Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT BEHAALOTEKHA

Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Beha'alotekha includes the story of Eldad and Meidad, the two men who spoke prophecy at the time when the seventy chosen elders were being endowed with prophetic powers (11:26).  In response to Benei Yisrael's demand for meat, Moshe approached God and bemoaned his inability to single-handedly lead the people.  God ordered him to assign seventy elders and confer upon them the status of prophet, for them to assist in leading the nation.  As the seventy elders were being endowed with this status, Eldad and Meidad began prophesying in the camp.

Rashi (11:28) cites Chazal's comment that Eldad and Meidad prophesied about Moshe's death in the wilderness.  They declared, "Moshe will die and Yehoshua will bring Israel into the Land."  Why would God convey this message at this point?  Of what relevance is this information to the current situation facing Benei Yisrael?

            Rav Yitzchak Menachem Abrahamson, in his Be'er Mayim (London, 1917), suggests an explanation by insightfully noting a textual parallel between this narrative and the verses towards the end of Parashat Shemot.  When Moshe initially confronted Pharaoh to demand the release of the Hebrew slaves, Pharaoh refused the demand and increased the slaves' workload.  Moshe then approached God and exclaimed, "Why have You done evil to Your servant" ("lama harei'ota le-avdekha" – Shemot 5:22), asking why God sent him to Pharaoh only to worsen Benei Yisrael's condition.  God responded, "You shall see that which I will do to Pharaoh" ("Ata tir'eh asher e'eseh le-Par'o" – Shemot 6:1).  As Rashi cites from the Talmud, God here alludes to Moshe that he will witness only the Exodus, but not Benei Yisrael's defeat of the Canaanite peoples in Eretz Yisrael.  God chides Moshe for questioning His course of action, and indicates that Moshe's tenure as leader will end before the nation's entry into Canaan.

            Rav Abrahamson notes that both these expressions – "lama harei'ota" and "ata tir'eh" – appear here in Parashat Beha'alotekha, as well.  Upon seeing and hearing Benei Yisrael's grumblings, Moshe helplessly turns to God and cries, "Why have You done evil to Your servant, by placing upon me the burden of this entire nation?" (11:11).  God later informs Moshe that He will provide the nation with the meat they desire, and Moshe expresses his disbelief how such a thing could be possible.  The Almighty declares, "You shall see [ata tir'eh] whether or not My word will materialize" (11:23).  Perhaps, Rav Abrahamson suggests, in this instance, too, God responds harshly to Moshe's exclamation of "lama harei'ota le-avdekha" and declares that Moshe will be denied entry into the Land of Israel.  Accordingly, the prophecy of Eldad and Meidad represents God's response to Moshe's complaints.

            Indeed, these two contexts – Pharaoh's increasing the workload in Egypt, and Benei Yisrael's desire for meat – bear considerable resemblance to one another, at least from Moshe's perspective.  In both instances, Moshe sees his mission failing.  He had been sent to Pharaoh to free Benei Yisrael, and instead the conditions worsen manifold.  In Parashat Beha'alotekha, he is assigned the task of leading the people towards the realization of their spiritual destiny in Eretz Yisrael, but they seem helplessly preoccupied with filling their stomachs with delicacies.  In both situations, Moshe wonders why he was assigned the given mission, why God charged him with a task doomed to failure.

            God responds to Moshe – on both occasions – by declaring that a leader who cannot handle temporary setbacks cannot lead Benei Yisrael to battle in Canaan.  The road to the fulfillment of Benei Yisrael's national destiny is a circuitous one, which will invariably meet with hurdles and disappointments.  Both external enemies (such as Pharaoh) and our own spiritual failings (such as Benei Yisrael's lust for meat) will often cause Jewish history to take jarring, unexpected turns, and these setbacks must not to be taken to mean that God has "done evil."  As God promised Moshe, we will eventually see how He miraculously helps Am Yisrael withstand even the most difficult situations, and hurdle even the seemingly insurmountable obstacles that stand in their way.

******

            Parashat Beha'alotekha presents the law of pesach sheni, which requires those who were unable to bring the korban pesach on the fourteenth of Nissan to do so one month later, on the fourteenth of Iyar.  The Torah (9:10) applies this law to anybody who was in a state of ritual impurity on the fourteenth of Nissan, and to those who were be-derekh rechoka – a "distant travel" – from the site of the Mikdash.

            The Mishna in Masekhet Pesachim (93b) records a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in interpreting the phrase derekh rechoka.  Rabbi Akiva accepts what appears to be straightforward reading of these words, whereby they refer to a person situated in a remote location during the time when the korban pesach is to be offered in the Mikdash.  As the Gemara explains, Rabbi Akiva applies the provision of pesach sheni to people who were located fifteen mil or more away from the Temple, such that they would be unable to reach the Mikdash in time to offer the paschal sacrifice in its proper time.  Rabbi Eliezer, however, advances a much different interpretation of derekh rechoka, claiming that it refers to people situated anywhere outside the Temple courtyard.  Even if a person stands just outside the entrance to the courtyard, he is deemed be-derekh rechoka and brings the sacrifice on pesach sheni.  The Mishna concludes by citing Rabbi Yossi as finding an allusion to Rabbi Eliezer's reading in the dot that traditionally appears in the Torah scrolls above the word rechoka.  Rabbi Yossi suggested that the dot serves to indicate that the word rechoka ("distant") should not be understood literally, as it refers not to a remote location, but anywhere outside the Temple courtyard.

            (We should clarify that as the Gemara establishes in Masekhet Pesachim 92b, anybody who fails to bring the korban pesach on the fourteenth of Nissan, regardless of the circumstances, must bring the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar.  The cases of ritual impurity and derekh rechoka are unique with respect to the fact that people in such situations who fail to bring the korban pesach even on pesach sheni are not liable to punishment.  See the Gemara's discussion there, and the debate between the Rambam and Ra'avad, Hilkhot Korban Pesach 5:2.  Furthermore, if a person was impure or be-derekh rechoka, and he had registered for inclusion in somebody else's korban pesach, he nevertheless does not fulfill his obligation through the offering of that korban pesach on the fourteenth of Nissan; he must bring an offering on pesach sheni.)

            Rashi, surprisingly enough, adopts Rabbi Eliezer's reading, that the word rechoka here refers to anywhere outside the Temple courtyard.  The Ramban objects to this position of Rashi, arguing that on the straightforward level of interpretation Rabbi Akiva's reading is more correct, and that in any event, the Gemara quite clearly treats Rabbi Akiva's view as authoritative.

            Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala, observes a dispute among the Rishonim concerning Rabbi Akiva's position.  Rashi (commentary to Masekhet Pesachim) explains that Rabbi Akiva applies the law of pesach sheni to those who, when the time for slaughtering the korban pesach begins, is situated far enough from the Mikdash that he would be unable to arrive by the final time for the slaughtering.  The Rambam (Hilkhot Korban Pesach 5:9), by contrast, understood differently.  In his view, derekh rechoka refers to a person who at sunrise of the fourteenth of Nissan is situated fifteen mil or more away from the Mikdash, such that he would be unable (traveling at normal speed) to reach the Temple by the onset of the period for the korban pesach.

            In conclusion, then, we have seen three different interpretations of the term derekh rechoka:

1)      According to Rabbi Eliezer, this halakha applies to anybody situated outside the Temple courtyard throughout the period when the korban pesach may be slaughtered;

2)      Rabbi Akiva, as understood by Rashi (and most Rishonim), applied this halakha only to those who, when the period of the korban pesach offering began, were situated at least 15 mil away from the Temple, such that they would be unable to reach the Temple by the end of this period;

3)      The Rambam understood Rabbi Akiva as applying this rule to those situated 15 mil or further from the Mikdash at sunrise of the fourteenth of Nissan, such that they would be unable to reach the Mikdash by the time the period for the paschal offering begins.

******

            Parashat Beha'alotekha begins with God's command to Aharon concerning the kindling of the menora in the Mishkan.  Rashi famously cites from the Midrash Tanchuma that this command served as "consolation" for Aharon who felt slighted over his exclusion from the dedication of the Mishkan.  As we read in the final section of Parashat Naso, the leader of each tribe except Levi brought a special gift and offering in honor of the Mishkan's inauguration, and Aharon felt uneasy about his tribe's exclusion.  God therefore reassures Aharon of his central role in the day-to-day operation of the Mishkan, reminding him that "you kindle and clean the candles."

            The Or Ha-chayim suggests an insightful explanation of God's response to Aharon based on a discussion in the Gemara (Menachot 88b).  According to one view cited in the Gemara, when the kohen cleaned the lamps of the menora each day, he would remove the lamp from the menora, clean it, and then return it to the menora.  (The second view maintains that the lamps could not be removed from the body of the menora, and the kohen would therefore clean them in their places.)  The Or Ha-chayim suggests that for this reason Aharon's role in cleaning and kindling the menora served as a meaningful source of consolation for his exclusion from the Mishkan's inauguration.  Although the tribal leaders were privileged to bring special offerings for the Mishkan's inauguration, Aharon is assigned the role to "construct" the Mishkan each day.  The requirement to clean the menora requires its dismantling and reconstruction on a daily basis, and thus the kohen effectively "builds" the Mishkan anew each and every day.

            This insight of the Or Ha-chayim can easily be applied to religious life generally.  Each day, we are given the opportunity to "build," to recommit ourselves anew to a life of sanctity.  Even our daily routine can be perceived as a new achievement, and not merely a linear extension of the previous day's work.  Just as the kohen's kindling of the menora was done in such a way that gave the appearance of a new act of building, so must we approach each day as a new "building" project, as an opportunity to achieve new heights and make a new, significant contribution.

******

            Parashat Beha'alotekha tells of the unfortunate incident of Kivrot Ha-ta'ava, where God delivered a deadly plague upon Benei Yisrael in response to their complaints and demands for meat.

            The Meshekh Chokhma, in a brief passage, suggests a novel approach in explaining the nature of Benei Yisrael's complaints.  In his view, Benei Yisrael did not protest the unavailability of meat; after all, they had with them large herds of sheep and cattle that could have easily satisfied their cravings.  Rather, they bemoaned the "burdensome" system of laws, guidelines and restrictions concerning the preparation of meat.  In addition to the basic kashrut laws which certainly applied, the consumption of meat in the wilderness was also bound to the unique rules of the sacrificial order.  Benei Yisrael were permitted to partake of meat in the wilderness only in the context of sacrificial offerings.  They were required to bring the animal as a voluntary sacrifice to the Mishkan, give a portion of the meat to the ministering kohen, and eat the remainder of the meat in compliance with the restrictions that apply to sacrifices.  It was to this complex procedure and demanding restrictions that Benei Yisrael objected.  The only food they could eat as ordinary food, rather than as sacrificial meat, was the manna, which they did not find sufficiently gratifying.

            The Meshekh Chokhma cites in this context a comment by the Sifrei regarding Benei Yisrael's cry, "We remember the fish that we would eat freely in Egypt!" (11:5).  It is conceivable, the Sifrei remarks, that the Egyptians would feed Benei Yisrael fish without pay.  When Benei Yisrael speak of eating fish "freely" in Egypt, they mean chinam min ha-mitzvot – without any religious obligations.  They longed not for the Egyptian menu, but for the free style of eating that was permitted to them in Egypt.  Having yet to receive the Torah, they were permitted to eat without the numerous demands and restrictions imposed by the Torah.

            This approach to Kivrot Ha-ta'ava dovetails with Chazal's famous remark concerning the nature of Benei Yisrael's departure from Sinai, just prior to this incident: "ke-tinok ha-borei'ach mi-beit ha-sefer" – the nation left "like a child fleeing from school."  The year spent at the foot of Mount Sinai was a period of religious intensity, highlighted by the Revelation and the manifestation of the divine presence in the Mishkan.  As Benei Yisrael took leave of "the mountain of the Lord" (10:33), they sought some relief and relaxation from this intensity.  They had hoped that the standards of Sinai could finally be eased, allowing them to indulge without special obligations.  Instead, they came to the realization that accepting the Torah entailed a lifelong commitment to sanctity, something which they now felt prepared to exchange for the "freedom" they enjoyed in Egypt.

            In contemporary terms, we might explain Kivrot Ha-ta'ava (according to the approach of the Meshekh Chokhma) as the desire or attempt to restrict religious responsibility to the synagogues and yeshivot.  We at times seek to confine spiritual commitment to the "mountain of the Lord," to our institutions of worship and study, rather than extending that commitment into every area of life.  A life of avodat Hashem means devoting oneself entirely to the task of serving his Creator, rather than seeking to "flee" from his servitude "like a child fleeing from school."

******

            In Parashat Beha'alotekha the Torah records God's instruction that Benei Yisrael perform the korban pesach ritual on the fourteenth of Nissan, one year after the Exodus from Egypt (9:1).  The Torah specifies that God issued this command two weeks before the fourteenth of Nissan, on Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  As Rashi observes, this command was thus issued earlier than the command to conduct a census, which is recorded in the opening of Sefer Bamidbar as having occurred the following month, on Rosh Chodesh Iyar.  Rashi explains, citing from the Sifrei, that the Torah chose not to begin Sefer Bamidbar with the command regarding the paschal offering because of the implied indictment of Benei Yisrael, who conducted the pesach ritual only once – on this occasion – throughout their forty years in the wilderness.  The Torah did not wish to begin a sefer with an implicit insult to Benei Yisrael, and it therefore recorded God's command of the korban pesach later, out of chronological sequence.

            The obvious question arises, why, in fact, did Benei Yisrael perform the korban pesach only once throughout the forty years in the wilderness?

            Tosefot address this question in Masekhet Kiddushin (37b), and suggest two different approaches.  First, they explain that the Sifrei follows the view recorded there in Masekhet Kiddushin that whenever the Torah introduces a mitzva with the words "ki tavo'u el ha-aretz" ("when you enter the land"), the mitzva did not take effect until after the nation's conquest and settlement of Eretz Yisrael.  Hence, as this clause is indeed used in reference to the obligation of korban pesach (Shemot 12:25), this mitzva did not take effect during Benei Yisrael's sojourn in the wilderness.  According to this view, God's command in Parashat Beha'alotekha that Benei Yisrael offer the korban pesach constituted an extraordinary measure, in that the standard obligation of korban pesach did not yet apply.  Even though Benei Yisrael were not required to offer the korban pesach during the other thirty-nine years, the Sifrei nevertheless deemed this period a source of shame for Benei Yisrael, as it was due to the sin of the scouts that they spent so many years wandering and thus could not bring the korban pesach. 

            In their second approach, Tosefot assert that to the contrary, the Sifrei held that the korban pesach obligation applied – at least in principle – even before Benei Yisrael's entry into the Land.  Nevertheless, they were unable to perform this mitzva after the first year of travel because, as the Talmud tells in Masekhet Yevamot (72a), after the sin of the scouts the climactic conditions in the wilderness did not allow for circumcision.  The korban pesach cannot be performed by those who are uncircumcised or who have uncircumcised sons, and thus the ritual was conducted only during the first year of travel, before the sin of the spies.  The insult to Benei Yisrael lay in the fact that as a result of the sin of the scouts, God did not provide favorable conditions for circumcision throughout the remaining years of travel through the wilderness.

            It thus emerges that according to the first possibility raised by Tosefot, the obligation of korban pesach did not apply before the conquest and settlement of Eretz Yisrael, and the command that Benei Yisrael offer the korban in the first year marked an exception.  According to Tosefot's second view, Benei Yisrael's observance of this mitzva in the first year followed the standard obligation of korban pesach, which applied even during the period of travel in the wilderness.

            We will iy"H address this issue further tomorrow.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed God's command to Benei Yisrael that they observe the korban pesach in wilderness one year after the Exodus, as recorded in Parashat Beha'alotekha (9:2).  As we saw, Tosefot in Masekhet Kiddushin (37b) present two different views as to whether this observance was required by virtue of the standard mitzva of korban pesach, or as an exceptional measure.  The first view claimed that the standard korban pesach obligation took effect only after Benei Yisrael's conquest and settlement of the Land, and thus the observance in the wilderness marked an exceptional obligation that God imposed upon Benei Yisrael.  According to the second view, the standard obligation of korban pesach applied even before Benei Yisrael's entry into the Land, and thus this observance constituted a fulfillment of the standard Torah obligation.

            The obvious question arises, if, as Tosefot's first view contends, the obligation of korban pesach did not apply during Benei Yisrael's years of travel in the wilderness, why did God command them to offer the sacrifice on this occasion?  What prompted this exceptional measure requiring the nation to bring a korban pesach before the mitzva became binding?

            The Meshekh Chokhma suggests that Benei Yisrael's offering of the paschal sacrifice at this point served as part of their "purification" process from the sin of the golden calf.  On a number of occasions throughout Tanakh, we find that a public korban pesach ritual signified the nation's collective renunciation of idolatry and return to the belief in and service of the Almighty.  This began, of course, with the first korban pesach, on the night of the Exodus itself, when Benei Yisrael openly repudiated Egyptian paganism and committed themselves to the service of God.  Likewise, during the reigns of Chizkiyahu (Divrei Hayamim II 29) and Yoshiyahu (Melakhim II 23) nationwide Pesach celebrations were held as part of the campaign to obliterate idolatrous worship and return to the worship of the one true God.  Thus, the Meshekh Chokhma suggests, here, too, God commanded Benei Yisrael to conduct the korban pesach ritual as a formal, public expression of their firm, resolute rejection of idolatry, in the wake of the debacle of the golden calf.  The Meshekh Chokhma explains that the paschal offering, which of course commemorates God's protection of Benei Yisrael during the plague of firstborn, expresses the belief in direct divine providence.  As such, it is well-suited as a demonstration of the people's recommitment to monotheism and rejection of idolatry.

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests a novel approach to explain why Benei Yisrael would be required to offer the korban pesach only during the first year in the wilderness, but not thereafter.  Essentially, he contends, the pesach ritual celebrates two achievements: the departure from Egypt for the purpose of residing in Eretz Yisrael, or the freedom from Egyptian bondage.  The first celebration, which relates specifically to the nation's settlement in their Land, did not apply until they captured and settled Eretz Yisrael.  The second aspect, however, that of the release from Egyptian bondage, certainly warranted celebration even during the period of travel through the wilderness.  Naturally, then, God commanded Benei Yisrael to observe the korban pesach even now, before their entry into the Land.  However, when the scouts returned from Eretz Yisrael and reported about the Canaanites' formidable military power, the people announced their desire to return to their lives of slavery in Egypt (14:4).  Once this occurred, the nation was no longer worthy of celebrating the second aspect of the Exodus, the freedom from bondage.  Having expressed their desire to return to their former status as slaves rather than accept the challenges and privileges of freedom, they could no longer celebrate the korban pesach until their entry into Eretz Yisrael.

Hence, although in principle the obligation of korban pesach applied even during the nation's travels through the wilderness, Benei Yisrael were denied the possibility of fulfilling this mitzva after the sin of the spies, having expressed their preference for a life as Egyptian slaves over a life of freedom.

******

            Parashat Beha'alotekha concludes with the famous incident of Miriam and Aharon's inappropriate speech about their brother, Moshe, for which Miriam was punished with tzara'at.  After relating the content of their conversation, the Torah tells of Moshe's humility: "And the man Moshe was exceedingly humble – more so than any person on the face of the earth" (12:3).

            The Ramban comments that this verse refers to Moshe's silence in the face of his siblings' insults.  Although he heard what was said about him, he made no objection and did not respond to justify himself.

            Implicit within the Ramban's comments is an inherent association between humility, and silence in the face of disparagement.  When the Torah speaks of Moshe as "humble," it does so in order to explain why Moshe chose not to respond, because this reaction to insult is one of the qualities of a humble man.

            Indeed, the Mesilat Yesharim (chapter 22), in listing the various aspects of humility, includes the quality of sevilat ha-elbonot – tolerating insults.  The arrogant person cannot bear to hear anything offensive; he lacks the confidence and self-esteem to ignore what other people say or think about him.  It is the humble individual who, ironically enough, is comfortable enough with himself to tolerate and ignore insults.

            The Mesilat Yesharim cites in this context the Gemara's comment (Shabbat 88) regarding the final clause of the prophetess Devora's famous song of triumph: "And those who love Him [shall be] like the sun emerging in its power" (Shoftim 5:31).  The Gemara remarks that this refers to "those who are insulted but do not insult, who hear their shame and do not respond."  Just as the sun rises and sets each morning regardless of what anybody says or does, so does the individual referred to in the verse conduct himself as he knows he should without paying heed to other people's insults.  A person cannot allow himself to be rattled by slurs and denigrating remarks.  And if he does find himself disturbed by what is said about him, then he should perhaps examine his conduct to see if perhaps there is some truth to the criticism.

            It is worth citing in this context the comments by Rav Avraham Pam, as recorded in Rav Shalom Smith's The Pleasant Way, Parashat Beha'alotekha:

A humble person trains himself to accept the sharp comments that others may inflict upon him.  He will not let it upset him or evoke in him the desire to respond in kind.  Either he will totally ignore the remarks or he will accept the criticism with gratitude.  He will think to himself, "Maybe what they are saying about me is true and the critique is justified.  It is good for me to acknowledge these remarks because, by doing so, I will become a better person."  A person who can bear insults and criticism will spare himself much grief and heartache.