continuity

Today is the second yahrzeit of my MIL, Shulamis bas R' Dov Yehudah, so these words are l'iluy nishmasa.

After telling us in Zos HaBracha that Klal Yisrael finished mourning Moshe Rabeinu, the Torah continues וִיהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֗וּן מָלֵא֙ ר֣וּחַ חׇכְמָ֔ה כִּֽי־סָמַ֥ךְ מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־יָדָ֖יו עָלָ֑יו  This whole pasuk seems out of place.  Yehoshua's appointment and Moshe's laying his hands on his head was discussed back in parshas Pinchas.  Why stick it in again here?  

Ksav Sofer answers that the pasuk is a continuation of the previous idea of וַֽיִּתְּמ֔וּ יְמֵ֥י בְכִ֖י אֵ֥בֶל מֹשֶֽׁה׃.  How do you ever stop mourning the loss of a Moshe Rabeinu?  The truth is that if everything Moshe lived for and represented as gone, we would still be crying.  But everything was not lost.  "Ki samach Moshe es yadav alav" -- the legacy of Moshe lived on through Yehoshua.  When Klal Yisrael saw that, it was the consolation that they needed.

Last night I was zoche to make a siyum b'shutfus with my son and I quoted the Midrash (B"R parsha 63, at the beginning of Toldos) that says

 רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מִנַיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן יָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עָלָיו רַחֲמִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (משלי כ״ג:ט״ו): בְּנִי אִם חָכַם לִבֶּךָ יִשְׂמַח לִבִּי גַּם אָנִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לֵב אָבִיו שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא רַחֲמִים עָלָיו בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יִשְׂמַח לִבִּי גַּם אָנִי

When a person has children and grandchildren who are  יָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה, that is the real tribute to their legacy and shows that their spirit carries on.   

The Midrash on our parsha, Braishis, comments on the pasuk in Mishlei וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו׳

דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאַךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאַךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם

Sefas Emes points out that the pasuk is written in the future tense - וָאֶהְיֶה - not the past tense, even though the world was created thousands of years ago.  

What Chazal are telling us is that process of creation was actually never completed -- it continues on through us.  "Kol mah she'talmid vasik asid l'hischadesh" is part of Torah, and becomes part of creation.  

If Hashem's behavior as creator is meant to serve as a model for us, then perhaps the lesson for our own lives is that the process of creation that we start does not end with us, but hopefully continues on into the future, expanded on and developed by children and grandchildren and future generations following in our footsteps.

the bracha of Moshe Rabeinu

Before Zos HaBracha gets into the meat and potatoes of Moshe Rabeinu's bracha to the shevatim, it opens with praise of Hashem (Rashi 33:2) -- "Hashem m'Sinai ba... Mimino aish das lamo..." etc. as lawgiver and as having a special bond with Bnei Yisrael. As much as this introduction is about Hashem, it is also about us. Commenting on the pasuk, "Torah tzivah lanu Moshe...," Ramban explains that it is the acceptance of the Torah on our part which makes us worthy of receiving a bracha. In other words, you can't just walk up even to a Moshe Rabeinu with no desire to change, to grow, to come closer to Hashem, no commitment, and expect him to drop a bracha in your lap and give you whatever your heart desires. A bracha has to be earned. A bracha requires a kabbalas haTorah as a pre-requisite.

The parsha presents the brachos of Moshe one by one to each sheivet -- "Yechi Reuvain...," "V'Zos l'Yehudah...," etc. Yet when it comes to sheivet Yisachar, rather than start a new pasuk with his bracha, instead the Torah tacks it on to the bracha of Zevulun, almost as an afterthought: "Smach Zevulun b'tzesecha v'Yisacha b'ohalaecha." The parsha then goes right back to Zevulun, "Amim har yikra'u..." Why doesn't Yisachar get his own spot in the sun, his own individual moment of attention? Furthermore, Chazal tell us that Zevulun and Yisachar made a partnership: Zevulun was a merchant who used his wealth to help support Yisachar, who dedicated himself to talmud Torah; together they shared the reward of talmud Torah. Shouldn't the focus be on Yisachar, who was doing the actual learning, and not on Zevulun, who just enabled Yisachar's talmud Torah? Why is the bracha directed at Zevulun as the primary recipient with Yisachar tacked on secondarily?

R' Chaim Kanievski in his Ta'ama d'Kra writes that the reason Zevulun is the focus of attention for this bracha and Yisachar is tacked on secondarily is precisely because Yisachar was the one who was totally immersed in talmud Torah. When one's life is Torah, one doesn't need an added bracha -- Torah itself is the biggest source of bracha a person can have.

Maybe that's what we are supposed to get out of Simchas Torah. The lulav is put away, we don't have to eat in the sukkah anymore, there is no particular mitzvas ha'yom -- so why do we have a Yom Tov? Perhaps the idea is that those items are just props, accoutrements, albeit very important and meaningful ones, but if one has Torah, then one can have simcha and bracha even if one has nothing else at all.

neshomos suited for Torah

Dashening the pasuk "Hashem m'Seir ba...." Chazal explain that Hashem went to Eisav and Yishmael and the other nations and offered them the Torah before giving it to the Jewish people. Each nation asked what was in the Torah before answering. When Eisav heard the Torah prohibits murder, they declined to accept it, as they could not imagine life without murder. After hearing the prohibitions of theft, of arayot, etc. nation after nation declined the Torah, each unable to fathom life without the particular slice of immorality that characterized their society. Only the Jewish people accepted Torah unconditionally, without even asking what it contained.

Of course G-d did not literally go nation to nation and consulting their Prime Minister or President as to whether they wanted the Torah. What the Midrash means, as the Maharal explains in Tiferes Yisrael, is that every nation of the world has ingrained in its neshoma some trait that is antithetical to a Torah lifestyle, be it murder, robbery, immorality. Only the Jewish people have the neshomos able to absorb the dvar Hashem in its totality.

Among the published correspondence (that I mentioned here) of my wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, is a tshuvah to him from R' Avraham Bloch, R"M of Telz, and his response regarding whether one may teach a Torah or Bible class to a non-Jewish audience. Chazal learn (Chagiga 13) from the pasuk, "Magid devarav l'Ya'akov..." that in addition to the prohibition of a non-Jew learning Torah there is a seperate prohibition against us teaching them Torah. R' Bloch interestingly suggests (without referencing this Maharal) that the reason behind this issur is this incompatibility between the neshoma of a non-Jew and words of Torah.

Interesting aside #1: R' Bloch proves from the fact (B.K. 92) that Avraham assumed the Plishtim were immoral because they first questioned him about his wife rather than offering food and lodging that there is a chiyuv even for non-Jews to learn those parts of Torah that teach midos and derech eretz. The kal v'chomer to what we should be learning and teaching is obvious.

Interesting aside #2: The teshuvah from R' Bloch opens with a mazal tov to RDYS on the birth of a girl (if I figured out the dates right, that newborn would be my MIL!) and a bracha l'gadla l'chupah u'lma'asim tovim. He then adds that perhaps he should use the nusach of the bracha l'gadla l'Torah l'chupah u'lama'asim tovim as in the climate of the times it is impossible to raise a bas Yisrael without giving her an appropriate Torah chinuch. The kal v'chomer to our times is obvious here as well.

simchas torah and what made Moshe unique

The Torah ends by referring to Moshe’s greatness in performing “signs and wonders”. Ramban asks what was unique about Moshe in this regard that deserves to be singled out for praise – many other prophets also performed miracles and wonders for the Jewish people?

It is the Tiferes Shlomo (Radomsker) that clued me in to look at the end of the last pasuk in the Torah for an answer, but I am going to take a slightly different approach than he does. A thought experiment: Imagine if you could transport a nuclear reactor back in time to the Middle Ages and teach people how to harness its power and maintain it. Even with the mechanical knowledge of how to keep the reactor working, the people would undoubtedly view the whole production of energy as a miracle. Fast forward to 2009 and the perception of the reactor being a miracle vanishes. What’s the difference? The answer is that we not only know how to keep a reactor running, but also understand the theory behind how it works. Atomic reactions obey certain laws that have been discovered and explained. It’s not a miracle – that’s how the universe works.

To go a step beyond the Ramban, the magicians of Egypt could also perform “miracles” and suspected Moshe of being no different in ability than them. Why indeed was Moshe different? I think the answer goes beyond distinctions about the scale of the miracles or the size of the audience who witnessed them and relates to our example of the reactor. Other prophets, magicians, and the like performed miracles by becoming the channel for or channeling forces they could not understand and could not control into this world. They were “mechanics” or instruments in the hands of G-d. What made Moshe different was that he performed miracles “l’einei Bnei Yisrael,” as the last pasuk in the Torah tells us. It is the sages and scholars who are usually referred to as the “eini ha’eidah” because wisdom gives one the ability to discern what others miss. Moshe gave us not only miracles, but he gave us the context of a blueprint to the spiritual "laws" and theory that explained those miracles and made them possible.

R’ Chanina ben Dosa did not consider lighting a lamp filled with vinegar to be miraculous – “He who said oil should burn can also say vinegar should burn.” It’s only magical and miraculous if you don’t understand that there are spiritual laws just as there are physical laws and those laws can produce wonderful results.

The Minchas Chinuch famously asks why a person who violates a Torah law is not also inherently in violation of the prohibition against disobeying a prophet. This gets to the heart of why Moshe was unique. A prophet or miracle worker can describe the “what” of their experience and record it in a book of nevuah. The book of Moshe's deeds and prophecy is called Torah, not nevuah, because only Moshe explained the “why” and “how” and left a system that can be studied and used by all future generations.

Unlike other religious groups which change or collapse with the death of their central charismatic leader, the Jewish people were able to smoothly transition from Moshe to Yehoshua. Everything Moshe did was “l’einei Bnei Yisrael,” it fit into a system of thought and ideas that could live on beyond his personality and deeds.

The obsession with magical remedies and cults of personality in our times needs no elaboration. Simchas Torah reminds us that miracles and great leaders are valuable only to the degree that they help illuminate “einei Bnei Yisrael”, expanding our minds with a greater appreciation for Torah as a system of laws and values that we can study and live by. It is those laws and values that should capture our attention.

the lesson learned from the history of Dan

Moshe Rabeinu was shown all of Eretz Yisrael before his death, right up until the border of Dan (34:1). Rashi explains that Moshe was shown the people of Dan engaged in idol worship, but was also shown the rise of Shimshon who would redeem them. Why did G-d spoil Moshe’s final moments by showing him the Jewish people’s fall to idolatry? Why could He not allow Moshe to revel in the success and hopeful future of the Jewish people without burdening him with an image of their failure?

The Shem m’Shmuel answers that these two images – the idolatry of Dan and the rise of Shimshon from Dan – are not two separate visions, but go hand in hand. Hashem revealed to Moshe that even when the Jewish people fall to greatest depths, they can give rise to a Shimshon, a shofet so great that Ya’akov Avinu saw in him the potential to be Moshiach. Moshe now knew that his death and the inevitable retreat from the glorious heights attained by the “dor de’ah” would not lead to permanent downfall.

mourning for moshe rabeinu's death - amazing chasam sofer

Having had a few vacation days stored up (I think that happened because of yamim tovim falling on weekends), I decided to just take off all of chol hamoed this year, which I have not done in a long time. It was fanatstic to just spend a week enjoying Yom Tov - hope you all had an enjoyable chag as well. The chol hamoed trip itinerary included standard classics like the Bronx Zoo and AdventureLand (those who send kids to TAG and live in the Far Rockaway-5T area are I am sure familiar with this one) as well as some others.
Before starting Braishis, I can't resist writing over one of my favorite vortlach of the Chasam Sofer that appears at the end of Zos haBracha. The parsha tells us that Bnei Yisrael cried for Moshe's death for 30 days, "vayitmu y'mei b'chei eivel Moshe", the days of Moshe's mourning ended. "V'yehoshua bin Nun malei ruch chochma ki samach Moshe yadav alav...", Yehoshua was filled with wisdom because Moshe had placed his hands upon him. The clause telling us that the crying for Moshe's death ceased seems unnecessary, as it is implicit in the initial statement that Bnei Yisrael cried for 30 days. Also, the description of Yehoshua's possessing wisdom because of his relationship to Moshe seems to have nothing to do with the description of the mourning which preceded it and might have been written at an earlier point in the narrative.
Chasam Sofer explains that both pesukim together describe the mourning for Moshe Rabeinu, as there were two aspects to the aveilus. The immediate response to Moshe's death was crying for the loss. After 30 days, "vaYitmu ymei b'chei eivel Moshe", this period of crying for Moshe's death drew to a close, but that was not the end of the mourning. When the great wisdom Yehoshua attained as a result of having drawn close to Moshe Rabeinu, "ki samach yadav alav", became apparent, people realized that they too had had the same opportunity to draw close to Moshe Rabeinu - they too could have been the one to stay close to their Rebbe's tent and learn more Torah from him, or to be mishamesh him; they too could have become like Yehoshua and been filled with chochma gleaned from their rebbe Moshe had they only seized the opportunity. Now with Moshe gone, they cried not just for the loss of Moshe the Navi and leader, but they also mourned their own failure to seize the opportunity to grow in learning and wisdom while Moshe Rabeinu had been accessible.