A Prayer Lesson from the Parah

Parshat Chukat


by Rabbi Avi Billet
When it comes to discussions about the Parah Adumah (red heifer), many look to its symbolism or try to find a message in the concept of a "chok" – which is typically defined as a "mitzvah without a reason." [Though I wrote about this being a Chok with a Reason for Parshat Parah this year.]  Some focus on the unique quality of how the Parah Adumah mixture was metaher temeim and metameh tehorim (purified those who were impure, and made the pure (the one doing the sprinkling) impure).

 In chassidic annals the general approach to this and other symbols is to find moral teachings and ethical lessons that adherents can adapt to their lifestyles.

With regard to the metameh tehorim (etc) idea, the Baal Shem Tov was asked about the paradox that comes with this mitzvah. "If every mitzvah can teach us something about how to serve God, please explain where parah adumah - which turns a person who is already tahor (pure) to be tameh (impure) - fits in. It seems to be working backwards, bringing someone further from the spiritual purity that is the best state in which to serve God. How does it bring one closer to God?"

 The Baal Shem Tov equated this quality [bringing a reverse status on an individual] with the middot of Gayvah (haughtiness) and Anavah (humility).  For a person who is distant from observance of mitzvot and a commitment to serving God, it is good for him to have a little more 'haughtiness' about his capabilities. Instead of saying, "Who am I that I could even conceive that my prayer has any clout, or that there's any hope for me to turn around from my habits?" - that person should have much more confidence. Education or background is unrelated to one's ability to connect with the Almighty.

 On the other hand, a person who feels very strong in one's commitment and dedication to God could use more than a dose of humility in a personal reminder that "You still haven't 'arrived,' and you always need a lot more work before you reach 'that' level."

Many people who are committed to Tefillah and are regular participants in tefillah – whether with a minyan or on an individual basis – get it. The Tehillim groups get it. Those who even take the "Shir Hamaalot" added to the end of davening (in many shuls) seriously, also get it.

Those who ask a Rabbi or a Rebbe to pray for them, but who do not pray for themselves, do not get it. Those who rely on the "power of others," and do not give credit to their own strengths, their own abilities, their own sincerity, do not get it. One does not need to be an observant Jew to feel close to God, to feel dedicated to God, to have a relationship with God. Or even to "influence" God.


One of the greatest models of prayer in the Bible is Chana (Samuel I, Chapters 1-2). According to the Talmud she was a prophetess – though the prophesy which is attributed to her are her prayers. But she was not a rabbi, and she did not serve anyone else, or pray on anyone's behalf other than for herself. Other than being the mother of the prophet Shmuel, her fame is on account of her prayers, and that's it. 


Some people certainly feel God never hears them or responds to their prayers. And there are some people who absolutely feel that God is always listening and they "know" that their prayers have been heard, received, and "now it's in God's hands." 


The message of the Baal Shem Tov is so important because we need to find relevance to our lives in mitzvot that we cannot practice today. There is a tremendous void in a Jewish existence which does not include the Temple in Jerusalem, which will not be rebuilt until the Messianic Era is upon us. When in practice, the Parah Adumah had a profound significance, and played a very important role in the lives of those wishing to visit the Temple. 


The Baal Shem Tov teaches us that the quality of the Parah Adumah is a model for all. Those who seem to have every right to feel haughty and high and mighty about their connection to God need to be reminded that they have much to work on. 


And those who feel that a connection can not be found with God because they are too far away from Him or have too much getting in the way of such a relationship need to take a long look in the mirror and realize that that relationship is not exclusive to anyone. It is there for the taking for those who are ready to grab it.


The Baal Shem Tov's answer is that the paradox is what makes life interesting. There isn't a black or a white – because when it comes to the Red Heifer ritual, "what's black is white and what's white is black," so to speak. But every person must realize that arriving at the opposite extreme of where one currently finds oneself [ie in that the humble needs to exert more confidence, and the very confident needs to find doses of humility] might be the ticket to a more fulfilling relationship with God.

Moshe's Bumper Sticker

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

An unofficial theme of the book of Bamidbar is that the string of narratives are connected thematically. The most quoted example of this is the first critique given to the spies of Parshat Shlach, who did not learn from the episode of Miriam's tale-bearing punishment. After seeing what happened to her for speaking about Moshe, they did not check themselves before speaking ill of the land they had scouted.

I think a similar lesson can be applied to the Korach narrative – from the perspective of the leadership.

Throughout the Torah, whenever people did something wrong or complained and triggered God's anger, Moshe was always the stalwart defender, telling God a thing or two about the leadership role he has accepted (to bring these people as far as he can) versus the one he has not accepted (to watch them all die as a new nation is created from Moshe).

Through it all, Moshe has averted a few disasters and has saved countless lives. This is why it is decidedly odd that Moshe says the second half of his final challenge to Korach and company. "If you die a natural death, God did not send me. But if a creation is created and the ground opens up and swallows them up and they go down, alive, to Sheol, then you know they have challenged God."

How could Moshe offer two options for death – natural or supernatural? Is there no room for teshuvah (repentance)? What happened to the ultimate defender, who views life as the most precious gift? Could it be, perhaps, that Moshe is taking Korach's challenges as a personal affront (as well he should!) and he is taking revenge in the most spiteful we he could? היתכן - Is this possible?

If we look back at the two most recent narratives in the Torah – the spies and the wood gatherer – we see people being punished with death on account of their actions. And, in both cases, the view from the top is the same.

Rabbenu Bachaye posits that Moshe took the stance against God in defense of the people when he said, "Egypt will hear that you took the nation out of their land, but were unable to defeat the Gods of Canaan" because Moshe was concerned for the desecration of God's name. Why give Egypt the opportunity to speak ill of You?

Similarly, Rabbenu Bachaye addresses the wood-gatherer story using a literal interpretation of the word used to describe his action, "M'koshesh," (מקושש) as opposed to "M'laket" (מלקט) (which mean the same thing, but the former is normally used to describe a gathering of straw, while the latter is normally used to describe the gathering of wood), to suggest that in his Shabbat-desecrating activities the wood-gatherer was denying God and the Six Days of Creation and was thus desecrating God's name in the worst possible way.

If we can say about Moshe that his personal bumper sticker was "Desecrating God's Name Stops Here!" then we can begin to understand why Korach was doomed (as were Datan and Aviram) once the challenge to Moshe and Aharon is understood for what it really was: a challenge to God, and a desecration of God's Name. In 16:5-11 and 16:28-30, Moshe makes it clear that this is not about him. This is all about God. It is only about God.

The Kli Yakar points out the use of the words "Briah yivra" – if a creation is created, which is reminiscent of the account of Creation in the Torah. Stringing together two thoughts which appear in Pirkei Avot, he suggests that they were denying God's role in the world. Firstly, the mouth of the earth was created in the final hours of the Six Days of Creation (Avot 5:6) – a denial of this is a denial of Creation. Secondly, they did not want any leader, for they thought “all of the people are holy, and God is among them – so why should you raise yourself over God’s people?” The anarchist's view contradicts the mishnah (Avot 3:2) that says "Were it not for fear (of a king), men would swallow their friends alive."

The different denials of God and His ways served as indicators to Moshe that the people in question were following the same lines of perverted logic that brought down the spies and the wood-gatherer. As such, the precedent set by their respective punishments helped Moshe come to the easy and unfortunate realization (for Korach and co., that is) that their immediate death was pending.

For Moshe, the writing was so clearly on the wall that he did not need to do much. He had learned the lesson of the previous stories, and Korach and all the followers received the punishment that followed the recently confirmed precedents – the "measure for measure" for anarchists is that the ground swallowed them alive.

The relevant lesson for us is threefold: 

• Remember, as always, that the most regular affirmation of our appreciation of Creation comes from a commitment to Shabbos. 
• We must defend against the desecration of God's name as best we can. 
• We must strive to sanctify God's name in all that we do.

The Non-Mitzvah of Tzitzis

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In his introduction to the book of Bamidbar, Nachmanides posits that the majority of the mitzvot of this book were commandments for the specific time period of wilderness travel and would not be applicable once they reached the land of Canaan/Israel.

Last week's one-time consecration of the Levites is a classic example of a mitzvah in this category.

There are mitzvot that exist past the wilderness period, of course, some of which fit into a classification of "obligatory if you make a specific choice." For example, according to the Sefer HaChinukh there are 10 commandments incumbent upon a person who chooses to become a Nazir. Taking on Nezirut status is by no means obligatory – and some are even critical of the Nazir – which translates to 10 of the 613 commandments being "un-fulfillable" to those who never play the Nazir-option card.

In our parsha, "Tzitzis" is apparently another example of this latter category. It seems the obligation is to put the tzitzis strings on four corners of a four-or-more cornered garment that one wears. Were a person to never wear such a garment, the mitzvah would seemingly become obsolete. [The Sefer HaChinukh equates this to the mitzvah of maakeh – if one does not have a flat roof, the mitzvah of maakeh is not applicable.]

To be fair, the Sefer HaChinukh (end of mitzvah 386) says, "Even though the obligation from the Torah is only when a person is wearing a 4-cornered garment," an ode to the fact that the mitzvah is only applicable when the garment is being worn (a mitzvah on the person - גברא), while there is no mitzvah to have strings attached to a garment that sits on a shelf (not a mitzvah on a garment - חפצא), "nevertheless our sages warned us to take the pains to fulfill this mitzvah… The Torah, after all, equated it with fulfilling all the commandments. Rabbi Elazar said anyone who is careful about Tzitzis, Tefillin and Mezuzah is assured he will not sin forever."

I don't believe that one who is careful about these mitzvot is guaranteed not to sin because I don't believe we have the power or intellectual ability to equate these fulfillments with a safeguard against sinning. But is the mitzvah completely irrelevant?

The gemara (Menachos 43b) records a fair share of opinions as to what the verse means when it says "You will see the [strings] and you will remember all the commandments of God and you will do them." (15:39)

Some of the possibilities of what the "all the commandments" reminder will be include: to recite the Shema, regarding the mitzvah of kilayim (mixing wool and flax in clothing - based on the proximity to Devarim 22:12), all Mitzvos that are dependant on time (from which women are exempt of the obligation), and an idea that seeing inspires action (based on a homiletical connection to Devarim 6:13).  

Even the Gemara, therefore, is largely of the opinion that tzitzis is not the answer to everything. But the Gemara continues (and the Rambam quotes this in his own Book of Mitzvot, Shoresh 9), by emphasizing that as much as Tzitzis is only counted as one mitzvah, "someone who does not have Tzitzis on his (presumably 4-cornered) garment is in violation of five positive commandments because the mitzvah is emphasized five times in the Torah." While I don't think Maimonides is saying a person who opts not to wear a 4-cornered garment is in violation, perhaps this thought could nonetheless serve as an incentive as well for people to actively pursue wearing Tzitzis, in order to fulfill five positive components of this Mitzvah.  

The optional side of this and other Mitzvos are a reminder that the obligatory nature of "every" mitzvah is not set in stone. Sometimes ingredients need to fall into place in order for the obligation to set in.  

At the same time, the binding aspect of all Mitzvos is something that should never be overlooked. There is a major difference between a mindset that ignores "commandments as obligations" and one that says "if the circumstances don't present themselves, I will not seek them out." 

Every day brings with it, for example, a new obligation to wear tefillin or to study Torah. On the other hand, one who never divorces, to bring the other type of example, will never fulfill the mitzvah associated with the writing and delivering of a גט (get - divorce document). Ignoring the former is a rejection of the Commander-Commanded relationship. Never fulfilling the latter is hopefully part of a recipe of a nice, healthy, lifelong relationship with a spouse.

When it comes to Tzitzis, and whatever "seeing" the strings is supposed to remind us, the concept of the Tzitzis encompassing the entire body should serve as a symbolic reminder of how we are to devote our entire bodies, when possible, to the service of God.

The Eldad and Meidad Story

Parshat B'haalotkha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

While Chapter 11 in the book of Bamidbar bears little resemblance to the famous reorganization process of the Bankruptcy Code, it does have a series of setbacks that seem to put the people in a negative light: disobedience, complaining, people getting punished by fire, or their bodies suffer the effects of too much quail.

Towards the end of the chapter there is a tale concerning two men, Eldad and Meidad, and their prophesying in the camp. Were they good or bad? Is this a positive story,or does it follow the theme of the rest of the chapter – which is largely negative?

The Gemara Sanhedrin (17a) describes a dilemma Moshe faced. He had to gather 70 elders from 12 tribes. Were he to take 5 elders from each tribe, he'd only have 60 elders. 6 elders from each tribe would result in having two extra elders. To resolve the dilemma – because he did not want to favor any specific tribe or to make such unfair decisions – he created a lottery of sorts, in which he prepared 72 pieces of paper for the 6 representatives per tribe. Each picked one – 70 had the word "Zaken" indicating that its recipient was chosen, and 2 of them were blank – freeing their recipients of any responsibility. Eldad and Meidad (E&M) received the blank sheets.

The gemara goes on to describe their humility. While others were clamoring to be the elders, E&M saw themselves as unworthy to be the elders. As a result, God rewarded them with greatness. While other prophets prophesied and their careers ended, E&M's prophesies did not end.

The Medrash Tanchuma (22) lists four additional differences: The elders could only prophesy about the coming day, while E&M prophesied about what would take place in 40 years. The elders did not enter the land, while E&M merited to enter the land (following the opinion that Eldad was Elidad ben Kislon of 34:21, while Meidad was K'muel ben Shiftan of 34:24). The elders were not named, and we have no record of their identities, while E&M are obviously named. The elders had their prophesy come from Moshe, while the prophesy of E&M came directly from God.

There are three opinions in the Talmud as what they prophesied: that Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead the people into the land, regarding the quail, or regarding the end of days with Gog U'Magog.

All of this information seems positive. Moshe seems not only unperturbed, but, as the Daat Mikra chumash explains it, he is welcoming of any higher stature any Israelite might achieve. So why is the incident included in this seemingly negative chapter and paragraph? Because there are major downsides to the story.

The Midrash (Tanchuma and others) paints a picture of how happy people were when E&M were prophesying, going so far to say "Praised are their children and wives, that they have become prophets!" Miriam overheard Moshe's former wife, Tzipporah, say, "Praised are their sons but woe is to their wives because they will never see their husbands again. They will leave their wives just as my husband left me."

Misunderstanding Moshe's unique status – including the instruction God gave him when the nation were told to return to their spouses after Revelation (Devarim 5:26) while Moshe was told to remain with God (5:27) – Miriam proceeded to speak ill of Moshe to Aharon (the final story in our parsha). The E&M story thus became a source for lashon hara.

While there are two approaches to understanding if Eldad and Meidad were part of the 70 elders or were the two extras as described above, there are also two approaches to why they remained in the camp and did not go out to the Ohel Moed. One approach suggests they were quite humble. The other approach – as forwarded by the Or haChaim – suggests they were ashamed and disgraced on account of being the only two people "rejected" from becoming elders. God rewarded them with prophesy so they would nevertheless become men of stature.

According to the Sifrei, Yehoshua's response to their prophesying can either mean "Destroy them" or "Imprison them" – either interpretation likely follows the approach that they were prophesying about Moshe's death and Yehoshua's succession. And while the Midrash tells us Yehoshua's defense of his teacher is a lesson in how one should revere one's teacher as one reveres heaven, the Talmud (Eruvin 63a) is of the opinion that Yehoshua's zealousness in this regard – speaking out of turn in the presence of Moshe, who was not offended by E&M – caused him to be punished. He never had children.

Lashon Hara, embarrassment, and overzealousness are certainly negative outcomes of this story.

The lesson I take from this tale is from the response of Moshe. Go with the flow, be happy for others in their success, and don't pay any attention to hoi polloi who comment without seeing the full picture. Know who you are and respect others, and you will only be the better person because of it.