Finding the Good

Parshat Terumah (Or Pekudei, Basically any Mishkan Parsha)

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In what some might call strange, but others might call obvious, there is a Midrash in which Moshe Rabbenu is not above suspicion. Here is the Yalkut Shimoni, Parshas Pekudei, 415, 

All that Moshe did he did through others. “The work of the Leviim in the hands of Itamar…” this was done as the work of the Mishkan ended. 

Moshe said "Let us do an accounting." All the people gathered, and they discovered that 1775 shekels were missing (they had been used for the hooks of the pillars). 

Moshe became frightened and thought, "Now Israel is going to accuse me of stealing!" Then he looked up and saw the Vavei Ha'amudim – the hooks of the pillars of the courtyard – whose value was 1775 shekels. And he remembered where that money had gone. 

The Midrash continues and asks, "Why did they do this auditing?" Doesn’t God say about Moshe, “לא כן עבדי משה – not so about Moshe, he is above reproach!”

The reason given is that Moshe heard people talking about him when he would return to his tent. Rabbi Yitzchak says they were praising him saying "Blessed is the one who gave birth to him. God always talks to him. He is complete with God.” And they would watch him admiringly as he passed. 

But Rabbi Chama says they were denigrating him. They would say "Look at his neck. Look at his shoulders. Look at his knees. That he eats and drinks and has anything is all on account of the Jews who support him." And the friend would respond "Don't you think someone in charge of the books of the Mishkan should be wealthy?" 

In response, Moshe said, "When we're done – we'll do an audit, so you can see I haven't taken anything." 

What boggles the mind about this Midrash is the idea that there could be people who would accuse Moshe Rabbenu of skimming off the top. MOSHE RABBENU! 

It would be one thing if the man had a care about physical things. 

Consider, however, that when the Bnei Yisrael were running around Egypt to get gold silver and clothing from the Egyptians, Moshe was looking for or arranging to take Yosef’s bones. 

When the Bnei Yisrael sat googly eyed at the Yam Suf after the splitting of the sea, Moshe Rabbenu is saying “time to move.” Rashi there notes that “he pushed them against their will, for Egypt had adorned their horses with gold and silver and precious stones, and Israel was finding them in the sea. The ‘take’ from the sea was greater than all they had taken from Egypt… so Moshe had to force them to travel, against their will.” 

Clearly this is a man who is unaffected by riches. Clearly this is a man who prefers to take the people to Marah, where they will have the experience of שם שם לו חק ומשפט ושם נסהו , where he can teach them Torah laws, where they can see things from a different perspective than the kind that seems, in his eyes, to only focus on gold, silver, and possessions. 

R. Abraham b'r Jacob Saba, who lived in Spain in 1492, then Portugal through 1497, then Morocco, then Turkey, writes in his Tzror HaMor, regarding Moshe’s pushing the people towards Midbar Shur at that time, and eventually to Marah. 

“Perhaps Bnei Yisrael did not want to go out and to travel to the wilderness. Maybe they wanted to return on the path they had come. Maybe they wanted to go to Egypt to claim that land and take vengeance against their enemies. They knew the layout of Egypt. They knew only women and children were left in Egypt. Perhaps some wanted to go back and destroy Egypt even more, to let them know of God’s might and abilities. But when Moshe saw they were doing this, essentially violating or at the very least ignoring the mission God had given them, he guided them, against their will into Midbar Shur.” 

He goes on to quote the Midrash HaNeelam, which suggests that Moshe needed to do this, to bring them in this direction – not because of the treasures at the sea – but because they had experienced greatness in seeing the Shechinah. When they sang זה א לי ואנוהו - they indicated what their life purpose was really about – resting on the glory of the Almighty, and exalting the glory of the Almighty. They were eating heavenly bread. They had all prophesied. They didn’t want to move from that spot, because they felt they had reached a pinnacle, and any move from there might be a step down. They became agreeable to go to Midbar Shur, because שור is like the way Bilaam used the word אשורנו ולא קרוב - I perceive it, but not in the near future. They wanted to see if מדבר שור was a place of continued perception of the Almighty. And so he concludes וזהו וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר ולא מצאו מים חיים 

ולא יכלו לראות יותר – they couldn’t see anything else. And that’s why when they traveled 3 days and couldn’t find water, it’s not because there wasn’t water. They were just so distraught at what they had lost that they couldn’t see the water – which the צרור המור says אין מים אלא תורה (what they were really missing was Torah, for which water is often a metaphor). 

So which one was it that caused them to miss what was in front of their eyes? The loss of the ביזת הים ? Or the going down levels from what they experienced at the sea? Unclear! 

In either case – it further proves that Moshe Rabbenu was above all this. He continued to see the Almighty. He couldn’t relate to their complaints about water. He knew God would provide. And money or material things continued to not be in his lexicon of things he wanted. 

So – how could anyone accuse him of anything related to the finances of the Mishkan, when all he is emphasizing to the people is that this Mishkan will be the place where God’s Shechinah rests? How could they accuse him when he even called off the campaign when they had enough! 

Because sadly, it is human nature. 

I once took a course with Rabbi Chaim Feuerman, Z”L, in which we had to give model lessons to our classmates, and Rabbi Feuerman encouraged us to give feedback that was positive. As he put it, וראה בטוב ירושלים . Seek out the good. Don’t say what you didn’t like about the model lesson. Say what you liked. Emphasize the points you particularly learned from and thought were excellent. It was a great lesson in seeing the positing in others’ teachings.

One student said, “I can’t learn like this! I WANT constructive criticism. I can take it! How else will I know what I did wrong?” While Rabbi Feuerman discouraged, the student insisted, and while we were kind but very critical, he didn’t seem to take it as well as he thought he could. 

There is a powerful scene in the original “Pollyanna” film in which the title character speaks the preacher who screams fire and brimstone every week. And she shares with him a quote from Abraham Lincoln, “If you look for the bad in people, expecting to find it, you surely will.” It transforms his character and makes for a significant change in the small town.

 It seems that some of the people, even in the time of the greatest effort of the Bnei Yisrael, to bring the Divine Presence among the people in the time of the Mishkan, wanted to seek out the bad in the efforts – even challenging Moshe Rabbenu, who I like to believe we would all agree would be above any kind of suspicion. 

Human nature – to do as Lincoln suggested – is very easy. 

To go against human nature, and to go the route of Rabbi Feuerman, of וראה בטוב ירושלים , seeking out the good, highlighting that, emphasizing that – that is where the challenge lies. 

Is everything perfect? Is anything perfect? 

We can highlight the goodness we see. We can take advantage of every opportunity to learn and grow that we find here. We can be positive. We can be uplifting. We can learn from the negativity against Moshe Rabbenu, and the negativity after the splitting of the sea that there are ways to overcome – the solution for positivity in our community lies in growing our relationship with Hashem, and leaving out the distractions that take us away from that.

When we look for the good in others, we should be blessed to truly find it.

How Mishpatim Keep us Grounded

Parshat Mishpatim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 While there is a debate as to whether the Mishpatim were taught before or after Moshe went up the mountain for 40 days, an easier point to make is that the Mishpatim are related thematically to the verses at the end of last week’s parsha, as indicated by the letter "ו" that opens our parsha: ואלה המשפטים…

 Rashi notes that the semichus (proximity) of the rules of the Mizbeach, laid out in the end of Parshas Yisro, are the lead in to Mishpatim to indicate that the source of the rule of law, the Sanhedrin, should be based next to the Mikdash, where the Mizbeach is. 

But Netziv takes the thematic connection deeper. The Ten Commandments began with אנכ ה אל-קיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים. Taking us out of Egypt, a land of Tumah which could never achieve any level of Kedusha, makes for a clear distinction of why the Torah couldn’t be given in Egypt, and why Revelation couldn’t happen in Egypt. And once we’re in the realm of discussing holiness of the earth, it is appropriate to mention that the ideal Mizbeach is supposed to be made of אדמה. But not just any אדמה. It has to be אדמה that is capable of being used for Kedusha. Note that the קרבן פסח, brought in Egypt, wasn’t really a קרבן. It was slaughtered and then roasted over a fire – each person could have done it in their own yard – as the Mizbeach of Egypt is defined as two doorposts and a lintel. 

Netziv suggests the following chronology: Moshe was given the laws of Mishpatim. He taught them to Aharon and Chur thoroughly. Moshe went up the mountain, leaving Aharon and Chur in charge, armed with the knowledge to answer questions and deal with all the interpersonal issues raised in the Mishpatim listings. Revelation took place. Ten Commandments. After the Ten Commandments, which mentioned God’s having taken the people out of the Land of Egypt, God also mentions that a Mizbeach should be made out of earth. And once we’re talking about consecrated earth, the Torah then describes laws that are meant to elevate a people into a realm of Kedusha they could not achieve in Egypt. 

In a way, we can say that the interpersonal Mishpatim are meant to keep the people grounded, to see that there is a system of law, and that while there is freedom and a certain sense of personal autonomy, we are entering the realm of Naaseh v’Nishma which grounds us to a subservience to the Almighty which is certainly voluntary, but all of Bnei Yisrael voluntarily accepted at that time. 

 Another point to explore will be presented now in 3 ways. 

First: Quoting Rabbi Yishmael from the Mechilta, Rashi at the end of Yisro says: “R”Y said: Every time the word אם is used in the Torah it refers to some action the doing of which is optional, except in three instances. Here: ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי means “And when you make for Me an altar of stone, לא תבנה אתהן גזית, you shall not make it of cut stones,” for you are obligated to build an altar of stone, as it is said, (Devarim 27:6) “of whole stones you shall build [the Mizbeach for God]”. Similarly – and the following is from our parsha, (Shemos 22:24) אם כסף תלוה את עמי is obligatory and signifies: “when (אם) you lend My people money”, and not, “if you lend”, because it is said, (Devarim 15:8) “And you shall surely lend him.” Similarly, (Vayikra 2:14) ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים means “And when (ואם) you offer the meal-offering of first-fruits”, and not, “if you offer”… these instances of אם are not conditional, meaning “if”, but absolute, and that they are used in the sense of כאשר, “when” you do each action described…” 

Of course one could surely argue that fulfillment of all of these is voluntary in a translation of אם to mean “when you do” insofar as one is obeying the king. That is the approach Rashi is advocating – do because you obey. 

Maharal offers a second approach to this dedication to God, challenging Rashi, as he feels one should serve the Master because one wants to serve the Master, not because one is compelled to serve the Master. That is what true עבודה is – service – as opposed to שיעבוד, enslavement, which is anything but voluntary. 

 

You build a Mizbeach because you want to serve Hashem. 

You lend money because you want to help someone out. 

You bring the Minchas Bikkurim because you truly appreciate God’s hand in how things grow and so you are expressing gratitude because you want to express gratitude. 

Therefore, Maharal concludes, one should actually aim to fulfill these mitzvos “as if” they are voluntary, because if one does them because they are compulsory, one is actually not serving God properly. 

A third approach is from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein - that each of the mitzvos mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael is in some way not ideal. The "אם" reflects, not the “when you do the mitzvah” but rather the ambivalence about the situation: 

1. אם כסף תלוה – Helping someone with a loan is less preferred because a. the person is in a needy situation, and b. the loan makes the person indebted, which is far less than ideal for anyone 

2. מנחת ביכורים – R. Lichtenstein argued that it is a “defective” korban, as it comes from barley, with actual halakhic consequences – see רמב"ם הל' פסולי המוקדשין יד:ג. In other words, “If you have to bring the omer, even though it is not typical…” so do it in the manner prescribed. 

3. אם מזבח אבנים – Sacrifice must come from a place of humility, and thus a מזבח אדמה is most appropriate. However, “If in the long-term you must construct a stone מזבח…” be sure to put the setup in such a manner that modesty and humility are at the forefront. 

Therefore there must be a ramp, no cutting mechanism used to shape those stones. Humility must guide the order of bringing such offerings on that Mizbeach. 

In its time, the Mizbeach was used every day of the year. Aside from the daily offerings, it was mostly used throughout the year when individuals would bring their own required or voluntary Korbanos, depending on why they were bringing them. 

The Mizbeach’s busiest time of the year was the holidays, when people had the mitzvah of Aliyah L’regel, and as we read in Mishpatim, ולא יראו פני ריקם – to not come emptyhanded. Meshekh Chokhmah (Meir Simcha of Dvinsk) quotes the Gemara in Sukkah about how it was through humility that Israel would present themselves before the Almighty. This was Rav Lichtenstein’s point for the 3rd verse above. 

Based on a verse in Shir HaShirim מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב the Gemara quotes a pasuk in Tehillim נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם (we say this chapter before Shofar blowing on RH), to say that when the nobles of the nations will gather to serve God, they will join the nation of the God of Avraham. Why the God of Avraham, and not Yitzchak and Yaakov? The Talmud answers that Avraham was the first convert to Monotheism. A גר is the model of humility when it comes to demonstrating submission to the Almighty, as his or her sincerity is subject to the scrutiny of a Bet Din, and the feeling conveyed is one we can all learn from - “These people are letting me join their people.” It’s a privilege to serve Hashem! 

That is what being an Eved Hashem is all about? 

The Gemara in Sukkah goes on to connect dots to the verse in Micha 6:8 - He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk humbly with your God - as it remind us that acts of charity are more important than sacrifices, and that acts of kindness are more important than charity. 

And all of these, the Meiri on the Gemara explains, is to be done through the guiding principle of humility and humbleness. It means come before God with humility, go about one’s tzedakah-giving with humility, and do one’s acts of Gemilus Chasadim with humility. 

 

Giving details, he writes that some chasadim are done publicly – such as Hachnasas Kallah and burying the dead. Nevertheless, they should be done with humility. Certainly, then, tzedakah and divrei Torah, which are more private affairs, should be given over or done with humility. 

Didn’t the Talmud just tell us that Gemilus Chasadim (GMCH) is even greater than tzedakah! 

Meiri explains: Tzedakah is done with money – write a check and you’re done. Give some cash and you’re done. GMCH is done with one’s body and one’s pocketbook – lend things, help a guy out, roll up sleeves, etc. 

Tzedakah is aimed only to help the poor. 

GMCH helps the rich as well. Rejoicing with the bride and groom, doing a shiva visit, visiting the sick. 

Tzedakah only helps the living. 

GMCH helps the dead as well in all that we do at a funeral. 

The merits and benefits of Tzedakah are multiplied by the Gemilas Chesed which accompanies it. How far did I drive? How much did I cook or bake for that person? To give ready to eat food, as opposed to giving money which makes the needy person have to go out to buy, or to cook, in order to get that needed sustenance. 

With all of this – service of God, tzedakah, and Gemilus Chasadim, there really is one question that should never be asked. And that question is “What’s in it for me?” A. Because then it’s not coming from a place of humility. And B. Because then it’s no longer Avodah. It’s no longer Chesed. It becomes a transaction. A transaction means I’m not doing it because it’s right or because I want to do it. I’m doing it because of what I get out of it. 

Rav Lichtenstein said that sacrifice and service has to come from a place of humility. And the Gemara and the Meiri showed us how that same trait must guide both Tzedakah and Gemilus Chasadim. 

 

And from the overall connection between the Mizbeach of Earth instructions at the end of Yisro that leads into ALL of the Mishpatim, we are reminded that even our simple connection to God’s law is guided by humbleness. 

As we will be tasked with giving in the coming weeks – Matanos L’Evyonim for Purim and Ma’os Chitim for Pesach – let us remember that whatever we have is a gift from the Almighty and we are the vessels through which it is paid forward to those who are needy, to those who are the recipients of our tzedakah and the beneficiaries of our Gemilut Chasadim. May we merit to give with humility, and to hopefully be blessed in the kind by the Almighty.

Just Because You Love It Does Not Mean You Can Covet

Parshas Yisro

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the last of the Ten Commandments, we have the Hebrew phrase, לא תחמד, You shall not covet, appearing twice. יד) לֹ֥א תַחְמֹ֖ד בֵּ֣ית רֵעֶ֑ךָ ס לֹֽא־תַחְמֹ֞ד אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֶ֗ךָ וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ֙ וְשׁוֹר֣וֹ וַחֲמֹר֔וֹ וְכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְרֵעֶֽךָ: -- Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that is your neighbor's. 

 There is a subtle but clear difference in the presentation of the Tenth Commandment in Parshas Va’eschanan, which reads like this: יח) וְלֹ֥א תַחְמֹ֖ד אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֶ֑ךָ ס וְלֹ֨א תִתְאַוֶּ֜ה בֵּ֣ית רֵעֶ֗ךָ שָׂדֵ֜הוּ וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ֙ שׁוֹר֣וֹ וַחֲמֹר֔וֹ וְכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְרֵעֶֽךָ: ס -- Do not covet your neighbor's wife. Do not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor. 

 In both cases the words Lo Sachmod are attached to Eishes Rei’ekha (your neighbor’s wife). Though the reference to the wife is changed – in Yisro it is mentioned after not coveting Beis Rei’ekha, while in Va’eschanan it is mentioned first and not connected to anything else. 

 In Yisro, Lo Sachmod for the neighbor’s wife is attached to all the things listed – male and female servants, ox, donkey, and everything your neighbor owns. The same verb is employed in the first half of the verse attached to the feeling of wanting one’s neighbor’s house, which is listed separate from everything else. 

 In Va’eschanan, there is a different word employed – Lo Sisaveh – which probably is best translated as “don’t desire,” and seems to be the verb of choice employed for everything other than the neighbor’s wife. Don’t covet – לא תחמד – the wife. And don’t desire all the other items – though here a “field” is added (שדהו) to the list of specifics, even though it is certainly included in the phrase of וכל אשר לרעך. 

 What does it mean to Covet? The Rambam (LT 265) defines the prohibition against coveting: We are warned against making all kinds of efforts in order to acquire something from our friend’s possession. Even if one intends to buy it, even with an immense sum of money! 

 Lo Sisaveh (LT 266) – the formulation used in Va’Eschanan - is a warning against desiring it in our hearts, because that desire leads to Chimud, actually doing something to acquire the item. In essence, the Mechilta explains that Taavah (desiring) leads to Chimud (coveting), and Chimud leads to stealing. 

 Sefer HaChinukh points out (Mitzvah 38) that stealing can lead to murder. 

Violation of Chimud comes when your friend’s property is now yours – even if you bought it! – when he had no desire to get rid of it. The classic example of this is when the evil King Achav desired the land that Navot HaYizraeli owned. The story in Melachim I Chapter 21 is quite disgraceful and disturbing, and it involved deception, lying, stealing, and even murder, all justified by the royal perpetrators of the crimes, because of a Chimud which certainly went unchecked and led to actions that are so criminal in every way. 

 On the mitzvah of not desiring – Lo Sisaveh (416) – the Sefer HaChinukh gives a scathing rebuke: Don’t wonder and ask “How could a person stop himself from desiring anything he sees? How could the Torah command withdrawal, when it is impossible for a human being to stop one’s thoughts?” This is not true. Only fools say these kinds of things.

A person can CERTAINLY control himself or herself. It is within the person’s power to make such decisions, etc. It might very well be a struggle. But it is also one that can be overcome.

One need only open a newspaper or news website to read how dangerous Taavah and Chimud can be.. Assaults, rapes, teachers seducing (raping) underage students, all kinds of perverse sexual activity that is even too disturbing to mention by name; theft, murder, terrorism (which is often celebrated by the worst kinds of people humanity has to offer). Two hours before Shabbos (on Friday 2/10/23) in Jerusalem a terrorist drove into a bus station killing two people (ages 20 and 6) and injuring a few others. He was shot dead at the scene as people were trying to get him out of the car. 

 In the latter case, this Tayvah for hate, the Chimud that leads to murder in the name of a desire for violence that can’t be quenched is difficult to understand or come to grips with. 

 In a way, though, all of these stem from coveting. Whether coveting a person, coveting control, coveting to control others’ lives, coveting a land or life that others are enjoying might not seem to speak to our personal experience (depending who is reading this and where people live). We can ask what do these kinds of generalizations have to do with us? Not to covet? That’s simple enough. How often do we go into a friend’s house and offer to buy their family heirlooms, their photographs, their car, their house, when they are not even offering to sell? Which man is encouraging his friend to divorce for the sole purpose of marrying the other man's wife? Who among us so desires what another person has that we’d resort to murder to get it? 

 How far is covet’s reach? Is being friends with a couple a violation of this? Is thinking “so-and-so has a nice wife” a prohibition? 

 A few clarifications are in order to help us understand the relevant dangers of Lo Sachmod. 

 One: Coveting is not the same thing as jealousy. If a person wants a nice house, a nice car, a nice wife and a wonderful family because he sees you have a nice car, a nice house, a nice wife, a wonderful family, the person is not coveting. The person wants to have a certain kind of joy or pleasure in life that is available if life aligns in that way. Certainly hishtadlus (effort) may be necessary to make it happen. But getting those things on one’s own is beneficial to the individual, it takes nothing away from you. Jealousy is not a great thing – but it’s a personal problem. 

 Coveting is when a person wants YOURS A. to have what was yours (taking from your life, even if paying for it), and B. so you won’t have it anymore. 

 If you are selling your car, your house, or if you’ve divorced your wife, there is no prohibition from another person desiring to buy the tangible items. That is business. Trying to court and marry an unmarried woman is not a violation of the prohibition of coveting. That is legitimate courtship. 

 Aside from the process that is designed by the Mechilta, of how desiring leads to coveting, which leads to stealing, which may lead to murder, because in all likelihood we’re not stealing and murdering, what is wrong with a thought process of Tayvah? What is wrong with convincing someone to sell something he doesn’t want to part with? 

 The downsides of Lo Sachmod include selfishness – that I deserve something that I arguably do not deserve. 

 Or, perhaps the opposite, that I desire to be something that I am not. Remember that so-important teaching of Ben Zoma, איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו – who is rich? He who is happy with his portion. The person who violates Lo Sachmod is clearly not happy with his or her portion, which is why he/she is seeking to change who he or she is through taking over different aspects of someone else’s life. 

 Ibn Ezra suggests that the real problem with Lo Sachmod is that the violator demonstrates a significant lack of Emunah – lack of faith in God that his portion in life, what God has given him is exactly what he should have. If he wants something similar to what someone else has that is fine, but it should be gotten honestly (legit business transaction) and not through a means that deprives someone else of their own happiness. 

 In Parshas Kedoshim, the parsha very clearly parallels the Aseres Hadibros in many ways, and the Ramban, who jumps on these, aiming to assign direct parallels to the Ten Commandments links Lo Sachmod with V’ahavta L’Reiakha Kamokha.

In other words, this important principle, so focused on by the likes of Rabbi Akiva as one of the greatest principles in the Torah, is violated by anyone who covets his neighbor’s property, or who covets his neighbor’s wife. 

Finally, in an article on this last of the Dibros, Rabbi Michael Rosenzweig focused on Lo Sachmod as the closing bookend of the unit of the Aseres Hadibros, suggesting that the opening – Anochi Hashem E’lokekha, is linked to the closing – Lo Sachmod. The Aseres HaDibros begins with a call-out for a faith commitment, which is vitalized and manifested through a commitment to halakha, and the shaping of the halakhic personality in particular. 

The other Bein Adam Lachaveiro mitzvos here are relatively uncommon sins among the faithful. Murder? Adultery? Stealing? Kidnapping? Selling into slavery? Lying in court? 

But Lo Sachmod is the beginning of the slippery slope that can lead to all of them. 

Who wants to murder or steal or commit adultery? Most people are not interested in that. But once the threshold of Lo Sachmod is crossed, all kinds of justifications slip into the psyche to allow deeds we would otherwise never commit. 

Just Because You Love It Does Not Mean You Can Covet – because coveting is the beginning of the end of the breakdown of our relationships, and ultimately, our Torah and halakhically oriented society.

Pessimism is a Downer

Parshat Beshalach

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

As they are being confronted by a pursuing Egyptian army, some of the Israelites turn to Moshe and say “We told you so!” Or, to be more precise in translating their words, “This is indeed the thing we told you of in Egypt, that we are better off serving Egypt than dying in the wilderness.” As to what they actually told him in Egypt, most sources point to Shemos 5:21 when, after hearing their workload has gotten harder since they will no longer be provided with straw, the people say “May God look upon you and judge, for you have brought us into foul odor in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants, to place a sword into their hand[s] to kill us.” The Pesikta describes their “journey” in this way: “First we were pained in Egypt on account of our slavery. Then the deaths of our brethren during the 3 days of darkness hit us, which was more painful than slavery. And now we perceive our own pending death in the wilderness as even worse than the deaths of our brethren in Egypt, for they were buried, and in this wilderness, who will bury us?” [The reference to darkness is a line of thinking in the Midrash that the Israelites who were unworthy or who did not want to leave Egypt died during the Plague of Darkness, so the Egyptians would not see the devastation wrought against the Israelites during those 3 days.]

Surely there is an element of human nature on display here, whether it’s wistful nostalgia for the olden days, a grim look at the present in comparing it to the past, or a simple pessimism that apparently things DO always get worse. 

This sentiment is addressed by some of the commentaries on the Torah. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, a super-commentary on Rashi (commentary on a commentary) notes the 5:21 quote mentioned above as to when they told Moshe in Egypt of how bad things were indicating that when they said “you are putting a sword in their hand…” they were not indicating that it is better for us to be enslaved in Egypt than to die in the wilderness. After all, at that point they were still in Egypt, and the prospect of possibly dying in the wilderness was not an option yet. AND their brethren hadn’t died in Darkness yet. In fact, none of the plagues had taken place yet at that point. 

 What they are saying here is that “what we said at that time turned out to be correct. You had made things worse for us in Egypt through causing our labor to be harder. Subsequent to that, we’ve seen our brethren die in the Darkness, and we are about to be killed ourselves. Everything was much better before you (Moshe) showed up and only made things worse than our original status quo.” 

It’s amazing how slaves can be so beaten down that their reality of slavery, of no hope, of a seemingly endless road to nowhere can come to be accepted as “normal” and something which is “good.” Certainly when people are optimistic about their abysmal conditions, they may say “Things can always be worse.” But these texts indicate that it’s only when things get worse that in hindsight people appreciate how the previous “bad” was “better” than what we are facing now. 

 Kli Yakar notes the reality that when Pharaoh made the labor more intense back in Chapter 5, he did not make any decrees of genocide. Their claim “to put a sword in their hands to kill us” was not only an exaggeration, but it was a lie. In their defense, perhaps their backbreaking labor is compared to a sword, and making their labor harder will inevitably lead to more deaths, even if there isn’t a specific genocidal campaign against them. 

Kli Yakar suggests that they indicated both that Pharaoh did not send them, and he made them into further pariahs through how the Egyptians perceive them (“into foul odor in the eyes of the Egyptians”). Continuing the thought process of how Pharaoh will perceive them, “You told Pharaoh we’d be celebrating God in the wilderness, but now Pharaoh perceives that we are not coming back altogether. Undoubtedly this will cause him to chase after us! In other words, this method of deception is as if you have put a sword in their hands with designs on killing us. Now that we see them actually chasing, whatever had been held in check is now part of history. NOW, Egypt is looking for blood.” 

 Alternatively, “now that we see how about our situation outside of Egypt is, we should have noted how much better things were for us in Egypt. We are only noticing and realizing this now.” 

As noted above, this is human nature. While some people are very good about living in the moment and appreciating God’s hand in every aspect of life, some only notice the things they missed earlier when the moment is gone, or when it is too late. 

 It is hard to tell a pessimist to be an optimist, just as it is hard to encourage an optimist to be pessimistic. We can’t make an extrovert be introverted, and good luck trying to get the introvert to be an extrovert. It’s not that passion can’t push a person beyond natural limitations, but looking to change someone’s nature is very difficult, if not impossible. 

 When we consider the viewpoint expressed by the Midrash, that in hindsight, things are only getting worse, we see a perspective that Moshe challenges and dismisses. 

 Forget about Egypt and what you perceive! As you see Egypt today, you will not see them again! In other words, things are getting better! Not only is slavery over, but you are free… free to move into the sea and see God’s mighty hand, free to move on from slavery, free to do many things you’ve thought are forbidden, free to choose to have God in your life, free to raise your children, free to educate your children, free to be free of being owned by the State. 

 It is not the intention to change anyone’s nature in this essay. But perhaps Moshe Rabbenu’s message to the people he addresses is “Don’t be SO pessimistic. Not every charge, not every perceived outcome turns out the way you think it will be.” 

Such is life. We do our part, we trust that God will carry us the rest of the way, and we must always always always hope and pray for the best. There is an old line (which I am slightly modifying), “For those who don’t believe, there are no answers. For those who believe, there aren’t really any questions.” 

 Moshe Rabbenu was trying to teach the Bnei Yisrael to believe, because there shouldn’t really be questions. And of course the outcome of what followed this incredible tale is “And they believed in God, and in Moshe His servant.”