish attention. On Thursday of last week, Mexican jockey Victor Espinoza made his way to the Chabad Ohel and the grave of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The spiritual man was looking for some divine intervention to help him win the Triple Crown.

 On Saturday, the “Jewish horse,” the ironically named American Pharoah, owned by the Jewish Egyptian-American Zayat family, running under the aforementioned jockey, did indeed make history, being the first horse to win the coveted horse-racing title in 37 years.

 The CBS report on Espinoza’s visit to the Rebbe noted that it was probably the first time anyone prayed for a pharaoh at the Ohel. But I suppose that the horse’s purposely misspelled name makes it alright.

 Watching Ahmed Zayat explain how God comes first for his family, and hearing of their plans to camp out in Belmont for Shabbos in order to be present for the race, one can’t help but think that while their horse’s name might include a nod to their Egyptian origins, they have no intent to ever return there. Not that this is surprising. Why would anyone who had suffered or been oppressed by Egypt ever want to return there?

 This is precisely the dilemma we are faced with when we read Bamidbar 14:2-4: “The entire community was saying, 'We wish we had died in Egypt! We should have died in this desert! Why is God bringing us to this land to die by the sword? Our wives and children will be captives! It would be best to go back to Egypt!' The people started saying to one another, 'Let's appoint a [new] leader and go back to Egypt.'”

 Having been the victims of slavery and oppression, we wonder how the Israelites could possibly contemplate returning to Egypt, even when faced with what seems to be the dangerous nature of the Canaanites. Even if Canaan seems to be a less than favorable option, having seen that they can survive in the wilderness, wouldn’t no-man’s-land be a suitable alternative over a return to bondage?

 The simplest answer is the most obvious one. They may not have preferred Egypt, but at least they were familiar with Egypt. They knew what to expect.

 And the Chizkuni interprets along these lines when he suggests the Israelites were saying, “When we were in Egypt, when someone died he would leave his belongings to his relatives or neighbors. But now, anything a person “leaves behind” is lost.”

 Think about the negative episode of Korach, in which those swallowed by the ground lost everything, leaving nothing for whatever surviving children they may have had.

 Tzlafchad, who is much more positively portrayed in the Torah, also leaves nothing to his daughters upon his death (a controversial reality until the law is clarified).

 In this light, the desire to return to Egypt is really to return to a life that is relatively routine, when a nation is not living out of suitcases, and when they can settle in a reality that is, at least to their knowledge and experience, normal.

 The Alshikh adds an insight that touches completely on the psyche of the people, due to their awareness of history. The people knew that the promise to Avraham had been for his children to be strangers in a strange land for 400 years. They also knew that from the time Yaakov came down to Egypt until the Exodus, only 210 years had passed. Many may have felt there were 190 years to go, albeit in a different location. And this was the rub, because they knew how their women and children had been treated in Egypt: relatively well. But there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to how a Canaanite or Emorite bondage would have translated into mistreatment of the women and children. And so, the return to Egypt was offered as an option because it seemed the better of two evils.

 We are the beneficiaries of 20-20 hindsight. We know that the choices and decisions, as well as the thought processes of the Israelites were out of line. We know they followed the advice of 10 spies instead of the two righteous ones who were faith-driven men preaching what they knew to be correct on account of their relationships with the Divine. We know that if the spies incident had gone differently, the people likely would have been in the land within days or weeks, not 40 years. And we know that had Moshe led them into Canaan, they wouldn’t have experienced Canaan as “an evil” in any way.

 The question is if we would have behaved any differently? How many people are ready to leave a less-than-perfect yet familiar life to branch off into the “eretz lo zarua” – the land of the unknown? Who feels comfortable moving to a new place where the promises that have been offered haven’t been actualized yet? 

While hopefully our options are not even remotely similar to Egyptian bondage or Canaanite bondage, life presents its own set of challenges that sometimes push people to seek personally greener pastures in education, employment, self-employment, what neighborhood, state, or country to live in, and in how to raise a family.

 Some people may not like that the Zayats attended the Belmont race. Perhaps horse racing is not in the spirit of Shabbos. But I think that with the bad press certain elements of the Orthodox world have been getting, the example the Zayats set in stating that God comes first, in wearing their Shabbos clothes to the races and in camping out so they could be in attendance without driving, is a welcome Kiddush Hashem. 

Seeing a Jewish family engage in their greener pasture while respectably honoring their God does not even fall into the equation of the lesser of two evils. Maybe not all of us would have done the same in similar circumstances (honestly, most Americans do not understand the subtleties of Shabbos questions). But the Kiddush Hashem aspect cannot be overlooked. It is a hallmark of the Jewish people that the spies, and people who followed them, overlooked. You honor God first. And then pray that everything else will fall into place.

 And with American Pharoah, it seems everything did.

Plan A, B, C... (ad hasof), Because You Never Know...

Parshat Be'haalotkha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Before things begin to go sour with the complaints and offensive ways of the Jewish people in the wilderness, Moshe invites his father in law to join the Nation of Israel, and “to be our eyes.” (10:31) The simple understanding is that Moshe is asking Chovav/Yitro to be a guide for the Jewish people.

 Rabbenu Bachaye asks the almost obvious question: If the people are traveling based on the clouds (9:17-23), what need do they have for Yitro to be a guide?

 He gives four answers, the last two coming from the Midrash:

1. Moshe wanted to give encouragement to those who were of lesser faith, who were more comfortable following a human being than a cloud. 
2. “To be eyes for us” (an alternative translation) means to serve as a witness for the nations of what you’ve seen with your own eyes, such as the signs and great wonders. This would allow the nations to learn the lesson that Korach experienced, and be inspired to join the Jewish people. 
3. “You’ll be our eyes” in that anything our eyes miss (or perhaps don’t understand), you will enlighten for us. 
4. (loose translation) “You will be as beloved to us as the apple of our eyes” as the Torah says (Devarim 10:19) “You shall love the convert.” 

 For the most part, these answers put Moshe’s request in a very different light. With the exception of the first approach, Moshe is not asking Yitro to be a guide for the people. In all the explanations, he is asking Yitro to serve as some kind of inspiration for whoever sees him at the shared helm of the Israelite nation.

 One might think that the first answer is quite problematic. Why accede to the of-little- faith-folk just because they need to see a figure head in front of them? Wouldn’t Moshe be good enough? And even if he doesn’t technically know the way, he seems to have found Mt. Sinai with God’s direction. Perhaps it would be good for the people not to second-guess his leadership! So why would Moshe yield to this idea, particularly since it seems to be his own initiative, and not coming from the people themselves?

 Maybe it was a premonition. The faith of the people changed very quickly after this exchange. Maybe Moshe knew that the people would start doing the wrong thing, might make poor choices, might slowly challenge his leadership. Maybe he was aware and was trying to nip the problem in the bud. In hindsight, of course, we don’t know what Yitro chose to do. Knowing the rest of the story, the first interpretation could suggest either that Yitro left, or that Moshe’s idea did not last long. Any inspiration was quickly lost to those of little faith.

 The other interpretations have a much more positive outlook of the role Yitro could have served for the mutual benefit of himself, the nation of Israel, and the nations they would encounter. Once again, not knowing what he chose to do, our hindsight could indicate either that the thought was nice, but he didn’t show up, or that Moshe’s thought didn’t pan out for other reasons.

 The take-home lesson is that for any logistical arrangement, it is always a good idea to have a “Plan B.” There is evidence (see Rashi, Chizkuni) that Moshe was already aware that he was not going to enter the land (predating the spies incident and the hitting-the-rock incident). As Yehoshua had not yet been appointed successor, maybe Moshe was trying to give leadership to a man he trusted, who knew the terrain. Maybe he felt that there was a disconnect between himself and the people. Maybe he felt that a person of Yitro’s stature could best demonstrate a positive image of this nation that might otherwise soon strike fear in the hearts of the nations of Canaan.

 From his own people, and even from God’s vantage-point, Moshe’s plan had too many holes in it. Would the people be happy with extended travel? Did they like the format of travel? Were they content with the leadership? Could they offer a face to the world that would be appealing, for other nations to embrace? 

Moshe seems to have revered his father in law, so he invites him to be the solution to all the problems.

 But even Plan B doesn’t work, and there is no Plan C. And the proof is how quickly things sour, when Yitro’s role is not realized the way we anticipate, and the people quickly lose faith in Moshe’s leadership in the coming chapters.

 Too much of life is lost to poor planning and lack of contingency foresight. With the right systems and groups in place, we can hopefully fulfill the dictum of Tamid 32a – “Who is wise? One who anticipates what is coming.”

 If only we could be blessed to be so insightful. If only we could plan for every possible outcome, and always be on top, no matter what curve ball life throws our way!