open your eyes to reality

 A couple of years ago I cited the Malbim's pshat in חֲזוֹן֙ יְשַֽׁעְיָ֣הוּ בֶן־אָמ֔וֹץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָזָ֔ה עַל־יְהוּדָ֖ה וִירֽוּשָׁלָ֑‍ִם בִּימֵ֨י עֻזִּיָּ֧הוּ יוֹתָ֛ם אָחָ֥ז יְחִזְקִיָּ֖הוּ מַלְכֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה׃.  The pasuk doesn't mean that Yeshayahu prophesized during the reign of these kings.  What it means is that this prophecy, which we read Shabbos chazon, was repeated again and again.  He said it in the days of Uziyahu and was ignored; he said it in the days of Yotam and was ignored; he repeated it for Achaz and Chizkiyahu. 

 This is not a new phenomenon.  We have it in our parsha as well.

 

אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּעֵ֖בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן בַּמִּדְבָּ֡ר בָּֽעֲרָבָה֩ מ֨וֹל ס֜וּף בֵּֽין־פָּארָ֧ן וּבֵֽין־תֹּ֛פֶל וְלָבָ֥ן וַחֲצֵרֹ֖ת וְדִ֥י זָהָֽב

 

אַחַ֨ד עָשָׂ֥ר יוֹם֙ מֵֽחֹרֵ֔ב דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַר־שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ

 

The way Rashi explains the pesukim is the first pasuk is the start of the tochacha.  Each place name is a rebuke -- look what you did wrong here, and here, and here.  Not only that, but -- second pasuk --Hashem rushed you through an 11 day journey in only 3 days to speed you to Eretz Yisrael, and rather than appreciate it, you blew it.

 

The Seforno, however, explains the pesukim as follows:

 

זֶה כִּי כָּל ל״ח שָׁנָה שֶׁהֱנִיעָם בַּמִּדְבָּר אָנֶה וָאָנָה לֹא הָלְכוּ בְּדֶרֶךְ יָשָׁר מְכֻוָּן אֶל מָקוֹם נוֹדָע, וּכְשֶׁהָיוּ מַגִּיעִים אֶל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר מִשָּׁם הָיוּ נָעִים וְחוֹזְרִים לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם אוֹ לַצְּדָדִין וְלֹא בְּדֶרֶךְ יָשָׁר, הָיָה מֹשֶׁה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם: רְאוּ מַה גְּרַמְתֶּם, שֶׁהֲרֵי מַהֲלַךְ ״אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם״ יֵשׁ ״מֵחֹרֵב... עַד קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ...

 

Meaning, every time Bn"Y took a zig instead of a zag in the midbar and moved further away from Eretz Yisrael, every time there was a revolt, a complaint, a challenge, at each and every stop Moshe repeated the exact same speech: אַחַ֨ד עָשָׂ֥ר יוֹם֙ מֵֽחֹרֵ֔ב דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַר־שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ.  We just had a few days journey and we could have been there!  All the complaints, all the zigging and zagging through the desert, it all could have been avoided.  Now, after the fact, deal with it.

 

Moshe, Yeshayahu, and on and on. We've been hearing the same speech for 2000 years. 

 

2) After the meraglim returned and gave their bad report, the parsha relates that Bn"Y gave up hope:

 

אָנָ֣ה׀ אֲנַ֣חְנוּ עֹלִ֗ים אַחֵ֩ינוּ֩ הֵמַ֨סּוּ אֶת־לְבָבֵ֜נוּ לֵאמֹ֗ר עַ֣ם גָּד֤וֹל וָרָם֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ עָרִ֛ים גְּדֹלֹ֥ת וּבְצוּרֹ֖ת בַּשָּׁמָ֑יִם וְגַם־בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָקִ֖ים רָאִ֥ינוּ שָֽׁם׃

 

Moshe responded (1:29-32):

 

וָאֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵכֶ֑ם לֹא־תַעַרְצ֥וּן וְלֹא־תִֽירְא֖וּן מֵהֶֽם

ה׳ אֱלֹֽקיכֶם֙ הַהֹלֵ֣ךְ לִפְנֵיכֶ֔ם ה֖וּא יִלָּחֵ֣ם לָכֶ֑ם כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֧ה אִתְּכֶ֛ם בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם לְעֵינֵיכֶֽם׃

וּבַמִּדְבָּר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָאִ֔יתָ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נְשָׂאֲךָ֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשָּׂא־אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־בְּנ֑וֹ בְּכׇל־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֲלַכְתֶּ֔ם עַד־בֹּאֲכֶ֖ם עַד־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה

וּבַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה אֵֽינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִינִ֔ם בַּה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם

 

What is the ַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה that the final pasuk is referring to?  Rashi, and many other meforshim following in his footsteps, explains שהוא מבטיחכם להביאכם אל הארץ

 

The problem with that interpretation is that a pronoun needs an antecedent.  None of the previous pesukim are speaking about the promise of coming to Eretz Yisrael, so how can הַזֶּ֑ה be referring to that? Abarbanel explains the ָּבדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה  is the sending of the spies, and the pasuk means that by sending spies, you have proven your lack of belief.  The antecedent is not the immediately preceding pesukim, but is at least closer.  

Ohr haChaim connects the phrase to what came just before it:

צריך לדעת כוונת אומרו ובדבר הזה, ורש״י ז״ל פי׳ על הבטחת ביאת הארץ הוא מדבר, ואין נראה כן אלא כפשט הכתוב 

שעל ניסי מדבר הוא אשר נשאם ה׳ כאשר ישא איש את בנו שגם בדבר הזה אינם מאמינים

Hashem tended to you like a parent tends to a child, caring for your every need, and yet you ignore it.

 

There is an amazing Noam Elimelech that, although he doesn't mention it, is the follow up to this pshat of the Ohr haChaim.  If the O.C. is right, then what does אֵֽינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִינִ֔ם mean?  B'shlama according to Rashi, you have to have faith that Hashem will deliver the goods and that they will get to Eretz Yisrael.  However, if the pasuk is speaking about what happened in the desert, the people saw the ananei ha'kavod, they saw the mon, they drank from the be'er of Miriam.  What do they need emunah for?   It's like Rav Shach in Avi Ezri who writes that he was always bothered by the question of why there is a mitzvah of emunah when any thinking person who uses his reason can see that G-d exists. Here Bn"Y didn't even need to think -- כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשָּׂא־אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־בְּנ֑וֹ was their lived experience.  You don't need to believe what you can see with your eyes.

 

The Noam Elimelech answers:

 

אך כשאדם הולך בגשמיות ועניני עוה"ז יום יום, עי"ז הוא נתגשם כ"כ שאפילו הניסים והנפלאות הנגלים והנראים בחוש הראות אינו מאמין, וזהו שהוכיח אותם אף שקלקלתם ואמרתם "אחינו המסו כו'", היה לכם להאמין ע"י הניסים שראיתם בחוש, העמוד אש וענן ההולך לפניכם, "ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינים", ר"ל ואתם אפילו הניסים הנגלים, דהיינו עמוד אש וענן שאתם רואים, אינכם מאמינים מחמת שאתם מגושמים כ"כ,

 

A person can become so immersed in olam ha'zeh, in gashmiyus, that he can see miracles right in front of his eyes and still not believe that is the reality.  Instead, he will believe his own world of dimyonos.

 

R' Elchanan answered the question Rav Shach raises by suggesting that of course someone with a thinking head will understand that Hashem exists, but it's not so simple to have a clear, thinking head.  A person can be lead astray by temptation.  The NE is going even a step further.  Not only can a person be led to muddled thinking, but he will call into question even that which he experiences first hand. 

 

"Do you believe the meraglim or your lying eyes?" to paraphrase Marx.  Sadly, we believed the meraglim.

 

The Ar"I writes that the month of Tamuz and Av correspond to the right and left eyes, whatever that means.  עַל־אֵ֣לֶּה אֲנִ֣י בֽוֹכִיָּ֗ה עֵינִ֤י  עֵינִי֙ יֹ֣רְדָה מַּ֔יִם.  We sadly prefer to look away and retreat into the world of dimyonos.  The Berdichiver writes that it is called shabbos chazon because on this shabbos each and every one of us is shown  vision of what the geulah will look like.   ק֥וֹל צֹפַ֛יִךְ נָ֥שְׂאוּ ק֖וֹל יַחְדָּ֣ו יְרַנֵּ֑נוּ כִּ֣י עַ֚יִן בְּעַ֙יִן֙ יִרְא֔וּ בְּשׁ֥וּב ה׳ צִיּֽוֹן (Yeshayahu 52:8).  You don't need emunah in geulah.  You just need to open your eyes. 

difference between meat/wine and laundry/haircuts right after the fast

 The SA writes in 558:

 בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב לְעֵת עֶרֶב הִצִּיתוּ אֵשׁ בַּהֵיכָל וְנִשְׂרַף עַד שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה בְּיוֹם עֲשִׂירִי, וּמִפְּנֵי כָּךְ מִנְהָג כָּשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן בְּלֵיל עֲשִׂירִי וְיוֹם עֲשִׂירִי. {הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַחְמִירִין עַד חֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וְלֹא יוֹתֵר

 

The MB comments:

 

ה״ה שלא לרחוץ במרחץ ולספר ולכבס עד חצות

Yet if you look earlier in 551:4 it says you are allowed to do laundry and get a haircut right after the fast ends:

 

לְאַחַר הַתַּעֲנִית מֻתָּר לְסַפֵּר וּלְכַבֵּס מִיָּד.

 

The MB there comments on the spot:

 

עיין לקמן סימן תקנ״ח באחרונים דמצד מנהגא יש ליזהר בזה ביום עשירי עד חצות היום:

 

What he is saying is that the SA in 551 basically neglected to tell us about the minhag of waiting until chatzos that he will mention a few simanim later in 558, but read one in light of the other.

 

There is a simpler solution that reads the SA k'peshuto.  Meat, wine, laundry, and haircuts are not all the same.  In 551, the SA is speaking only about laundry and haircuts; these activities are permitted starting immediately after the fast.  In 558, the SA is speaking about eating meat and drinking wine; one cannot partake of these until chatzos of the 10th. 

 

Why should there be a difference between them? Rav BenTzion Aba Shaul explains (vol 3 of Ohr l'Tzion #29) that the issur to have wine and meat have nothing to do with aveilus.  Someone who is an aveil can eat meat.  The reason we don't eat them is because korbanos were meat; nesachim were wine offerings.  The issur is to help us mark the loss of avodah in beis hamikdash.  Haircuts and washing are nihugei aveilus.  Once 9 Av ends, the aveilus is lifted, but our commemoration of the avodah that was lost continues until the next day, as it was on the night of the 9th and into the 10th that the mikdash was burned.

 

Another nafka minah based on this same idea: when 9 Av falls out on Sunday, if a person has to eat, can he say havdalah on wine?  During the 9 days one is allowed the drink wine for the sake of a mitzvah, including havdalah (the minhag of beer for havdalah is fraught with complications that are a different discussion).  However, Rav Elyashiv and others held that the same is not true on 9 Av itself.  Just like m'dina d'gemara we do not allow wine in seudah ha'mafseket as a remembrance to the korbanos and nesachim, the same is true on 9 Av itself.  Even if the dinim of the taanis are suspended for the choleh, the din of having this remembrance for the korbanos remains in effect.

arei miklat and the protection of Torah

Three of the six arei miklat were located in Eiver haYarden.  Rashi (35:14) asks: given that the majority of Bn"Y lived in Eretz Yisrael, wouldn't it make sense for a majority of the arei miklat to be located there?  Why should fully half of the arei milkat be located in Eiver haYarden when far less than half the population was located there? 

 Rashi answers that even though Eiver haYarden contained a minority of the population, it contained a greater number of murderers than elsewhere:

 

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן תִּשְׁעָה שְׁבָטִים וְכָאן אֵינָן אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם וָחֵצִי, הִשְׁוָה מִנְיַן עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט שֶׁלָּהֶם, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגִלְעָד נְפִישֵׁי רוֹצְחִים, דִּכְתִיב (הושע ו') גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם

 

Ramban questions how this makes sense.  Arei miklat are meant only for those who kill  b'shogeg, not for actual murder.  If there were more criminal murderers in Eiver haYarden, why would that necessitate more arei miklat?

 

He answers that although they were killing with intent, the criminals tried to pass themselves off as mere shogegim and ran to the arei miklat for refuge.  היו שופכי דמים במרמה ומראין עצמן כשוגגין והוצרך להרבות להם ערי מקלט לקלוט את כולן שלא נודע מי המזיד.  Therefore, a greater number of cities were needed.

 

Maharal does not like this answer.  If Ramban is right, adding arei miklat only incentivizes the criminals because now they have a place to turn for refuge to escape.  Were there fewer or even no arei miklat, the murder  rate would drop, as the criminals, having no place to run, would think twice before acting.  It's like providing benefits to illegal aliens.  The more you give, the more illegals will enter the country because you are incentivizing the bad behavior.   

 

To explain Rashi, let's backtrack for a moment and define what shogeg means.  It does not mean "accident."  That would be ones, and a person does not go to miklat for an accident.  I don't know if we have a single word in English that captures just what shogeg is.  Unintentional or inadvertent is part of it.  It is a situation where a person is at least partially at fault, whether due to negligence, not taking proper precaution, or directly through their action, but it does not rise to the same degree of fault as a deliberate, willful act.  This is why a person must bring a korban chatas for certain shogeg violations, e.g. a person ate what he thought was kosher meat and it turned out to be cheilev.  The Rishonim explain that had the person been more careful, he would have realized the meat is cheilev and not eaten it.  The violation was not deliberate, but it was borne out of carelessness and inattention that a persons bears responsibility for and deserves some punishment for.  The same is true for cases of dea  by shogeg.  In those cases, the punishment is banishment to one of the arei miklat. 

 

Maharal says a yesod: a culture of wrongdoing will breed wrongdoing.  Because גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם, there was a culture of criminal activity, a culture of murder, human life was cheapened.  Even if one is not a crim inal and would not r"l dream of committing murder, a person immersed in that culture inevitably will become careless and callous when it comes even to matters of human life.  That is precisely the climate in which shogeg can thrive.  That's why more arei miklat were needed.

2) The gemara (Makos 10a) darshes from pesukim later in Devarim that just as the arei miklat are koleit, so too are divrei Torah koltim:

 

א"ר יוחנן הרב שגלה מגלין ישיבתו עמו איני והא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדברי תורה שהן קולטין שנאמר את בצר במדבר וגו' [וכתיב בתריה] וזאת התורה לא קשיא הא בעידנא דעסיק בה הא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה ואי בעית אימא מאי קולטין ממלאך המות כי הא דרב חסדא הוה יתיב וגריס בבי רב ולא הוה קא יכול שליחא [דמלאכא דמותא] למיקרב לגביה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק ויתיב אארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתיק ויכיל ליה

 

The gemara illustrates the point with a story about the malach ha'maves' inability to touch Rav Chisda so long as he was learning.

 

R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyos sends you to a gemara in Shabbos 30b about David haMelech, who was told he would die on Shabbos but was also immune from the malach ha'maves so long as he was learning:

 

כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא ההוא יומא דבעי למינח נפשיה קם מלאך המות קמיה ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא אמר מאי אעביד ליה הוה ליה בוסתנא אחורי ביתיה אתא מלאך המות סליק ובחיש באילני נפק למיחזי הוה סליק בדרגא איפחית דרגא מתותיה אישתיק ונח נפשיה

 

RAK"E give you the mareh makom because he is prodding you to ask a question.  Why does the gemara in makkos need to illustrate the point with a story about an amora Rav Chisda when it could illustrate the same point from this story with David that happened much earlier?

 

Maharasha in makkos comments: וה"נ ה"מ לאתויי מהך עובדא דפ' ב"מ דוד כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא כו' ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא  You're right.  The gemara could have just as well quoted the story about David haMelech, but it arbitrarily chose the episode with Rav Chisda. 

 

Maharasha does not see any distinction between the stories, but R' Eliyahu Baruch from the Mir  suggested that there is a  distinction, one that is also suggested by R' Bakst, and which Rav Shach was so impressed with that he was kicking himself for not thinking of it. 

 

The Midrash tells us that Adam haRishon was shown the entire history of humankind.  In that vision, he saw the soul of David haMelech, who was destined to come down to the world for just a few hours and then die as a baby.  Adam was so moved by the lost potential of David not having the opportunity to leave any mark on the world that he donated 70 years of his life to David.  This is why Adam lived only 930 years instead of an even 1000 (my wife makes fun of me because I like round numbers, but here's a Midrash that takes my side.  It should be 1000 -- what's with 930?).

 

When Hashem told David that his time was up on that Shabbos, it was not because David had done anything wrong, certainly nothing that would make him deserving of death.  David was on borrowed, undeserved time from day 1 of his life.  It just so happened that those 70 years that he had been given as a gift were up on that Shabbos. 

 

The same is obviously not true of Rav Chisda, who lived a normal life and whose death came about based on his own merits/demerits in shamayim.

 

This is why the gemara uses the story of Rav Chisda, and not David, as its proof.  The gemara is establishing that just like the ir miklat affords refuge and protection for someone who has done wrong, so too Torah.  That lesson cannot be learned from David, who died only because his 70 year gift was up, not because of any wrongdoing.  That lesson can only be learned when speaking about a "normal" person. 

 

R' Elya Baruch proves his sevara from a beautiful diyuk in Rashi, who comments on the gemara in Shabbos:

 

הוה יתיב וגריס - שלא יקרב מלאך המות אליו שהתורה מגינה ממות כדאמרינן בסוטה (דף כא.)

 

The gemara in Sotah writes that the protection of Torah exceeds that of mitzvos:

 

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. תּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ וּבֵין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא

 

But why would Rashi send you to that gemara and not to the sugya in Makkos where the gemara spells out clearly, based on what happened to Rav Chisda, that Torah protects even from the malach ha'maves?  Isn't that sugya a perfect fit to what the gemara in Shabbos is talking about?

 

It must be that there is a distinction between the sugyos.  The protection the gemara in Makkos is speaking about is a different type of protection than the one in the sugya in Shabbos.

 

There is another distinction that is meduyak in the gemara.  When speaking about Rav Chisda, the gemara states that the malach ha'maves distracted him for a moment so he stopped learning, and was then able to take him on the spot, he dropped dead right by his shtender.  The gemara in Shabbos writes that the malach ha'maves drew David haMelech *away* from his shtender and into the garden and then was able to take him.  Apparently the protection afforded David enveloped and sanctified even the spot in which he was learning, so it was only after he moved away from that area, away from his shtender, that the malach ha'maves had power.

 

We are approaching chodesh Av.  "Al mah avdah ha'aretz?"  Chazal tell us that the churban happened because Bn"Y did not recite birchas haTorah.  The Ran explains that there was a deficiency in their learning lishma.  Torah is our shield and protection.  Of course we need hishtadlus in all the normal ways, but above and beyond that, we need to envelop ourselves in the great power מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא of Torah.