How Moshe's Punishment Has Very Little to Do With a Rock

There is very compelling evidence that Moshe was never supposed to go into the land. So why does the Torah keep harping on the incident of Mei Merivah (Bamidbar 20)?

Parshat Ha'azinu

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The song of Haazinu is troubling because it seems to describe actions and behaviors of the nation of Israel that we have never seen before in the Torah. The punishments God declares He has given and will give seem unequal to the violations committed.

 Equally disturbing is how the punishment to Moshe is described in our parsha – because it is not an accurate reflection of what happened in Bamidbar 20. In 32:50 Moshe is told he will die as his brother Aharon had died (see Bamaidbar 20:22-28). In 32:51, the reason is given: “because you broke faith with me (‘m’altem bi’) in the midst of the Israelites at the Waters of Dispute at Kadesh in the Tzin Desert, and because you did not sanctify Me (‘lo kidashtem oti’) among the Israelites.”

 While it is true that the event described took place, the way it is described in Bamidbar is quite different from how it is presented here.

 In Bamidbar 20:12-13 the Torah tells us “God said to Moses and Aaron, 'You did not cause there to be enough faith in Me (lo he’emantem’) to cause Me to be sanctified (‘l’hakdisheini’) in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you.' These are the Waters of Dispute (Mey Meribhah) where the Israelites disputed with God, and where He was [nevertheless] sanctified (‘va’y’kadesh bam’).” Eleven verses later we are told that “'Aaron will [now die and] be gathered up to his people. He will not come to the land that I am giving the Israelites because you rebelled against My word (‘asher m’ritem et pi’) at the Waters of Dispute.”

 It is important to note that when referring to this incident in Bamidbar 27:14, Moshe is also told “m’ritem pi” and that you failed “l’hakdisheini.”

 Strangely, some of these formulations appear once more in the Torah, in Devarim 9:23, when Moshe recounts the events surrounding the Golden Calf, and he describes the guilt of the people as “but you rebelled against the word (“vatamru et pi”) of God your Lord, and did not have faith in Him (“lo he’emantem lo”) or obey Him.

 To summarize, using the Hebrew verbs describing Moshe’s and Aharon’s guilt:
At the incident with the rock - lo he’emantem and l’hakdisheini, though the latter seems to be countered by v’y’kadesh bam 
Aharon’s death – m’ritem et pi 
Moshe’s first direct accusation of non-compliance other than the actual event, when he was told he could not bring the nation into the land – m’ritem pi and l’hakdisheini 
Moshe reminding the people of their sin at Golden Calf – vatamru and lo he’emantem 
Our parsha – m’altem bi and lo kidashtem oti

 It is also noteworthy that until now Moshe has been told he will not bring the people to the land (Bamidbar 20:12), and that he will see the land and then die (Bamidbar 27:13). Both options leave open the possibility that he will enter the land as a private citizen (leader emeritus, perhaps) and that he can die shortly after he sees the land for himself, even from the inside. Only in our parsha, Devarim 32:52, is Moshe finally told point-blank, you will not be going into the land (in Devarim 1:37, Moshe says he was told he will not enter the land, but we never saw God actually tell him that). In Devarim 3:27, Moshe reported that God said “you will not be crossing the Jordan” – but Moshe still had hopes that he while he might not enter the Land alive, he would be buried in the Land. The idea of seeing the land from a distance and being buried outside the land is clarified for Moshe immediately before he dies, in Devarim 34:4.

 So what is going on? Why do the reasons for not entering the land differ from explanation to explanation, and from person to person?

 Abravanel’s approach to the punishment meted to Aharon and Moshe pins their non-entry status on the Golden Calf and the Spies incidents, respectively. He explains God’s constant reference to the Rock incident as a cover for the real reasons, to avoid embarrassment. But the Rock episode was very mild in comparison to those other nation-shattering events. [He compares this to the mystery surrounding the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The Torah gives us very sketchy information, while the rabbis heap a slew of accusations upon the lads, indicating the real reason for their deaths was hidden by the Torah, as it was pinned on a minor violation.]

Considering that the verse tells us in Bamidbar 20:13 (Rock incident) that God was nonetheless sanctified, it is hard to imagine that they failed to cause the people to have faith in God there. Therefore the “lo heemantem” must be linked to the other time it appears, Devarim 9:23, referring to the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the people indeed lost their faith in God. Interestingly, Moshe reports about Aharon’s death there in 10:6, after recounting how he brought down the second Tablets, even though Aharon’s death occurred 40 years later.

 The act of “Me’i’lah,” of which Moshe is accused in our parsha, refers to using something holy for a mundane act. Reading Devarim 1:19-38, it is clear that the holiness of the Land was rejected for mundane reasons by the people. Additionally, they are accused of “vatamru et pi Hashem” (rebelling against God) in Devarim 1:26, smack in the middle of the description of the Spies story. And, most obviously, Moshe attaches his non-entry to the land to this incident (1:37)

 There are certainly eyebrow raising details in the Rock story of Bamidbar 20. But all told, God’s name IS sanctified there – as the verse plainly states – and the rebellion of Moshe and Aharon, the misuse of something holy, and the causing a lack of faith are simply not present. Those accusations refer to these other incidents of the Spies and Golden Calf.

 Referring specifically to our Parsha, Abravanel says the following, as he utilizes a creative reading to understand the text: “There are two reasons attached to the deaths of Moshe and Aharon. An impersonal one – Mei Meribah (the Rock incident), and a personal one, their earlier sins [of Golden Calf and Spies]. For both of those they are accused of “Me’i’lah,” (using holy for mundane purposes), not sanctifying, rebelling, etc… Aharon had the opportunity to sanctify God’s Name through giving up his life in place of succumbing to making the Golden Calf. This is his special mitzvah, (Vayikra 22:32) to sanctify God’s Name and not desecrate it…. Moshe rebelled and caused lack of faith first when he added to questions for what the spies should be looking for, all of which caused the people not to have faith that the Land to which they were going was a good land.”

 We now understand why the accusation hurled at Moshe in our parsha does not reflect what happened in Bamidbar 20. The Rock incident was minor and was a cover to shield Moshe and Aharon from more embarrassing episodes in their lives.

 Even at the final hour, when there’s nothing to lose from getting everything out on the table, God still chooses to go the route of not embarrassing His most beloved Moshe. What a lesson in piety and respect in seeing that a person’s worth and dignity is worth preserving through death!

Moshe's Destiny: To Never Enter the Land

Parshat Shmot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Commentaries have a field day trying to pinpoint what was Moshe's sin that sealed his fate not to bring the people to the Promised Land. Even the language of the Torah is inconclusive, because when the episode of Mei Merivah (Bamidbar Chapter 20 – the "Rock incident") took place, Moshe and Aharon are informed they will not "bring" the people to the land. It is only later that they are told they too will not "enter" the land (Bamidbar 20:24, Devarim 1:37 and 4:21 (referring to Bamibar 14:30?), Devarim 32:52).

In Moshe's case, he pleads to at least merit to be buried in the Land, a request which is summarily denied. There are reasons suggested for why he needed to be buried in the Mountains of Moav, and why his gravesite needed to overlook the area where the sin of Ba'al Peor took place (Bamidbar 25).

            

Regardless, when one looks at the sources, it seems plainly clear that Moshe's non-entry into the Land has nothing to do with the Rock incident. The flaw there, as described in the Torah, is one of leadership. He may have wanted to go in to the land, even as a private citizen. Alas, one can argue that being informed at that time that he will not be bringing the people in to the land, is more likely a nice way of saying what has been known all along. "You can't lead them, because you won't be going in. At all. Ever."

            

In the beginning of Devarim, Moshe pins the reason on the event of the spies (1:37), which predates the Rock incident. This "reason" for not entering the land is advanced by Abravanel. But is the spies incident the real first indicator that Moshe will not enter the land?

            

According to the Gemara Sanhedrin (17a), Eldad and Meidad (Bamidbar 11) prophesied that Moshe would die and Yehoshua would lead the people into the land. This episode predates the spies.

            

The Chizkuni offers two interpretations on Bamidbar 10:29, when Moshe says to his father-in-law, "We are traveling to the land. Come with us!" Either Moshe was tying his fate to everyone else to keep their spirits up; they should not think they are not entering the land, just because their leader will not be entering. Or, perhaps Moshe was saying that to convince Yisro to come along; he would otherwise think that if Moshe is not entering the land, how could he enter the land? [See Rashi there, where he strangely brings up the question of Moshe's entry, claiming it predates any decree. If this announcement predates any decree, Rashi, then why bring it the not-yet-existent decree?]

            

This approach follows Rashi's thought from our parsha, which I'll get to in a moment. But the interpretation of Chizkuni indicates Moshe knew, as he was encouraging everyone to go to the land, that he would not be entering. This predates Eldad and Meidad.

            

One of Rashi's last comments on our parsha (Shmot 6:1) quotes a passage from Sanhedrin 111a in which Moshe is told by God, "Now you'll see what I am going to do to Egypt, but you will not see what I am going to do the kings of Canaan." This predates the Exodus and the plagues.

            

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch comments on the strange hotel incident of 4:23-25, where Rashi says God sought Moshe's death for not having circumcised Eliezer: "God's plans are dependent on no man… No man – not even Moses – is indispensable to God." In other words, even Moshe might have died at that point – before he even got to Egypt.

            

Commentaries focus on Moshe's objection to becoming the leader in 4:13, where Rashi explains Moshe's complaint to mean, "Send in the hands of the one who will bring them to the land, because it is not my destiny to bring them."

            

Rabbi Obadiah Bartenura notes the nuance in Rashi's words as he explains, "How could it be suggested that Moshe knew the decree that he would not enter the land? One could suggest he thought he would enter the land, but he knew he would not be the leader at that time. 'It is not my destiny to bring them in to the land' is not the same as 'It is not my destiny to enter the land.' He thought he would enter, just as leader emeritus." [This notion is contradictory because it suggests he will not lead - which is first told to him in Bamidbar 20...]

            

The other indicator is implied from a midrash in Devarim Rabba on Vayelech in which a "measure for measure" punishment is associated with a parallel word utilized by Moshe and by God. When Moshe is told he will die, God says to him, "Hen karvu yamekha lamut" (הן קרבו ימיך למות) – indeed your days are numbered until your death. Moshe had said about the Israelites, in 4:1, "V'hen lo ya'aminu li" (והן לא יאמינו לי) – indeed they will not believe me, that You sent me. The similar use of the word "Hen" (הן) – Moshe speaking ill of the Israelites, and God speaking ill of Moshe's destiny (that he'll die and no longer lead) may indicate a measure for measure punishment, that Moshe is not worthy to be the leader until the end.

            

While the question of Moshe leading versus entering the land alone seems to have not been clarified until later, the indications are that from the get-go, Moshe was not going to see the job through to the end.

            

It is a little deflating. But it is also a very powerful message, that not every person needs to finish everything in a lifetime. When our time is up, hopefully we will have lived a life in which that which we built can be continued by others. We may have picked up from those who came before us as well. But if the project is set in motion and can be finished by a capable successor, we have done pretty well.

            

We know what Moshe's job was, and now we know that he wasn't a failure who didn't bring his job to its conclusion. His job was to get as far as he got. And while he may have wanted to go further, his not making it further is no indication of failure. On the contrary, he fulfilled his destiny to the utmost.

            

May we all be so lucky!

Moshe's Failure

An Important Lesson in Education

  Parshat Va'Etchanan

  by Rabbi Avi Billet

 One of the more fascinating narratives in the Torah is the one surrounding the fate of Moshe, the great leader, and his passionate effort to gain entry into the Promised Land. In last week's parsha he seemed to imply that the episode of the spies doomed him to the same fate as the entire generation (Devarim 1:37).

 In this week's parsha, Moshe has a more cryptic explanation when, in the context of a paragraph in which he explains why God took the people out of Egypt to make them His special nation, "He got angry at me [because of] your words, and He swore I would not cross the Jordan, and I would not come into the land that Hashem your God is giving to you as an inheritance." (4:21) No further explanation is given here beyond blaming "your words."

 Why, then, was Moshe barred from entering the land? Is Moshe referring to the spies incident? The rock incident? Something else? Which "words" uttered by the people may have brought upon him the devastating fate that he tries over and over to have reversed?

The Or HaChaim points out that Moshe's reference to "not crossing the Jordan" as well as "not coming to the land" covers his non-entry in life, or in death (to be buried there), respectively. The traditional approach has all of Yaakov's sons' remains being brought to the land for burial. Moshe is excluded even from this. Why could he not even be buried in the land? Because of their words.

 What were their words?

 The Shakh on the Torah suggests that the anger that God wrought on Moshe was at the Golden Calf incident. When God told Moshe to "Go down" (Shmot 32:7) He meant "Go down from your greatness." Perhaps the underlying message is, "What kind of leader leaves his people in such a state that when he is missing for a 40 day period, they not only don't have more patience, but they go to such an extreme that they create a golden image and seemingly serve it?" This is a failure of leadership.

 The Shakh goes on to say that Moshe's response to the people in the rock incident (Bamidbar 20) hardly fits with his words here – "their words" there, complaining for water, could certainly not be viewed as causing his non-entry to the Land.

 Taking Moshe's message home, Ramban provides the most poignant message in his illuminating comment on this verse. He explains Moshe's words as meaning "God commanded me to teach you the commandments, that you will do in the Land when you cross over [the river] to get there. So, take the lesson, because I will be dying in Moab and I will not be able to teach you in the Land. [When you are] there, don't forget what I have taught you. Nor what you saw in Sinai… God was angry with me on account of worry that you will forget the covenant with God." This is why when Moshe repeats the "Ten Statements," he mentions "as God commanded you" (5:12,16) as if to say, "What I am telling you here was not my own words – it was never my words. All of my teachings come from God."

 What then were "their words?" On a simple level, it is likely words of rebellion that were legitimately out of place – which, as the Shakh points out, is likely not the incident with the rock. Does it matter if it was the Golden Calf, the spies, or something else? I think the point is that it's very hard to square Moshe's failure on a single incident. The punishment, as it were, does not fit any single crime.

 On a much deeper level, I think Ramban is suggesting that Moshe is saying, "I was punished because of your words, because I failed you as a teacher. I didn't understand your complaints. I didn't appreciate where you were coming from. I couldn't relate to you on your level. I may have advocated when you complained, but I didn't anticipate your needs in the right way. This lack on my part brought about the moral failures that fill the Torah, and is the reason I will not enter the land in life, and why not even my body will enjoy the benefit of burial in the land."

This is an incredible admission.

 Moshe is teaching every parent and teacher that God gets angry at us – the parents and teachers – on account of the words of those we are meant to teach, guide and inspire. We need to listen, to try hard to understand, and to respond in a way that is direct, pointed, and that helps the student or child overcome the obstacle, move past the challenging question or episode, with more clarity, with proper guidance. We need to provide answers that the children and students can appreciate and understand.

 And, most importantly, we need to be intellectually honest, without evading issues. Students and children can spot hypocrisy in an instant, and they also know when they're not being listened to or when their genuine concerns are misunderstood by those they look to for guidance. There is a big difference between the response elicited by our teaching or rebuke when a child says "I hate you" versus "I don't like what you're saying, but I respect you nonetheless because you respect me."

 Moshe concludes saying, "While I may not have understood you, I hope you will see that my teachings are good. Heed them, don't disregard them, don't forget what I have taught you."

 May we merit to learn from Moshe. Let us succeed in hearing "their words" so God may always be pleased with us in our roles as parents and teachers - horim and morim. And even when they don't like our methods, let us pray that the students and children will be able to see that our teachings are good, even though we, human beings that we are, are not perfect.

Repeating a faux pas

Parshat Chukat 

by Rabbi Avi Billlet

I don't know how you operate, but I'll make a confession here. As a father of young children, I have learned that when they do something really bad, I need only make them feel really guilty to have them learn never to repeat the offense. 

 Perhaps we operate the same way. As long as the bad things we do remain secrets, we're in the clear. Once we get caught, and suffer the embarrassment or slap on the wrist (or worse) that comes with the guilt, do we finally vow never to do those things again. 

 So it comes as a surprise when we read this week that Moshe chose to repeat what was arguably the biggest "fashla" (Hebrew slang for “oops moment") of his life. In 21:32, in a verse that is largely overlooked, Moshe does the unthinkable: "Moses sent out men to reconnoiter Ya'azer, and they captured its surrounding villages, driving out the Amorites who lived there." Reconnoiter is the term used in The Living Torah, and it means "to spy." So Moshe sent spies... again? Wouldn't that be the ultimate no-no? 

According to some commentaries, indeed even according to Moshe himself (Devarim 1:37), the incident of the spies in Parshat Shlach is what ultimately led to Moshe’s death in the desert. How could he be so foolish to send spies again? 

Because there is nothing foolish about sending spies, if it is done correctly. 

 In Shlach, there was pomp and ceremony and everyone knew who was going, when they were going, what their assignment was, and when they returned. Instead of reporting only to Moshe, they reported to everyone. And this time the spies themselves were different: according to Targum Yonatan, Moshe sent only two spies this time, Kalev and Pinchas, whose trustworthiness was beyond question. 

 Additionally, the spying fell in between battles, when the nation was pumped for war and knew they could win. 

 Finally, this was the next generation, a generation that complained about dying of natural causes, but not about having to face the enemy on the battlefield. 

 Still, all this being true, how could Moshe repeat his faux-pas? Because Moshe "Rabbenu," our teacher, is teaching us a lesson for all time. The Peter Principle posits that people rise to the level of their incompetence; then no further promotions are available. The concept of "teshuva," however, is that you may make a mistake along the road, but to know if your repentance has been accepted, you need to be faced with the same circumstances once again, and either you don't succumb to temptation or you rise to the occasion. 

 In Moshe's case, he needed another reason to send spies, to show that while he may have shared the blame the first time around, the ten bad spies had much to do with how things went wrong. Given the correct strategy and approach, the spying could serve the purpose for which it was intended, vindicating Moshe, and clearing him before his death of the reputation of (shudder) a failed commander-in-chief. 

Rashi says the spies went in saying "We don't want be like the first ones. We have faith in the power of Moshe's prayer to help us win the battle." He says the spies themselves were the ones who conquered Ya'azer. And the Rashi supercommentary Maskil L'David says the reason for the need to send spies was because they needed a "tikkun" (correction) through the same activity in which they sinned. These spies not only went in with the right attitude, but also were ready to sacrifice their lives in battle to give the entire nation the fix they needed to move beyond the wilderness experience. 

 These are amazingly powerful ideas. Moshe revisits his mistake to prove he can do things the right way. The spies are so selfless, they are willing, for the sake of the people, to make the ultimate sacrifice so that the generation waiting on the border of the land can let bygones be bygones and move on. 

 It almost sounds like a movie that opens with a training scene for the most far-fetched situation that could possibly happen. The far-fetched situation becomes the climax of the film (for real this time), and the teacher gives his life so the student can show he or she has surpassed the teacher. 

 The difference is that this is our history, our heritage, and what our lives are all about: second chances, the ability to try again, to make amends, to do it right, and the selfless dedication of those who believe in G-d and His most devoted ones, to carry out His will for the sake of heaven and the future of the Children of Israel.

A Lone Voice - Shlach Sermon 2010

See ">this video

It is amazing to watch how a young man, who does nothing other than wear an IDF t-shirt and carry two flags, can incite a crowd to lose their reason (if they had any). Most normal people would ignore a single "counterprotestor." And he wasn't even loud, and didn't say anything until the news people asked him questions.

I don't like to talk politics - there are people smarter, more knowledgeable and worldly than I who can discuss these things. In the context of a sermon (or even this blog), politics, to my mind, has no place.

But sometimes, something happens. Sometimes a few people, sent by a greater force, are instructed to find out information. To find out if their target is safe or not, good to go or not, peaceable or not, serving man honorably or not, looking to destroy outsiders or not, looking to bring people under their umbrella of peace or not.

And the result of their actions, their report, can have upheavals that impact the coming decades. After this particular action, no one knows what the future holds. We may not even see the complete unfolding of these events in our lifetimes.

It’s a frightening thought to consider. But as you may have imagined, the events of this week, with the so called Flotilla, are not new events. Kohelet rightly said there is nothing new under the sun. And in what way do the events of Sunday and Monday differ from the story of the spies that we read this morning?

The description I mentioned a moment ago can fit for both stories.

The differences between then and now are in how small our world is, how quickly mass media and the information superhighway get news around the world, and in that Moshe’s connection with God allowed the people to learn, right away, what the outcome of the spies incident would be. In their case, forty years in the wilderness for the forty days they spent spying, and then reporting critically of the land.

Do not misunderstand and think I am judging Israel, and the IDF, for the events that transpired. Piloting an uncleared boat into the military zone of a nation with major security concerns surrounding its borders, which is essentially in a never-ending war against their enemies, is at least a violation of international law, and at most an act of war.

Hanging a banner of “Peace activists” is meaningless when you carry a weapon in your back pocket that you will use in an instant. Gandhi was a peace activist. Martin Luther King Jr said brotherhood comes about when people are willing to “work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” (towards the end, two paragraphs before "my Country Tis of Thee") His form of going to jail was as a result of civil disobedience. Love them or hate them, they caused change through not physically attacking their adversaries.

Standing up for freedom is a completely different outlook than bashing investigating coast guard officers over the head with a metal bar.

In his address in Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln said, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” We know, of course, that he was wrong, but I use the same line about what I say and about what most rabbis say as well on Shabbos morning. Which is why I don’t like to talk about politics.

Politics gets some people riled up, especially when they disagree with someone who they think is so blind to the reality and unaware of the facts. Everyone picks the facts that they want, and spins the “facts” the way they want to see them or present them.

What makes my opinion any better than your opinion?

The only thing that I’ll say is this – and these words are inspired by one of the most clearheaded and brilliant journalists on our side of the aisle, Caroline Glick.

We are living in a frightening time. Between a President who gives every indication that Iran is more his friend than is Israel, and a “United Nations” who claims to be the majority of the opinion of the world when the only time they seem to be united is for one kind of decision, the kind that bashes Israel, the Jewish people have much to be concerned about.

If we aren’t writing to or calling our politicians to express our fear that Israel has lost the support of its greatest ally, the United States, and that the United States continues to estrange itself from its greatest ally, Israel, we must change our attitudes.

The Talmud records in many places שתיקה כהודאה (Yevamos 87b-88a, Baba Metzia 37b), that when one is silent, one gives and indication that one agrees with what is going on and what has been said.

While I will never say that “x happens or happened because of y” I do think it is safe to say that if we do not take action, do not make a loud noise, do not express our disappointment in the current administration’s view of Israel, do not vote out of office people who do not subscribe to the interests that best suit our needs as a people, Israel as we know it will, in the perhaps not-so-distant future, cease to exist. The freedoms we enjoy in this country will come under attack.

It won’t be the fault of a flotilla incident. Much like the spies, spying was not the problem. The problem was the aftermath – the bad reporting – Israel has the worst notion of public relations. They do more harm than good to themselves every time they “explain” themselves. For example, if instead of talking about humanitarian aid they could say “Who sent this ship in the first place? Who is the provocateur? Who defied international law? Who is responsible for our needing to protect our borders and our citizens?” their PR appeal would come across very differently.

No, it was not about what took place on the boat. The problem will continue to be in how Jews and nations react to the story. If all people can see is critique, and no one can see Israel’s side, how they were provoked, how they had no chance to look good because the “suicidal activists” didn’t care if they lived or died, it would be understood that the fight is not a simple one. In addition to whatever else people scream about, the longest hatred, what we call anti-Semitism, is what is behind all of the protests, resolutions, and articles slamming the Jewish State.

In their eyes, the world would be a better place were all Jews, particularly those in Israel, no longer on this earth.

The Jews in the time of Moshe followed the masses who criticized the land of Israel. As a result, they never got to see the land that had been promised.

Only two people, two lone voices, said “This is not right. It is a good land.”

And those two individuals, Yehoshua and Kalev, entered the Promised Land. They got to see what life would be like after those 40 years. They outlived their peers and saw the conclusion of the first redemption. And lived to see what the Promised Land not only looked like, but what it felt like to live in it.

Was there ever true peace in their days? During the tenure of certain leaders there was, before more upheaval, more unrest and more fighting.

What goes around comes around. The land of Israel has never been, in all its history, a land that was forgotten and not fought over. Perhaps now, only because the Jews control it, is it the center of the political hotbed of a climate that exists in the region. But the story is not yet over.

We do not have the luxury of knowing when the redemption will come. Perhaps we don’t know what it will look like.

But if we do nothing to stop those who will say Israel does not deserve to live in peace or to experience the ultimate redemption, what makes us think we will ever see that peace or that final redemption?