When “Doing Because It’s Right” is Insufficient

Parshat Matos

[This is my sermon from last year - 2018]

When “Doing Because It’s Right” is Insufficient

I did a Google search on the sentence “do it because it’s the right thing to do.”

Of course one of the top hits that came up was a page about “doing the right thing” quotations. Here are a few of them.

“The time is always right to do what is right.     - Martin Luther King, Jr

“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.” - Abraham Lincoln

“Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway.” - Eleanor Roosevelt

“Next to doing the right thing, the most important thing is to let people know you are doing the right thing.” - John D. Rockefeller

“Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest.” - Mark Twain

          Some of these contain truths. I would argue with Eleanor Roosevelt that feelings don’t always translate to the right thing, because, for example, the Nazis felt they were doing the world a favor. And while Mr Rockefeller’s idea is a little funny, it also smacks of a bit of egoism. It’s like the people who make an “Anonymous” donation and want everyone to know that they are Mr. & Mrs. Anonymous.

          OK. How about this one?

The perfection of moral character consists in this, in passing every day as the last, and in being neither violently excited nor torpid nor playing the hypocrite. 

          That sounds mildly Rabbinic!

          I found that one by chance, and I’ll tell you its author in a minute. One article I clicked on had the following quote from a very old book.

When thou hast done a good act and another has received it, why dost thou look for a third thing besides these, as fools do, either to have the reputation of having done a good act or to obtain a return? 

          The article goes on to dissect the quote saying (subtitle - ) “What It Means”

“There are only two things that matter when it comes to doing good unto others: you doing the good deed, and another person benefitting from that good deed. It’s foolish to expect a third thing, like thanks, credit, or a favor in return.”

          The truth is, this is the embodiment of Chesed. Doing for another, expecting nothing in return. Easy to do when convenient, but even more of a Chesed is when it is inconvenient for me, and I get NOTHING in return.

          Because, if I get something in return, then it’s a transaction. And it’s no longer a chesed.

          The author of those last two quotes was Marcus Aurelius, and they are found in “Meditations Book 7.”

          And while I certainly think there’s what to be gleaned from sources like this, when they speak Emes, and when they have a good message, I think that even moreso, when the great Sages of the past teach us about our Jewish lives, what a life dedicated to God, to Torah and Mitzvos is about, we must accept the teaching, the reminder, and not only take it to heart, but be moved to adjust, at the very least, how we look at things and view the world, as we are always seeking to improve as people, and as the Eved Hashem and Amat Hashem each of us must strive to be.

         For those who were at the class on Wednesday, you’ve already heard some of this. But there’s always the possibility to flesh out an idea a little more.

          The Torah tells us the narrative of how the people of the tribes of Reuven and Gad approached Moshe to give them the land the nation had recently conquered on the Eastern side of the Jordan. Their argument – it’s a great land for animals, and we have lots of animals.

          Moshe’s response: You can’t just rest on laurels here and sit tight while the rest of the nation is conquering the Promised Land. You have to fight too!

         They agree. And the rest is history.

          But there is one phrase that Rabbi Yaakov Mecklenburg points out that Moshe emphasized, that they did not.

          I’m going to read 4 pesukim in Hebrew, and pay careful attention.

במדבר פרק לב

כ) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה אִֽם־תַּעֲשׂ֖וּן אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה אִם־תֵּחָ֥לְצ֛וּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְקֹוָ֖ק לַמִּלְחָמָֽה:

(כא) וְעָבַ֨ר לָכֶ֧ם כָּל־חָל֛וּץ אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן לִפְנֵ֣י יְקֹוָ֑ק עַ֧ד הוֹרִישׁ֛וֹ אֶת־אֹיְבָ֖יו מִפָּנָֽיו:

(כב) וְנִכְבְּשָׁ֨ה הָאָ֜רֶץ לִפְנֵ֤י יְקֹוָק֙ וְאַחַ֣ר תָּשֻׁ֔בוּ וִהְיִיתֶ֧ם נְקִיִּ֛ם מֵיְקֹוָ֖ק וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְ֠הָיְתָה הָאָ֨רֶץ הַזֹּ֥את לָכֶ֛ם לַאֲחֻזָּ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְקֹוָֽק:

(כג) וְאִם־לֹ֤א תַעֲשׂוּן֙ כֵּ֔ן הִנֵּ֥ה חֲטָאתֶ֖ם לַיקֹוָ֑ק וּדְעוּ֙ חַטַּאתְכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר תִּמְצָ֖א אֶתְכֶֽם:

          It is plainly clear that while they talked about their children, their animals, and even their doing what’s right for their fellow country-men or co-Israelites, they forgot – PASHUT, FORGOT – to note that the things they were committing to do were also for Hashem.

          Moshe’s emphasis speaks volumes to them and they get it.

          We will do as you command/instruct.

במדבר פרק לב

(כו) טַפֵּ֣נוּ נָשֵׁ֔ינוּ מִקְנֵ֖נוּ וְכָל־בְּהֶמְתֵּ֑נוּ יִֽהְיוּ־שָׁ֖ם בְּעָרֵ֥י הַגִּלְעָֽד:

(כז) וַעֲבָדֶ֨יךָ יַֽעַבְר֜וּ כָּל־חֲל֥וּץ צָבָ֛א לִפְנֵ֥י יְקֹוָ֖ק לַמִּלְחָמָ֑ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲדֹנִ֖י דֹּבֵֽר:

          Rabbi Mecklenburg says the following

          “When you go and you lead the Israelites in battle, it’s not simply because of your nationalistic role, as if you are doing this for nation and country. You’re going לפני ה'! To do HIS WILL!! You’re NOT GOING BECAUSE THIS IS LOGICAL, RATIONAL, AND THE RIGHT THING TO DO! You’re doing this to HUMBLE YOURSELVES BEFORE GOD!! HE said to do this, and we must do His will! That is how you achieve והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל. You FIRST HAVE to do what is good and proper in God’s eyes. And what follows in translation is that it will be good for Israel.”

          What an important perspective we must must have!

          The article that commented on the Marcus Aurelius quote said “There are only two things that matter when it comes to doing good unto others: you doing the good deed, and another person benefitting from that good deed”

          But I think in light of Haksav V’hakabbalah’s insight, we can add a very important 3^rd thing that matters to us, the Bnei Yisrael. And it matters because not only are we Bnei Yisrael. But BANIM ATEM LAMAKOM. We are also children of God. And just as we should want to maintain the reputation of our father Yisrael, and our father Yitzchak and our father Avraham, we should even moreso want to represent the legacy and the fine reputation of Avinu She’bashamayim, our Heavenly Father.

          Many mitzvos are good deeds that impact others. Many mitzvos help us refine our own character. Some are commandments we do because God said to do them.

          So I want to conclude with a few questions we can ask ourselves, based on a sampling of mitzvos that are actually meant to refine our character.

          Are we supposed to do Bikur Cholim because it’s the right things to do, or because God said so?

          In a civil society, do we avoid stealing, murdering, and all kinds of crimes of assault because that’s the law and it’s the right thing to do, or because God said so?

The Nine Days, which began yesterday, is always accompanied by a nationwide Machsom L’fi campaign from the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation, reminding us that one of the reasons the Temple was destroyed was because of baseless hatred, which typically begins with Lashon Hora. So, are we to avoid speaking Lashon Hora, and many other sins of speech, because they are the right thing to do? Or because GOD SAID SO!!!

When we do Chesed, do we do it because it gives us a special feeling, and because it’s the right thing to do? Or because GOD SAID SO!

I could go on and on.

Do we follow the golden rule of loving our neighbor, of having Ahavas Yisrael, of not doing to others what is hateful to us, because it’s the right thing to do? Or because God said so!!!!!

The point Moshe was emphasizing is that if you do God’s will, unadulterated, in its purest form, and if you seek out to do mitzvos bein Adam Lachaveiro, our character, by default, gets refined. Sometimes the deed will be understandable or explainable to rational and reasonable people.

But the Eved Hashem, the Amat Hashem, does not need to rationalize, understand, explain. The servant of God says, MY JOB IS TO DO GOD’s WILL. And the rest will follow.

I’ll represent my tribe well, I’ll be successful in battle, I’ll be a mentch, etc. And if there end up being exterior benefits… maybe I’ll be hired for work, maybe those I honor will honor me back or respect me in kind.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHY I AM DOING IT. Unlike John D. Rockefeller’s line, the point is not to seek the accolade, not to do for the kavod. And if it doesn’t come, I must must must be OK with it. Because if I’m not, then I’m not doing God’s will.

Let us be blessed to fulfill God’s will at every level and every stage. And to remember, the rational mind, the humane society, the people who respect others’ personhood – all of this stems from Biblical ideals and Divine Instruction. It’s only rational because it was taught to humanity by God through Moshe as His messenger.

As Bnei U’Bnos Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov, and as Banim LaHakadosh Baruch Hu, this should be our goal in life. Do God’s will, and we should be blessed for all the good and bounty life has to offer to fall into place in the most blessed way for us all.

Who Lived Through the Spies and Entered the Promised Land?

Parshat Pinchas

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The plague is over, the Pinchas/Zimri story has reached its conclusion, and it is time for the Israelites to move on. God instructs Moshe to count the people, and in 26:4 he and Elazar tell the people, “(Count those) over 20 years old, just as God commanded Moshe and the Israelites who left Egypt.”

What is the point of comparing a new census to that of almost 40 years ago? One approach judges whether Moshe did a decent job as leader through handing over a similar size population. Chizkuni notes that the same formula of counting those 20 and up is utilized – though it is debated as to whether this current census was accomplished through counting heads or counting half-shekels. Of course, however it was done was by divine instruction, which assumes the method, in the end, does not matter. Alshikh notes that the count is being done for the sake of the new shepherd, Yehoshua, just as the count had been done for the new shepherd, Moshe, back in the day.

All of this got me thinking about who merited to enter the land. Put another way, who was included in the decree of the spies, and therefore was not entering the land, versus who was not included in the decree and has actually been around since the Exodus and will be venturing on after Moshe’s death?

In Parshat Shlach, at the episode of the spies, we were told that everyone over 20 would die, except for Kalev and Yehoshua, and that the children of those living at that time would also enter the land. Is that list exhaustive? (Baba Batra 121b also suggests people over 60 at the time were also not automatically subject to the decree)*

At the end of the chapter here, verse 26:64, the Torah says, “Among those counted now, there was no man previously counted by Moshe and Aharon… [and they] had taken a census of the Israelites in the Sinai Desert.”

Rashi on that verse notes that the decree did not apply to the women (“no man…”)! So while there may have been a few women who passed away (think of Miriam, etc) the overwhelming majority of women merited to enter the land because they loved the land! See the story of Tzlafchad’s daughters to get a sense of the feelings women had for the land.

Using textual hints, the Midrash in Bamidbar Rabba 3 notes that the entire tribe of Levi was not subject to the decree. (See this point in Baba Batra 121b as well, and there it also says Achiyah HaShiloni and Yair Ben Menashe entered the land.) In simple terms, they were not counted from 20 and up in any census (they were even counted separately from the rest of the nation!) Part of the discussion there surrounds the person Elazar, and how he managed to enter the land. There are a few answers. He was under 20 at the time; he was from the tribe of Levi; he was exempt from the decree because he replaced his father as Kohen Gadol, entering on the merit of his leadership position.

Or HaChaim (26:4) wonders why a reference is made to those who left Egypt in the verse, and in particular wonders about the cryptic explanation given by Ibn Ezra. In his own analysis, Or HaChaim notes that plenty of people who left Egypt were slated to enter the land, as they were all under 20 at the time of the spies. This would mean that someone who was 18 at the time of the Exodus would be entering the land. It’s not a matter of being a child – it’s a matter of having been under 20 at the time of the sin of the spies.

Three groups: Levites, women and children. (See sixth paragraph here, and quote from R Samson Raphael Hirsch) (and possibly those over 60 at the time of the gezeirah*)

These are the people who avoided the decree of the spies, and these are the people who now, 38 years later, along with the new generation, are slated to enter the Promised Land.

What an incredible lesson in patience and perseverance!

Some things are not in the cards for everyone. But some things are in the cards for those who can only bide their time and wait.

Moshe and Aharon were excluded on account of the decree – Moshe makes this clear in the book of Devarim in several places (first in 1:35-36)! But their children (and those of all the tribes), their tribe, and almost all the women in their lives lived through one fated experience only to join with everyone else in entering the Promised Land.

It is true that for some people it seems there is no hope. But their hope can nevertheless live on in their children, who will hopefully live to see a better and brighter tomorrow and future.

I leave you with a thought question. If the men died, and the Levites, women (widows) and children (orphans – albeit grown up) are not subject to the decree, does this have any impact on the groups of people the Torah instructs us, so many times, to care for and not neglect, especially during holiday seasons?

* Chizkuni Devarim 29:15

(טו) אשר ישבנו בארץ מצרים עם אותם שיצאו מארץ מצרים ובשעת הגזרה פחותים היו מבן עשרים שנה ויתרים על ששים שלא נגזרה עליהם גזרה זו במדבר.

NINE DAYS RULES

Here are links to my summaries of the Halakhos of this period.

http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-days-i-laundry.html

http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-days-ii-music-and-celebrations-not.html

http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/07/nine-days-iii-rules-of-eating.html

http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/07/nine-days-iv-rules-for-tisha-bav.html

https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/07/summary-of-nine-days-rules.html

https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/07/when-tisha-bav-falls-on-shabbos-and-is.html

Can We Live In Peace If We Did Before?

Parshat Balak

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When I was in college I took some classes in film theory and design. I can only imagine how artistic film makers would set up the scene of Bilaam riding on his donkey in the moments when the donkey veers off the road and smashes Bilaam’s leg. 

The verse describes an angel blocking the road, but then the angel moves, and we find this setup, “God's angel then stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, where there was a fence on this side and a fence on this side.” 

Do you see the camera angling back, the music taking on an eerie, horror picture twang, and Bilaam slowly riding his donkey on a narrow path between two fences, where we all know something terrible is going to happen to him? 

Don’t let the symbolism of "fence on this side and on this side" be lost, Hadar Zekenim argue, because that phraseology is reminiscent of the way the tablets given to Moshe are inscribed. (Shmot 32:15) For people who have that (the merit of the tablets) going for them, you (Bilaam) will not be able to overcome them. 

As much as I appreciate that sentiment, I don’t give Bilaam a whole lot of credit for paying attention to what is going on around him. He will certainly not understand, “O there’s a fence on this side and on this side, and the tablets have writing on this side and on this side, so I am going on a fool’s journey.” 

Better, I think, is for him to take the message of Targum Yonatan and Chizkuni who say that the fence Bilaam found himself next to was actually the pile of stones upon which Lavan and Yaakov had made an agreement they would not cross “l’ra’ah,” to do bad to the other. Bilaam is assumed to be a descendant of Lavan, and the fact that he is disregarding the peace treaty made so long ago, should not be ignored. 

But it goes a little deeper. Because Rashi notes that the wall or fence which appears in this story is “a plain fence made of stone.” 

Siftei Chakhamim explain that the word “kir” always means a wall of stone, even though this verse does not mention the material of which the fence is comprised. 

I was a little more taken by the comment of R. Yochanan b"r Aharon Luria, in his commentary on Rashi, Meshivat Nefesh. 

How would Rashi know that the fence is made of stone, over wood? There is an element of “gilgul” here, in that Bilaam is the reincarnation of [his ancestor?] Lavan. Lavan had made a promise to Yaakov long ago, “This pile [of stones] is a witness that I will not cross over it to do harm to you or your family,” and that pile has now evolved to be more of a fence. 

R Luria continues, since Bilaam is crossing the border to do harm to Yaakov’s family, the fence itself harms him as the verse says “the hands of the witnesses should go against him first,” (Devarim 17:7). Furthermore, one of the blessings Bilaam gives is “It is a blessing that I have taken, and when there is such a blessing, I cannot reverse it” (23:20), and this is reflective of a different element of reality that Bilaam could not ignore. 

Lavan had kissed his children and grandchildren and had blessed them. “And anyone who blesses someone can never curse them.” 

Bilaam came from a family and a tradition of those who had had difficult encounters with Yaakov’s family, but who nonetheless departed from each other in peace. 

That is the blessing we wish for all of Israel – both the enemies without and the enemies within. If indeed we once lived together in peace, we should merit to see such a day soon. Trying to curse another or destroy their existence does nothing for anyone, as all it really does is fuel the hatred within our own hearts. Having hatred in our own hearts only destroys our own souls. 

And who can afford that kind of unhappiness?

Aharon's Greatest Nachas - Elazar Takes Over

Parshat Chukat 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Parshat Chukat contains the deaths of two great leaders, Miriam and Aharon. These transitions are the beginnings of the end of the time in the wilderness, as they set the stage for the mourning the Children of Israel will face over the coming year: Miriam dies in Nissan, Aharon dies in Av, and Moshe will die in Adar (there is an opinion that Moshe died on the 7th of Shevat – see Rabbi Eliezer in Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael on Beshalach).

The mourning for Miriam is wholly inadequate (see Alshikh), and it opened the door for the unfortunate events of “Mei Merivah” (see Kli Yakar 20:2) which concluded with a need for different leadership to bring the people into the land (see Malbim).

Let us turn to Aharon’s death, which is described in a little more detail here (more is alluded to in Bamidbar 33:38), and the mourning which follows is much more fitting than what happens after Miriam’s death. Rashi gives a significant description of what took place, hanging it on the note God gives Moshe at the end of his life that “you will die in the manner that your brother Aharon died.” (Devarim 32:50) Of course, Rashi also notes that Miriam died in a similar manner, “with a kiss,” but that was hidden from the text for modesty reasons (20:1).

Many of the commentaries on 20:26 try to explain how “Divest Aaron of his vestments and place them on his son Elazar” could feasibly happen. Assuming one takes off outer garments first, how could they be put on Elazar in reverse order?

Ramban describes how Aharon had “Bigdei Shechina” (Divine garments) underneath his clothing, which allowed his clothes to be removed without exposure. He also mentions that burial shrouds were utilized, even though they are not mentioned in the text either.

Or HaChaim describes it slightly differently – that Aharon removed his clothing and then had another garment immediately upon him, namely he was clothed by the Clouds of Glory. (This might be an interesting explanation for what it means that the Clouds of Glory departed with Aharon’s passing – also mentioned in the Mechilta passage quoted above).

Concern is raised about how Aharon could wear the special garments of the Kohen Gadol outside of the Mishkan. Siftei Chakhamim suggests what should be obvious – that this was Divine instruction. Clearly the God who said these garments only belong in the Mishkan can also make an exception when Aharon is to die. In this way “Aharon would see that his son merits to become the Kohen Gadol in his place.”

Siftei Chakhamim further notes that Moshe was instructed to divest Aharon of his garments and dress Elazar even though both of them were fully capable of doing this themselves, “to demonstrate the kindness done to the dead, that Moshe was directly involved in all matters pertaining to tending to Aharon’s death.”

Seforno notes how Elazar had his own Kohen garments, which remained on him, while the four additional Kohen Gadol vestments are the only garments which exchanged bodies. Presumably, in this view, the remaining garments on Aharon, the “Bigdei Lavan” (white vestments) served as the burial shroud for Aharon.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch took one of Siftei Chakhamim’s comments a step further when he wrote “thus before his own death, Aharon merited to see himself living on in the person of his son.”

Aharon’s death was most tragic for the Children of Israel. The idea of mourning for 30 days was introduced to us in the context of his passing, and there is no question of the impact it had on the people.

However, a few things come out of this narrative.

One, the idea that even the greatest leader is involved in tending to the dead is something we have always taken most seriously. Our watching Moshe tend to his brother shows how death is not only an equalizer when it comes to those who have passed, but it is also an equalizer in that everyone is obligated to tend to the dead in whatever way we can. There is no such thing as “it is not befitting my honor to tend to the dead.”

Two, Elazar’s status slowly rises in the course of the book of Bamidbar. He was the prince of Levi (3:32), he had his own commission when it came to the packing up of the Mishkan (4:16), he was given the task of hammering out the firepans in Parshat Korach (17:1-4), he was significantly involved in the instructions for the preparation of the Parah Adumah at the beginning of our parsha (19:3-4). It seems clear this path is the direction his life is taking, well before his father's death.

Finally, Aharon has the chance to see what every parent dreams to see. Not only does his son follow in his footsteps, as a religious Jew, as a God-fearing person, but as Rabbi Hirsch put it, he “saw himself living on in the person of his son.”

Maybe not every parent wants for their child to become them. Most parents want their children to be successful, to be able to make it on their own, to be blessed with a good and happy life, and to carve their own path.

But how many parents would object to their children following in their footsteps in every way – assuming that their son or daughter wanted that similar life?

May we be blessed to have a similar experience to the one Aharon had. We should see ourselves living in a manner in which we give all we can for the Jewish people, sacrifice ourselves for the Jewish people, and promote peace in our ranks to the degree Aharon did. May we merit to be missed when we are gone. And may we merit to see children and grandchildren living up to the bar and standard we set for ourselves in our Jewish lives – and may they even surpass our own dedication and commitment in Torah, mitzvot, and love and reverence of the Almighty.

Torah and Serving God - Available to All When Not Overstepping God's Rules

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Reading through the narrative portion of Parshat Korach, one finds a number of groups complaining against Moshe and Aharon. The first is Korach, the second is Datan and Aviram’s group, the third is the 250 presumed followers of Korach, and the fourth are those upset at the beginning of chapter 17 (17:6).

All of that is followed by the story of Aharon’s staff blossoming – to the exclusion of the staffs of all tribe leaders – to achieve God’s goal of “removing from Me all the complaints of the children of Israel that they complain against you [Moshe and Aharon]” (17:20)

The last of the four groups, in a sense, is most confusing. Who are they? What is their agenda? They are called “kol adat yisrael” and “ha’edah” – both of which refer to a gathered group, and their complaint, quite legitimately, is “you caused the deaths of the nation of God!”

Rashbam rightly notes that the people took no issue with the demise of Datan and Aviram. In fact, the way Moshe warned them publicly, over and over, and told everyone who doesn’t want to be associated with them to get away, because a supernatural event will take place, proved that Datan and Aviram’s complaint about Moshe was an unconscionable complaint against God!

But the 250 people! They were bringing k’toret! They were just trying to demonstrate their ability to serve God too, and Moshe, knowing the price k’toret could exact, set the 250 up to die!

Rabbi Yitzchak Caro (Toldot Yitzchak) addressed the confusion that emerges from this story. In addition to wondering about the complainers, he also wondered how the deaths of the 250 firepan bringers wouldn’t teach a lesson to the people regarding Moshe’s and Aharon’s chosenness, while the test of the sticks of the tribe leaders would teach this lesson.

Rabbi Caro divides the original groups into four: Korach, Datan and Aviram, Levites, First Borns. All of them wanted to be Kohanim (I take issue with this claim regarding Datan and Aviram, because it is most clear to me that their specific complaints were about Moshe’s failed leadership which has doomed them to all die in the wilderness and never to make it to the Promised Land – and they do not seek the Priesthood. However, I admit that the text is vague enough to allow for Datan and Aviram to seek the Priesthood as well).

In fact, first borns had brought offerings prior to the Golden Calf (see Shmot 24:5 and Zevachim 115b), and the 250 were seeking to reverse what they deemed an injustice in their all losing the right to serve, simply because some people, who had already been punished with death, had worshiped the Golden Calf.

The accusation of the first borns against Moshe was that he took first born rights away and gave them to his own tribe. The accusation of the Levites was that as their tribe was chosen, they should all be Kohanim, not just Moshe’s brother’s family (super nepotism). Datan and Aviram took issue because they were from the tribe of Reuven, the first born of Yaakov, and they perceived Yehoshua taking over for Moshe, and he was from the tribe of Efraim (Yosef). They felt, Yaakov may have had a personal affinity for Yosef and minor vendetta against Reuven, but that doesn’t mean that for all time Yosef gets the double portion and Reuven is no longer the first born! Moshe should have righted that wrong! We can lead in his place!

Korach sought the kehunah for two reasons: he was a Levite, and he was personally a first born to Yizhar. His 250 followers were all first-borns, and some of them were also Levites. (see 16:8-10). [Rabbi Caro argues that it is impossible that they are all Levites as the Levites in general conducted themselves with holiness, and there is no way they’d have 250 of them gather in a mini-revolt against Moshe or Aharon.]

Datan and Aviram being consumed by the earth proved that Reuven was not to be the Kohen of the tribes. The 250 being consumed by fire proved that the first borns of all the tribes, as well as all of the tribe of Levi (except Aharon’s family) were not Kohanim. Korach’s death proved both of his arguments – being a Levi and personally a first-born – wrong. He was undeserving of being the Kohen.

One problem remains: It has been proven that first borns cannot be Kohanim. But why can they not be Levites? They should be able to assist the Kohanim in the manner in which the Levites provide such assistance! The K’toret test was an unfair one, because all it proved was they could not be Kohanim.

As Rabbi Caro put it, were they to perform Levitical work, they were confident they would not die. So, Moshe, put it to the test! Have them perform Levitical work and see if they die!

Those leading the complaint against Moshe for his unfair test of the first borns were the fathers of these first borns (Kol adat yisrael). (Rabbi Caro does not address why 14,700 people died on account of complaining about the deaths of 250)

In this sense, Aharon bringing out the k’toret to stop the ensuing plague demonstrated that it is not k’toret which is dangerous; it is k’toret in the wrong person’s hands which is dangerous.

Which leads us to the final point, regarding the test of the tribal leaders’ staffs.

When only Aharon’s staff blossomed, it demonstrated that no first borns could serve simply on account of their being a first born, not even those of the tribe of Levi. The Levites could serve as Levites in their capacity of coming from Aharon’s tribe (his staff representing the tribe of Levi), and Aharon’s heroics with the k’toret and the fire pan demonstrated that only he was worthy of being a Kohen.

Were the 250 people all Levites, the entire “adat bnei Yisrael” would not have complained against Moshe – it must have been that representatives from the entire nation (firsborns) were all in the group of 250.

It is clear to me from all this that if all of the groups had come to Moshe to say “We want a place in the service of God” without challenging Moshe’s and Aharon’s divine appointments, that Moshe could have directed them differently.

They did not say “We want to learn Torah. We want direction in how we can personally serve God.” They wanted positions which were unavailable to them because of God’s rules!

The job of the Jewish people is to embrace and educate all Jews who want to learn Torah and personally serve God, without pre-conditions. Not everyone can be a Kohen. Not everyone can be a Levite. But every Jew should be allowed to have a portion in the study of Torah and in personally getting close to God.

The only ones excluded from a particular space are non-Kohanim entering places they are forbidden by God to enter.

The Ger and Me - Equals?

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translates Bamidbar 15:15-16 as follows: 

“Among the group that may marry one another, the same rule shall apply both to you and to the proselyte who joins. It is an eternal law for future generations that the proselyte shall be the same as you before God. There shall thus be one Torah and one law for you and for the proselyte who joins you.” 

This past Shabbos I was thinking about those who join the Jewish people, because one of the more heart-wrenching stories in Parshat B’haalotkha is the tale of Moshe and his father-in-law. 

In the Torah’s narrative, Moshe tries to convince his father-in-law to join the Israelites, to “be our eyes,” perhaps as a guide, or in some other role. And Yitro’s (as Chovav) response is “I would rather not go. I wish to return to my land and my birthplace.” (10:30) Moshe does try to make all kinds of promises, “If you go with us, we will share with you whatever good God grants us.” (10:32) What he chooses to do is left up to the reader to imagine. Some commentaries suggest that Yitro’s two appearances in the Torah took place in the same span of time, thus suggesting his exit at the end of Shmot 18 indicates that he did indeed return home. 

Why was he hesitant to join the Jewish people? Wasn’t he a righteous convert? 

The answer is that he did not see a future for himself in the land. Sure, he was sold on the idea of God. He was committed to being a monotheist. He may have even been committed to being a Jew. But as a righteous convert, he looked at the projected division of the land by tribe and thought, “Woops! There’s no place for me there!” 

So he said, “Look. I have a nice house. A nice farm. I have my family. I’ll happily go home and convert them to my Jewish faith. But the Jewish community does not have a place for me.” 

When we look at the verse in our Parsha, the Torah indicates here, as it does in other places, that the “ger” is to be treated as an equal. 

First, the idea that the “ger” is referred to as a “ger” when the “ger” has become a “Jew” indicates that we continue to attach a label, and even a stigma, to the Jew by choice. 

Second, do we really need a reminder of this nature? Meaning, if the “ger” is indeed “one of us” then what is the question? Shouldn’t it be obvious that the treatment of the “ger” is the same as everyone else? And that the law applies equally to the “ger” as it does to everyone else? 

Finally, how can we honestly say that the “ger” is treated equally, when we know it isn’t true? 

There are conversations in the Talmud in which the convert’s ability to say the first blessing of Shmoneh Esrei is questioned, because it describes “our God, the God of our Forefathers.” After all, the forefathers are not “really” the ancestors of the convert! Similarly the question is raised regarding the declaration made when presenting Bikkurim (the first fruits) as discussed in the beginning of Parshat Ki Tavo. May a convert state that “here we are in the land You promised to our forefathers?” They were not his forefathers! 

A Kohen may not marry a female convert. There are discussions in Jewish law about whether a convert can serve as a rabbi, or on a Bet Din (Jewish court). 

The Torah has rules about individuals from some nations who want to join the Jewish people, that they need to wait a few generations for their conversion to be finalized. In some cases, the conversion is never accepted! 

So, simply put, is there equality or not? 

Yitro’s descendants were given the land of Yericho, a city upon which Yehoshua placed a curse against any Israelite who would settle there. Gee! Thanks a lot! 

I have been present at a number of conversions. It is a blessing of being a mohel, that I am sometimes asked to perform the “hatafat dam brit” ritual on male converts before they enter the mikvah. It is always emotional. People who have waited for this moment sometimes break down and cry upon emerging from the Mikvah and being told “Welcome home, brother.” We embrace. We love the convert! That is our mitzvah. 

But then we let go. We forget that the convert does not have the background we have. We forget that the convert does not have an extended Jewish family. We forget that the convert is always very sincere, but sometimes does not always know what Judaism’s rules are. We forget that without regular contact, the convert might feel neglected and might sometimes fall back to old habits. 

We sometimes also forget that the convert came to Judaism after doing much thinking outside the box. And that that approach to life in general, thinking outside of the box, is what brought this person into our circles to begin with. And then, instead of embracing that different approach to life, we sometimes judge the convert for being a deep thinker, researching everything life has to offer, and not falling in line with the mainstream. 

Many converts I met have a relationship with God that should be the envy of all the Jews! We have to learn from the sincere converts about what it means to love Judaism, despite the challenges, despite certain hardships, and like Yitro, despite not having a place that made him comfortable. 

The Jew by choice who sticks through all the adversity and difficulties that accompany leaving your family and joining the Jewish people deserves our admiration and respect, and should always be embraced for thinking outside of the box, for that is what brought him or her to the join us as a brother or sister.