Parshat Balak
by Rabbi Avi Billet
One of the more profound lessons that appears in our liturgy is in Tehillim 128 – “See the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life.”
Beyond Jerusalem itself, the verse serves as an important reminder to have a positive outlook, an approach not shared by anyone in the parsha.
Balak perceives the Jewish people and just sees them as a conquering horde. Balak’s first impression of Bilaam is that he’s a guy who thinks Balak’s men aren’t good enough for him, and that he is driven only by money. Balak’s emissaries see Bilaam as a person difficult to work with – he might be standing on principle in refusing to accompany them if God doesn’t let him. But seriously, as he clearly wants to go, his excuses seem kind of pathetic.
Even the donkey – after it smashes his leg, Bilaam is so fed up that he forgets all the good times he has had with the donkey, saying “If I only had a sword I’d kill you.” To which the donkey says, “Aren’t I your donkey? I’ve carried you hundreds of miles – and this is how you treat me?”
And then when Bilaam and Balak finally meet, at every turn Balak is faced with the reality that he should have never hired Bilaam.
Why did Balak really have a gripe against Israel? What would have happened if Moav had sent a messenger to Israel, instead of to Bilaam, saying “What are your plans? We saw what you did to Sichon and Og, both of whom attacked you. We are Semites – we are actually your cousins. Yaakov and Moav were 2nd cousins. What is your plan?”
They probably would have been told that God has no beef with them, that Israel has no beef with them, and that if they would be allowed to cross over the Jordan in peace, everything would be fine. The plagues and battles which follow could have been avoided with simple communication and real diplomacy.
No one looks for the positive in this story. No “thanks” for making the trip from Pethor to Moav. No “respect” for Bilaam’s relationship with his god. No “thanks” for a donkey that has served you well for many years. No “concern” for the young men who accompany Bilaam, who seem to disappear once the donkey takes over his scene. No “admiration” for a nation who suffered hundreds of years of hardship, 40 years in the wilderness, who defended themselves from attacks by Sichon and Og, when all they wanted was to get to the Promised Land – all of which should have no bearing on Moav’s future!
Seeing the good of Jerusalem means to acknowledge positivity.
Arguably the best way to acknowledge positivity in the human relationship is through kind words.
Rav Dessler famously said that the definition of love is the ability to give. There are many ways to give tangible items, but other ways to give include giving one’s time, a listening ear, or throughthey are great at giving compliments.
Dr. Robert Waldinger is the 4th director of a Harvard Study that followed 724 men over a period of 75 years, to see what drives them, their goals in life, etc, and what the study found he summarized in this way in a TED talk: “Good relationships make us happier and healthier. Period.” In more detail, he talked about the quality of the relationships we have, and the need to not feel lonely, even when in a relationship.
In a different Google talk, a man named Andrew Horn, suggested that the best way to get the most out of relationships essentially focuses on seeing the good in them.
First, be interested in others. Being interested in others is what makes us interesting. Imagine if we make every friendly conversation about the other person (unless it’s a discussion of ideas, debate, or learning)
Second, we can give to others, make relationships more deep, profound and meaningful, when we add a simple opening word to catch phrases we might say all the time. Instead of “I love you” say “I love you because…” and then finish the sentence. Because you inspire me. Because of the care you show for others. Because you are wonderful in so many ways. Instead of “Thank you” or “Thanks” say “Thank you for” and then finish the sentence. For being there, for caring, for making this meal, for hosting me, for sharing with me from your life experience.
Finally, we can be complimentary through shifting around the line, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all,” and instead having a philosophy of, “If you have anything nice to say, say it all.”
That thought is reminiscent of Hillel’s famous line of “Don’t do to others what is hateful to you.” But flipped to the positive, which person does not like compliments, does not like to hear a positive vibe, or does not appreciate a warm encounter?
The only person who ends up being complimentary in our Parsha is Bilaam towards the Jewish people. He’s the one who says the phrase which begins our daily prayer service, “How good are your tents, Jacob, your dwelling places, Israel!”
If he could find complimentary things to say about the Jewish people, despite all the imperfections we know we have, we should all be able to find nice things to say about people we love and care for in our lives. In particular as we enter the 3-weeks period leading up to Tisha B’Av, the idea of enhancing relationships should be a focus we can all appreciate.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Monday, June 25, 2018
Who Was Punished With Moshe and Aharon's Demise?
Parshat Chukat
Two years ago I put together the links to all the articles I had written about the sin of Moshe and Aharon and their punishment. That page is entitled Moshe's Sin, and can be found here.
Last year, subsequent to writing and emailing my weekly dvar Torah, I wrote two new ideas (which are linked in the Moshe's Sin page), and posted them to this blog.
One discusses the formula of how to sanctify God's name - through removing the staff from being the object of focus, turning attention to the Almighty Himself and sanctifying His Name.
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-formula-how-moshe-teaches-profound.html
The other idea was the Netziv's addressing how Moshe's and Aharon's consequence can be seen and understood through the lens of "Middah K'neged Middah" - cause and consequence in the hands of the Almighty being of the same stimulus and response.
This year I discovered the commentary of the Malbim on this segment, and his view, more than any other, focuses on a very different perspective, of course following in the realm of Middah K'neged Middah.
Tangentially, I never understood how anyone could accept the narrative of "You hit the rock, therefore you don't get to enter the land." Firstly, God never says that. God says, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the people, therefore you will not bring this people to the land I have promised them." Secondly, that "depiction" ignores that God operates using the function of Middah K'neged Middah.
Which brings us to the Malbim. (I did not translate it, but the last paragraph of his commentary on this section (20:13) is reproduced below )
Using a significant analysis which describes what would have happened had Moshe led the people into the land, and why, long term, that would have been devastating to the people, because they would have relied on Moshe, and not God, for everything, he essentially argues that the reason Moshe and Aharon could not lead the people is because the people were unworthy to have Moshe and Aharon as their leaders!
What the rock incident demonstrated is that the people did not have the patience to trust in God, did not have the proper respect for Moshe and Aharon, and were only worthy of having a next level leader (not as top tier) down from Moshe.
That Moshe's death was decreed as a result is an unfortunate consequence for him (as well as for Aharon, whose death was also indicated).
Moshe does blame his impending death on the people in a couple of places in the Torah. Malbim affirms that the consequence of Moshe's dying as a result of the level of the people is most unfortunate for Moshe, but it was more a punishment to the people than anything else.
As we know, "the death of the righteous is meant to make an impact." This impact was meant to be devastating to the people, with an important lesson on how to relate to and appreciate leadership, especially divinely chosen leadership.
Two years ago I put together the links to all the articles I had written about the sin of Moshe and Aharon and their punishment. That page is entitled Moshe's Sin, and can be found here.
Last year, subsequent to writing and emailing my weekly dvar Torah, I wrote two new ideas (which are linked in the Moshe's Sin page), and posted them to this blog.
One discusses the formula of how to sanctify God's name - through removing the staff from being the object of focus, turning attention to the Almighty Himself and sanctifying His Name.
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-formula-how-moshe-teaches-profound.html
The other idea was the Netziv's addressing how Moshe's and Aharon's consequence can be seen and understood through the lens of "Middah K'neged Middah" - cause and consequence in the hands of the Almighty being of the same stimulus and response.
This year I discovered the commentary of the Malbim on this segment, and his view, more than any other, focuses on a very different perspective, of course following in the realm of Middah K'neged Middah.
Tangentially, I never understood how anyone could accept the narrative of "You hit the rock, therefore you don't get to enter the land." Firstly, God never says that. God says, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the people, therefore you will not bring this people to the land I have promised them." Secondly, that "depiction" ignores that God operates using the function of Middah K'neged Middah.
Which brings us to the Malbim. (I did not translate it, but the last paragraph of his commentary on this section (20:13) is reproduced below )
Using a significant analysis which describes what would have happened had Moshe led the people into the land, and why, long term, that would have been devastating to the people, because they would have relied on Moshe, and not God, for everything, he essentially argues that the reason Moshe and Aharon could not lead the people is because the people were unworthy to have Moshe and Aharon as their leaders!
What the rock incident demonstrated is that the people did not have the patience to trust in God, did not have the proper respect for Moshe and Aharon, and were only worthy of having a next level leader (not as top tier) down from Moshe.
That Moshe's death was decreed as a result is an unfortunate consequence for him (as well as for Aharon, whose death was also indicated).
Moshe does blame his impending death on the people in a couple of places in the Torah. Malbim affirms that the consequence of Moshe's dying as a result of the level of the people is most unfortunate for Moshe, but it was more a punishment to the people than anything else.
As we know, "the death of the righteous is meant to make an impact." This impact was meant to be devastating to the people, with an important lesson on how to relate to and appreciate leadership, especially divinely chosen leadership.
ועדיין נשאר לבאר איך אפשר שבעבור דבר קל כזה נגזר עונש כזה על שני שרי צבאות ישראל, בפרט שהיה להם התנצלות שצווי זה היה רק על תנאי אם נקהלו העדה שהם הסנהדרין, ועוד שבסדר דברים הזכיר עונש משה וגזרתו בתוך גזרת המרגלים כמ"ש ויקצוף וישבע לאמר אם יראה איש באנשים האלה וכו' זולתי כלב בן יפונה וכו' ואח"כ אמר גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם לאמר גם אתה לא תבא שם וכו' וטפכם אשר אמרתם וכו' שמבואר שנגזר עליו מיתה בסבת ענין המרגלים, וכן אמר ויתאנף ה' בי למענכם, וה' התאנף בי על דבריכם, שמשמע שהיה העונש בעבור ישראל לא בעבור חטא משה, גם מלשון הכתוב שאמר יען לא האמנתם בי וכו' לכן לא תביאו את הקהל הזה אל הארץ משמע שעקר כונת הגזרה הזאת היתה כדי שלא יביאו את הקהל אל הארץ, אבל מה שהם עצמם ימותו במדבר ולא יבואו אל הארץ זה נמשך ממילא שלכן לא באו אל הארץ כדי שלא יביאו את הקהל, ומיתתם במדבר לא היה מצד עצם הגזרה כי הם לא חטאו כלל חטא שיגזר עליהם מיתה רק שישראל לא היו ראוים אז שמשה יביאם אל הארץ והוא ע"פ מה שאמרו חז"ל במדרשיהם שאם היה משה מביא את ישראל לארץ היה אז הכבוש שלא ע"י מלחמה רק ע"י ה' שהיה מפיל את אויביהם לפניהם ועוד אמרו שאם היה משה נכנס לארץ היה בונה את המקדש ולא היה נחרב לעולם, ועוד אמרו שאם היה משה נכנס לארץ הי' אז הגאולה הנצחיית המקווה שיהיה לעת"ל, והיה אז ימות המשיח, אולם דבר זה שיהיה אז התקון הכללי המקווה שיהיה באחרית הימים תלוי בתנאי אם היו ישראל שלמים בצדקתם וחזקים באמונתם והיו כלם ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש שאז היו מוכנים לכנוס אל הארץ תכף ומשה בראשם ואז היו כל הז' אומות נופלים חללים שלא ע"י מלחמה רק ע"י ה' כמו שפרש"י בפ' דברים עמ"ש עלה רש, ומשה היה בונה המקדש תכף בענין שלא יחרב לעולם כי לא היה עוד גלות ושעבוד לעולם, אבל אחר שחטאו בענין המרגלים שנתברר שאינם שלמים באמונתם וצדקתם, לא היה אפשר שמשה יביא אותם לא"י, אחר שמאז היו עתידים להיות בשעבוד גליות, ושהמקדשות יחרבו מה שא"א אם היה משה מביא אותם אל הארץ וכמ"ש בפ' שלח בתורה אור שם בארך ומאז חשב ה' שגם משה לא יכנס לארץ, וכשגזר ה' על דור המדבר שלא יבואו אל הארץ לא הוציא מהגזרה כי אם יהושע וכלב לא את משה ואהרן. ועז"א בפ' דברים גם בי התאנף ה' גם אתה לא תבוא שם, ובכ"ז לא היה זה אז גזרה מוחלטת, ואם היו דור באי הארץ שלמים באמונתם ולא היו כאבותם דור סורר ומורה היה אפשר שמשה יביא אותם אל הארץ ושיגיע אז עת התקון הכללי, כי לא היה גז"ד שיש עמו שבועה, והיה תלוי בהטבת מעשיהם, אבל עתה אחר ענין מי מריבה, שרבו את ה' והראו שאינם שלמים באמונתם, ומשה הכה את הסלע ועי"כ נשרש בלבבם ריב חדש על ה' ואמרו שהוציא את המים בתחבולה אנושית ולא האמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, ראה ה' שאינם ראוים למדרגה הגדולה הזאת ששני הרועים האלהיים האלה יביאו אותם אל הארץ שבהכרח יגיעו אז ימות המשיח ותקון הכללי שלא יהיה עוד גלות וחורבן וכל רע, ולכן גזר בגז"ד שיש עמו שבועה שמשה ואהרן לא יביאו אותם אל הארץ וזה לא בחטא משה ואהרן רק בסבת חסרון שלמות ישראל, וממילא נסבב מזה מיתת משה ואהרן במדבר כמ"ש ויקציפו על מי מריבה וירע למשה בעבורם:
Friday, June 15, 2018
How Losers Can Really Be Winners
Parshat Korach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Whenever I participate in a raffle, with great anticipation I wait for the drawing which will declare me, as usual, a loser. And my losing ticket? Ends up in the garbage, of course.
The mature response to not winning is to perhaps congratulate the winner, and to otherwise move on, putting the competition behind us. Is there any merit to keeping the losing ticket?
After Aharon heroically stops the plague which followed the Korach episode, after people had accused Moshe and Aharon of causing the deaths of “nation of God” (17:6-15), God tells Moshe to put a stop to all this rebellion once and for all time, through the head of each tribe writing his name on his personal staff and placing it in the Tent of Meeting over night. The staff which blossoms will be the proof that its owner and his tribe was chosen by God.
Sure enough, Aharon’s staff, representing the tribe of Levi, famously blossomed, “It had given forth leaves, and was [now] producing blossoms and almonds were ripening on it.” (17:23)
When Moshe brought the staffs out, the Israelites were able to see that Aharon was in fact chosen, as of all the dead pieces of wood, only his brought forth growth, and we are told “Each man took his own staff.” (17:24)
Each one took his losing ticket. Why?
Perhaps it can be that each had a personal attachment to the stick at hand, perhaps as a walking stick, perhaps as something else. But whereas Aharon’s staff becomes a “mishmeres l’os livnei merri” – a safeguard and a sign for those who might rebel – these staffs serve what purpose?
The Netziv explains that there was a deeper message here. When the staffs had been brought into the Mishkan to functionally serve as a test of who should be the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) and to demonstrate which tribe had been chosen to be the tribe to service the Mishkan, each leader thought his staff had become sanctified. Each had intent that his staff was a gift to the Mishkan and would no longer be available for use ever. But when Moshe brought the staffs out, everyone saw clearly that Aharon’s staff had blossomed and that God had confirmed the choice that had been made long ago.
They then realized that their staffs were not holy, and that with the exception of Aharon’s staff, the others were not designated for Mishkan use any more.
This was a powerful lesson for a People who had just seen some of their peers make valiant efforts to prove that their service at the highest level was acceptable to God simply because of their own desires, emotions and feelings. Korach and co said “We are all holy, so we can all be High Priests!” Um, no. You can achieve a level of holiness, but you cannot take on a role God did not assign to you.
This is why the firepans were able to be hammered out and placed as an adornment on the Mizbeach, as a reminder that there is holiness, and there is HOLINESS. You can all bring a korban (offering), but only the Kohanim can be the representatives through which each korban is offered properly. When you look at the Mizbeach you’ll be reminded that you can only go so far.
Simlilarly, each tribal leader may have had a snippet of a thought (much more innocently than Korach’s cohort did) that maybe maybe maybe my tribe will be chosen. Maybe maybe maybe I have a shot too!
And the proof is that they even came to see if their staffs had “won.” As a result, they took their losing ticket home, partly because it turned out to not be “mekudash” (sanctified), partly because they may have had a sentimental or practical attachment to the stick, and partly to remind themselves and their tribes for all time, “I tried. We tried. Our losing stick is meant to remind us of that episode, so we can always be aware of what our role is, and what our role is not.”
But even more than reminding us what is and what is not, perhaps the stick was also meant to show that I can hope, I can dream, and if I put in my effort, I can at least be a competitor for the top.
Sometimes we think we are unworthy of even competing. Certainly in the Olympics, for example, there are only three medal winners in each competition. But don’t ever think that those who don’t come home with a medal look back on the fact that they competed with the greatest athletes in the world, and as the greatest athlete in their own country, and ended up in 10th place or 20th place. That is still an incredible accomplishment, even for one who did not winner.
Not everyone who loses is a “loser.” Losers walk away having learned nothing from the experience, or having gained nothing.
I suppose I should learn not to buy raffle tickets. Then I’d be a winner when these raffles come along, because I’ll have saved my money.
The tribal leaders were winners who took home their “losing” souvenirs as a reminder that the winner accepts one’s role in God’s camp, and doesn’t look to usurp a position that is not assigned by God’s rules.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Whenever I participate in a raffle, with great anticipation I wait for the drawing which will declare me, as usual, a loser. And my losing ticket? Ends up in the garbage, of course.
The mature response to not winning is to perhaps congratulate the winner, and to otherwise move on, putting the competition behind us. Is there any merit to keeping the losing ticket?
After Aharon heroically stops the plague which followed the Korach episode, after people had accused Moshe and Aharon of causing the deaths of “nation of God” (17:6-15), God tells Moshe to put a stop to all this rebellion once and for all time, through the head of each tribe writing his name on his personal staff and placing it in the Tent of Meeting over night. The staff which blossoms will be the proof that its owner and his tribe was chosen by God.
Sure enough, Aharon’s staff, representing the tribe of Levi, famously blossomed, “It had given forth leaves, and was [now] producing blossoms and almonds were ripening on it.” (17:23)
When Moshe brought the staffs out, the Israelites were able to see that Aharon was in fact chosen, as of all the dead pieces of wood, only his brought forth growth, and we are told “Each man took his own staff.” (17:24)
Each one took his losing ticket. Why?
Perhaps it can be that each had a personal attachment to the stick at hand, perhaps as a walking stick, perhaps as something else. But whereas Aharon’s staff becomes a “mishmeres l’os livnei merri” – a safeguard and a sign for those who might rebel – these staffs serve what purpose?
The Netziv explains that there was a deeper message here. When the staffs had been brought into the Mishkan to functionally serve as a test of who should be the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) and to demonstrate which tribe had been chosen to be the tribe to service the Mishkan, each leader thought his staff had become sanctified. Each had intent that his staff was a gift to the Mishkan and would no longer be available for use ever. But when Moshe brought the staffs out, everyone saw clearly that Aharon’s staff had blossomed and that God had confirmed the choice that had been made long ago.
They then realized that their staffs were not holy, and that with the exception of Aharon’s staff, the others were not designated for Mishkan use any more.
This was a powerful lesson for a People who had just seen some of their peers make valiant efforts to prove that their service at the highest level was acceptable to God simply because of their own desires, emotions and feelings. Korach and co said “We are all holy, so we can all be High Priests!” Um, no. You can achieve a level of holiness, but you cannot take on a role God did not assign to you.
This is why the firepans were able to be hammered out and placed as an adornment on the Mizbeach, as a reminder that there is holiness, and there is HOLINESS. You can all bring a korban (offering), but only the Kohanim can be the representatives through which each korban is offered properly. When you look at the Mizbeach you’ll be reminded that you can only go so far.
Simlilarly, each tribal leader may have had a snippet of a thought (much more innocently than Korach’s cohort did) that maybe maybe maybe my tribe will be chosen. Maybe maybe maybe I have a shot too!
And the proof is that they even came to see if their staffs had “won.” As a result, they took their losing ticket home, partly because it turned out to not be “mekudash” (sanctified), partly because they may have had a sentimental or practical attachment to the stick, and partly to remind themselves and their tribes for all time, “I tried. We tried. Our losing stick is meant to remind us of that episode, so we can always be aware of what our role is, and what our role is not.”
But even more than reminding us what is and what is not, perhaps the stick was also meant to show that I can hope, I can dream, and if I put in my effort, I can at least be a competitor for the top.
Sometimes we think we are unworthy of even competing. Certainly in the Olympics, for example, there are only three medal winners in each competition. But don’t ever think that those who don’t come home with a medal look back on the fact that they competed with the greatest athletes in the world, and as the greatest athlete in their own country, and ended up in 10th place or 20th place. That is still an incredible accomplishment, even for one who did not winner.
Not everyone who loses is a “loser.” Losers walk away having learned nothing from the experience, or having gained nothing.
I suppose I should learn not to buy raffle tickets. Then I’d be a winner when these raffles come along, because I’ll have saved my money.
The tribal leaders were winners who took home their “losing” souvenirs as a reminder that the winner accepts one’s role in God’s camp, and doesn’t look to usurp a position that is not assigned by God’s rules.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Moshe and Hoshea/Yehoshua
Parshat Shlach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After listing the names of the leaders set to “tour” and spy the land, the Torah informs us that Moshe changed Hoshea bin Nun’s name to Yehoshua.
The fact that his name is mentioned prior to this as Yehoshua is the Torah’s way of referring to something or someone “al shem sofo” – based on how it will turn out. The Torah has the benefit of hindsight to be able to do that.
Why was Yehoshua’s name changed?
Rashi explains Yehoshua’s name-change saying Moshe prayed “Kah yoshiakha me’atzat meraglim,” that God should save you from the scheme of the spies.
If indeed Moshe uttered such a prayer, a fair assumption is that he knew the spies mission would end horribly. If so, why did he go ahead with it?
The Torah Temimah explains that Moshe did not actually read the future insofar as human behavior is concerned. He was concerned for Yehoshua, his student, his protégé, who was a descendant of Yosef. It is certainly not farfetched to expect that some of the spies would come back with negative reports. Perhaps there would be an equal balance of positivity and negativity so that they could debate about strategy!
Who could anticipate that it would be 10 to 2, an overwhelming majority, and that the path they’d pick would get overwhelming support from the people to reject the Promised Land?
Yehoshua was a descendant of Yosef, the same Yosef who spoke ill (“dibbah”) about his brothers. The same Yosef who accused his brothers of being “Meraglim” (spies) when they came to Egypt looking for food. There is a history in Yehoshua which needs attention (though why Gadi ben Susi of Menashe is ignored is a reasonable question) and Moshe is doing what he can. (See Kli Yakar!)
In his Otzar HaChaim, Rabbi Chaim Zuckerman suggests that what Moshe actually prayed was “Kah Yoshiakha” (the play on words that leads to the name Yehoshua) and left out the words “me’atzat meraglim,” a phrase added by the Rabbis at a later period, in hindsight to what actually happened.
Of course Yosef’s name had also been changed when he became viceroy in Egypt. Perhaps a name change is an indicator of good fortune to come. It is also possible that what worked for the ancestor might work for the descendant.
There are a few takeaway messages from this story.
First, with all the positivity that accompanies every undertaking, we always have to brace and be prepared for failure. If we can anticipate those kinds of outcomes, our preparation can help us be ready for contingency plans. Case in point – Yehoshua emerges from this story unscathed, while all other spies (with the exception of Kalev) are destroyed.
Second, having a relationship with a leader is to one’s greater benefit than not having such a relationship. Surely everyone viewed Moshe as their master and teacher. But Yehoshua, with rare exception, did not leave Moshe’s tent. He was constantly at Moshe’s side, looking out for his teacher’s best interests, and doing whatever possible to promote his teacher’s honor. And so, of course, knowing Yehoshua much better than he knew the others, he was looking out for him specifically.
While the truly honest leaders love all of their constituents, it is very hard not to care slightly more for those with whom there is a relationship. Which begs the question, upon whom is the onus of making that relationship stronger, to the point of flourishing?
Some think it is the leader’s job to reach out, make phone calls, visit, open one’s home. Others see it as the job of the constituent to reach out, to bask in the feet of the leader (as per Avot’s teaching), in order to strengthen and maintain that relationship.
Having seen and experienced both sides of this, I would suggest either approach is largely a reflection of the personalities of both parties. What is the coveted leader’s personality? What are the needs of the constituent?
We don’t know a lot about the relationship between Moshe and Yehoshua. We know who was the master and who was the student. We know the Yehoshua defended Moshe’s honor (think Eldad and Meidad), and we know that Moshe looked out for Yehoshua’s safety (spies story) and that Moshe ultimately was given the greatest gift, that the person closest to him in the last stage of his life became his successor.
May our relationships be blessed to be as close as that of Moshe and Yehoshua.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After listing the names of the leaders set to “tour” and spy the land, the Torah informs us that Moshe changed Hoshea bin Nun’s name to Yehoshua.
The fact that his name is mentioned prior to this as Yehoshua is the Torah’s way of referring to something or someone “al shem sofo” – based on how it will turn out. The Torah has the benefit of hindsight to be able to do that.
Why was Yehoshua’s name changed?
Rashi explains Yehoshua’s name-change saying Moshe prayed “Kah yoshiakha me’atzat meraglim,” that God should save you from the scheme of the spies.
If indeed Moshe uttered such a prayer, a fair assumption is that he knew the spies mission would end horribly. If so, why did he go ahead with it?
The Torah Temimah explains that Moshe did not actually read the future insofar as human behavior is concerned. He was concerned for Yehoshua, his student, his protégé, who was a descendant of Yosef. It is certainly not farfetched to expect that some of the spies would come back with negative reports. Perhaps there would be an equal balance of positivity and negativity so that they could debate about strategy!
Who could anticipate that it would be 10 to 2, an overwhelming majority, and that the path they’d pick would get overwhelming support from the people to reject the Promised Land?
Yehoshua was a descendant of Yosef, the same Yosef who spoke ill (“dibbah”) about his brothers. The same Yosef who accused his brothers of being “Meraglim” (spies) when they came to Egypt looking for food. There is a history in Yehoshua which needs attention (though why Gadi ben Susi of Menashe is ignored is a reasonable question) and Moshe is doing what he can. (See Kli Yakar!)
In his Otzar HaChaim, Rabbi Chaim Zuckerman suggests that what Moshe actually prayed was “Kah Yoshiakha” (the play on words that leads to the name Yehoshua) and left out the words “me’atzat meraglim,” a phrase added by the Rabbis at a later period, in hindsight to what actually happened.
Of course Yosef’s name had also been changed when he became viceroy in Egypt. Perhaps a name change is an indicator of good fortune to come. It is also possible that what worked for the ancestor might work for the descendant.
There are a few takeaway messages from this story.
First, with all the positivity that accompanies every undertaking, we always have to brace and be prepared for failure. If we can anticipate those kinds of outcomes, our preparation can help us be ready for contingency plans. Case in point – Yehoshua emerges from this story unscathed, while all other spies (with the exception of Kalev) are destroyed.
Second, having a relationship with a leader is to one’s greater benefit than not having such a relationship. Surely everyone viewed Moshe as their master and teacher. But Yehoshua, with rare exception, did not leave Moshe’s tent. He was constantly at Moshe’s side, looking out for his teacher’s best interests, and doing whatever possible to promote his teacher’s honor. And so, of course, knowing Yehoshua much better than he knew the others, he was looking out for him specifically.
While the truly honest leaders love all of their constituents, it is very hard not to care slightly more for those with whom there is a relationship. Which begs the question, upon whom is the onus of making that relationship stronger, to the point of flourishing?
Some think it is the leader’s job to reach out, make phone calls, visit, open one’s home. Others see it as the job of the constituent to reach out, to bask in the feet of the leader (as per Avot’s teaching), in order to strengthen and maintain that relationship.
Having seen and experienced both sides of this, I would suggest either approach is largely a reflection of the personalities of both parties. What is the coveted leader’s personality? What are the needs of the constituent?
We don’t know a lot about the relationship between Moshe and Yehoshua. We know who was the master and who was the student. We know the Yehoshua defended Moshe’s honor (think Eldad and Meidad), and we know that Moshe looked out for Yehoshua’s safety (spies story) and that Moshe ultimately was given the greatest gift, that the person closest to him in the last stage of his life became his successor.
May our relationships be blessed to be as close as that of Moshe and Yehoshua.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)