Moshe's Eichah - a Different Lament

Parshat Devarim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The first comment in Midrash Eichah reads as follows: 

 “How [eikha] does…sit [alone].” Three prophesied with the term eikha: Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Moses said: “How [eikha] can I bear alone…” (Deuteronomy 1:12). Isaiah said: “How [eikha] did [the faithful city] become a harlot?” (Isaiah 1:21). Jeremiah said: “How [eikha] does [the greatly crowded city] sit alone?” Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to a noblewoman who had three friends. One saw her in her tranquility, one saw her in her debauchery, and one saw her in her disgrace. So, Moses saw them in their glory and their tranquility and said: “How [eikha] can I bear alone your troubles?” Isaiah saw them in their debauchery and said: “How [eikha] did [the faithful city] become a harlot?” Jeremiah saw them in their disgrace and said: “How [eikha] does [the greatly crowded city] sit [alone]?” 

 This passage seems to present Moshe’s Eichah as a positive comment! 

 Yet, a parallel passage in Devarim Rabba concludes 

“According to this, Moshe began rebuking Israel, for he knew they’d sin in the end, and something would happen to them that would not come from a nation… Therefore he began with אלה הדברים – these are words – the words of rebuke. So too are Yirmiyahu’s words.” 

 In other words, we can see that despite how the Midrash presents Moshe’s comment, as coming in the context of the glory and tranquility, he is nonetheless giving Mussar. He is offering a critique over certain mismanagement on the part of the people. 

 Other Midrashim and comments present Moshe’s statement as a lament, all for different reasons. The context of the verse is when Moshe tells the people of the system of judges that he put in place, referencing the events of Parshas Yisro. He couldn’t carry the people alone, presumably as a judge for ALL the cases. 

 Yet, another passage – in the Yalkut Shimoni (801)– takes the behavior of the people to a different level. (Rashi quotes a lot of this) as it presents whar Moshe was criticizing and why he was losing his sanity.

 How can I carry your burdens? This teaches that they were contentious. One would see the other was winning the court case, and he’d say “I have witnesses to bring, I have proofs, I will bring more judges…” This is why it says טרחכם – your contentions. As for משאכם – your burdens – this teaches that they were Apikorsim. If Moshe would leave his tent early they’d say “What’s causing the son of Amram to leave? Maybe he’s not happy at home! If he left late, they’d say, “What’s delaying the son of Amram? Do you think he’s doing accounting and reckoning for you? Imagine if he were like On (as in On ben Peles) – surely his wife is advising him!” As for ריבכם (your disputes) – this teaches us of their complaining and fighting [over weights].

 While the passage regarding their being critical of Moshe personally is really inexcusable, Ramban at least expands on the first part of the Medrash, in which people are bringing extra witnesses or judges, noting there might be merit here:

 But I do not know [the validity of] this law that one of the litigants should have the right to add judges above [the usual number of] three in cases concerning monetary matters, and surely he has no such right after presenting his case before them and perceiving that his opponent was winning the case! For, had he voluntarily accepted upon himself a relative or an unqualified person as a judge, he could indeed retract prior to the rendering of the final judgment, but from those qualified to judge he cannot retract [his acceptance]! Perhaps we can deduce from here the principle that a man can say, “I choose two judges and you choose two other ones, and they [i.e., the four judges] will choose one more, and let the suit be decided by five or more judges,” just as the Rabbis have said: “A suit decided by five [judges] is not comparable to one decided by ten [judges].” Although three judges [have the power to] compel parties to come before them for judgment when one refuses to be bound by their decision, yet if one [of the litigants] desires to choose additional judges, he may do so, because it is similar to [the case of] one [of the litigants] who says, “Let us go to the main meeting place of the scholars [to bring our suit before them on the assumption that superior scholars are better qualified to judge],” in which case we accede to him, provided it does not entail [undue] hardship, for in such a case we have been commanded, Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue, [which the Sifre interpreted]: “Go to a reliable court,” and an increase in the number constitutes “a reliable court.” Now in the wilderness, wise men were available to them and the litigants could say, “Let us go before the officers of the thousands.”

 So, while it was frustrating, it doesn’t carry the same degree of challenge and disgust with the people.

 Another way of looking at this is presented by Rabbi Mordechai HaKohen, also known as the Shakh on the Torah, in looking at this declaration as part of a lament about what Israel will be facing in the future, after a period of relative calm.

 “They received the Torah through me, the clouds of glory are now in my merit, as is the Manna. The well goes with them, the Shekhina dwells among them, there are no strangers among them. Yet after all this, enemies will come and kill many of them, and will burn the Temple and exile them. The purpose of the Exodus was to bring them to the land of Israel , but my merit will not hold it for them. And so I lament “How can I alone carry your…?” My merit alone should carry the people, but their many sins cause me to lament in this way…?

 This passage suggests Moshe is worrying about his own merit. It’s not strong enough in light of what Bnei Yisrael might do in the future. 

 And finally, there is Netziv. 

Yisro added work for Moshe in these two issues. 

 1. Moshe’s goal was to seek God, in other words to know what will be; and not to seek to pray for every Tzarah (difficulty) that it should not come to pass. And Yisro told him to pray for that as well. 

 2. Moshe would teach them the ways of God and Torah. Perhaps Torah could have only been presented by Moshe. But other forms of Derech Eretz including visiting the sick and burying the dead, could have been delegated to be taught by others 

 The goal for Moshe was to apportion some time with each Shevet to teach them these Middos, and to otherwise train people to do the things that took up most of his time – business disputes between people.

 The verse tells us that Moshe listened to his father in law and did all he had said. Our explanation is that he added to his own burden, but it takes time to figure out the appointment of judges in Israel, as well as the praying on behalf of people. And it took time for Moshe to teach people how to do the Bikur Cholim. There wasn’t an effectuated change over night.

 And so he asked “How can I handle all of this myself?”

 The Tirchas – evertone wanted Moshe to pray for their individual issue, and for him to bring their specific concerns directly to Hashem

 The Masas – And their burdens, for him to carry those as well

 And their Rivs - the disputes they had with one another 

 He had taken upon himself to try to handle all of these things through teaching the people about gemilas Chesed

 When it came to teaching Torah that was NEVER a burden. God helps a person do this, God even helped Moshe’s voice project every time the entire Bnei Yisrael needed to hear him. And when there is help from heaven, one does not get tired through the activity

 Culling together these different perspectives – the first was of Moshe seeing them in their tranquility, coupled with interpretations of Eichah demonstrating where Moshe’s mind was

 Rashi and the Midrash – the people can be ridiculously petty, using all kinds of tricks to get on top in any dispute

 Ramban saw a possible merit in this – the people know the law so well, that they just want to have a fair shot

 Shakh saw it as a lament about the future – what will Moshe’s merits be worth if the people remove themselves so far from the ways of the Torah, opening the door for enemies to be God’s emissaries of punishment and exile?

 Netziv saw it as a lament of how Moshe simply doesn’t have enough time to tend to EVERYONE – those who can need to step up to share the responsibility of carrying the burdens of the rest of their fellow Bnei Yisrael.

 We have a lament over current bad behavior in the antics surrounding court cases

 We have a lament over future bad behavior, the kind that leads to exile

 And we have a lament that there isn’t enough time in the day for one man to do everything.

 As we enter the “week in which Tisha B’Av falls” we can contemplate all the troubles of our people, many of which are often described as being בעונותינו הרבים or מפני חטאינו, on account of our sins. Are any of these relatable?

 Antics to get the other hand so the other person loses? Concern over where our people are headed – are we, the Jewish people, doing what we need to, to avoid Galus again? Are we stepping up so that no one needs to feel “I can’t carry this alone” – whether it’s a family member, a neighbor, communal leadership, etc?

 If we can undo Moshe’s concerns of Eichah, may we merit to not only witness the tranquility Moshe saw, but the kind that can lead to the bliss of redemption.

The Leaders of Yehuda, Shimon, and Binyamim

Parshat Masei

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Torah lists the names of the leaders of the tribes who will be apportioning the land to their constituents, and in doing so, the list begins this way

 במדבר פרק לד 

(יט) וְאֵ֖לֶּה שְׁמ֣וֹת הָאֲנָשִׁ֑ים למַטֵּ֣ה יְהוּדָ֔ה כָּלֵ֖ב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּֽה: 

(כ) וּלְמַטֵּה֙ בְּנֵ֣י שִׁמְע֔וֹן שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל בֶּן־עַמִּיהֽוּד: 

(כא) לְמַטֵּ֣ה בִנְיָמִ֔ן אֱלִידָ֖ד בֶּן־כִּסְלֽוֹן: 

(כב) וּלְמַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵי־דָ֖ן נָשִׂ֑יא בֻּקִּ֖י בֶּן־יָגְלִֽי:

(כג) לִבְנֵ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף לְמַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵֽי־מְנַשֶּׁ֖ה נָשִׂ֑יא חַנִּיאֵ֖ל בֶּן־אֵפֹֽד: 

One notes that the tribes seem to be presented in no particular order, the leaders of the tribes of Yehuda, Shimon and Binyamin are not referred to as Nasi, and when it comes to the tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin, the word Bnei does not precede the name of the tribe, as it does for Shimon, Dan, Menashe, and all the other tribes that follow (which I left out of the quote above). 

 Why? 

America 250 - Fighting for Liberty, at the 50 Years Marker

July 4th Sermon (Parshat Pinchas)

by Rabbi Avi Billet

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It has to be fought for and defended by each generation.” – Ronald Reagan 

Shortly after the incident of Pinchas killing Zimri and Kozbi in an act of zealotry, the instruction is given to Moshe to plan to fight against Midian. This is not to be confused with the actual command which takes place in Bamidbar 31:2 (see Chizkuni 25:17). Rashi says they gave up their daughters to fornication to lead the Israelites to follow Pe’or (an idol). The problem is that the Torah tells us ויחל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב – that the Israelites were enticed by the daughters of Moav. And while one can make the argument that there was an alliance between Midian and Moav (see the interchange of Balak’s officers who come to invite Bilaam, sometimes they are officers of Midian, sometimes of Moav – see 22:4,7,8,14,21), as Balak King of Moav seems to be the impetus behind the plan to cause Israel to sin, the fact is that the instruction is to fight against Midian. 

 Chizkuni notes, Moav gets a pass simply because they were afraid of Israel, whereas Midian entered a fight not their own and was involved in the real enticement.

Recording of the Deaths of Er and Onan

 Parshat Pinchas 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet (with much help from Rabbi Hayyim Ibn Atar) 

There is a census in Parshas Pinchas that follows the plague at Shittim, which was promulgated by the events of Baal Pe’or, in which 24,000 people died. This census is reported in a similar fashion to the one recorded in Parshas B’midbar, though here it goes into larger details about the names of the families in the different tribes. The census tally is relatively close to what it had been at that time – then 603,550, now 601,730. That the population essentially replaced itself would seem fairly natural. The oddity is seeing how some tribes have grown tremendously in numbers (such as Menashe), while others have a significant decrease (ie Shimon). The Leviim, in their separate count, go from 22,000 to 23,000. Unlike the regular tribes, this is a very strange degree of growth, as our tradition has it that the tribe of Levi was not subject to the decree against the generation of the spies. Thus they would not be subject to mere replacement, as many of those who were over 20 could very well still be alive at this time. 

 Additionally, there are a number of added components to the census – some of which make sense (mentioning Tzlafchad’s daughters), and some which don’t make sense as they contribute nothing to the actual census. Yehuda’s sons who died before the family even came down to Egypt are mentioned. Dasan and Aviram and Korach – all of whom are dead – are mentioned. Nadav and Avihu, who left no children, are mentioned in the census of the Leviim (even though they are surely not “counted”). 

Am/Kahal v Edah – The Groups that Led to Moshe and Aharon’s Departure

Parshat Chukat

by Rabbi Avi Billet

For ease, the following words are presented over and over in Hebrew as the emphasis below is how they are used in the Torah’s text: קהל = Kahal; עדה = Eidah; עם = Am; בני ישראל = Bnei Yisrael; קהל ה' = K’hal Hashem. Each word or phrase refers to a group of people, and the ensuing discussion surrounds whether they are the same group or different groups

 The fallout from Mei Merivah seems clear in the story, but what is unclear is WHAT WENT WRONG. Elsewhere in the Torah Moshe and Aharon are told of different general flaws in that tale as to why they won’t be entering the land – לא האמנתם בי להקדשני, מריתם פי, מעלתם בי, לא קדשתם אותי – and a legitimate question to ask is, in using those terms: Is God talking to Moshe and Aharon, or is He talking to the people or about the people themselves? Who didn’t have faith? Who rebelled against God? [See Bamidbar 20:24;27:14; Devarim 32:51]

Aharon's Worthiness

Parshat Korach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the counter-claims that Moshe makes to those challenging Aharon is ואהרן מה הוא כי תלינו עליו – “and what is Aharon that you are complaining against him?” (16:11) In other words, why do you have a problem with him, when he is not the one who appointed himself? If you have issues with me, keep them aimed at me, and leave Aharon out of this! 

 The Kotzker Rebbe explained Moshe’s response to mean, “Do you know WHAT Aharon is? Do you know WHO Aharon is? Do you have any concept of his greatness and his holiness?”

 It’s a real attempt at shutting down those who are challenging the man hand-picked by God to be the Kohen Gadol. 

Biblical Names Sometimes Reflect Character

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 The Torah presents individuals and groups of people using names that sometimes reflect something about them. The Talmud (Sotah11b) tells us that the father of Kalev ben Yefuneh was named Chetzron, and that “Yefuneh” is a word describing how he “turned himself away from the viewpoint of the spies.” (This is based on Divrei HaYamim I 2:9,18. A number of commentaries quote this Talmudic statement) 

Kalev is credited with marrying two women (see Divrei HaYamim above, and Rashi there on 2:18) – first Azuvah, and after her death, Efrat, and our Sages tells us Efrat was Miriam, and the name Efrat (אפרת) is because the Israelites multiplied (פרו ורבו) in her merit. 

Moshe’s father-in-law is credited with having up to 7 names, each one speaking something about the man, more than helping us know what his real name was. 

Even Moshe Rabbenu’s name, the one he is most famous for, was given to him by the daughter of Pharaoh. The Sages teach us (Vayikra Raba 1) that he had ten names, and the Midrash there explains each name’s significance: Yered, Chever, Yekutiel, Avigdor, Avi Socho, Avi Zanoach, Toviah, Shmaya ben Netanel, Hasofer, Halevi. Presumably his parents named him when he was born, but that name is not revealed to us in the Torah. 

 Similarly when it comes to the nation of Israel, they are sometimes referred to as עם (nation), קהל (community), עדה (assembly), and בני ישראל (Children of Israel). Do each of these words really mean the same thing? Are they referring to different groups of people? Do they refer to different attitudes of the people? Is it dependent on context for us to figure out who we are reading about?