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. 

koach ha'tefilah to make a difference

 וַתָּשֻׁבוּ וַתִּבְכּוּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְלֹא שָׁמַע ה׳ בְּקֹלְכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱזִין אֲלֵיכֶם

Netziv explains (1:45) that there are two type of tefilah.  There is tefilah where you just cry out in an inarticulate cry, where you cannot even form the proper words to express the anguish you are feeling.  We read by yetzi'as Mitzrayim that וישמע ה׳ את קולנו.  It was just a קול, a cry - we were slaves too busy with hard labor to think about the best way to express our needs, but G-d still listened and responded.  A peasant doesn't know proper diplomatic language or the protocols of the court, and when he addresses the King, he just speaks from the heart.  Someone raised in the palace, however, or someone who is part of the diplomatic staff, is expected to know the language of court and know exactly what to say and how to say it.  This is the second type of tefilah - tefilah precisely calibrated, with every word capturing just the right nuance of meaning required.  

Our pasuk tells us that in this case Hashem's response was the same in either case:  וְלֹא שָׁמַע ה׳ בְּקֹלְכֶם, He did not want to hear that inarticulate cry of the simple person, and לֹא הֶאֱזִין אֲלֵיכֶם , He did not listen even to nicely formulated supplications.  

We have been praying now for 10 months, and sometimes it feels that nothing we say is getting through, no matter what we say or how we say it.  We have been praying for 2000 years and sometimes it feels that nothing we say is getting through, no matter what we say or how we say it.

The next pasuk continues:

 וַתֵּשְׁבוּ בְקָדֵשׁ יָמִים רַבִּים כַּיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם

This is not just a narrative recapping what happened over the past 40 years, says Netziv.  It's a continuation of the description of Hashem's reaction to our tefilos.  Even though we were not forgiven and had to spend 40 years in the desert, we did not spend those years wandering from place to place like nomads constantly on the move.  We spent 19 years in one place, and the remainder was spent in a small number of travels.  We lived a relatively stable life, surrounded by the ananaei ha'kavod, sustained by the mon and the be'er, with our needs basically cared for.  We learn a valuable lesson from this: 

כל זה מוסר והדרכה לישראל גם כן לדורות שלא יתייאשו מן התפלה, ואם לא תועיל כפי שמתפללים מ״מ תועיל הרבה.

Our prayers are not always answered 100%, but don't for a moment think that they are not answered at all, that they are ignored, or that they make no difference.

In Parshas VaYeitzei, Hashem makes a promise to Yaakov Avinu (28:14)

 וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר⁠ תֵּלֵךְ וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ אֶל⁠ הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת כִּי לֹא אֶעֱזׇבְךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם⁠ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ.

The simple reading of the pasuk implies that Hashem will not abandon us until  עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם⁠ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ, but after that, we are on our own.  How can that be?  We need Hashem's protection at every moment!

In Rav Teichtel's sefer Mishne Sachir he quotes from R' Menachem Mendel of Vizhnitz (the source he is citing is here, and it's worth looking at for the story with the Berdichiver) that the meaning is just the opposite.   אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ is referring to the promise of complete yeshu'a, total salvation.  Hashem promised to get us to the finish line.  But what are we supposed to do until we are worthy of all our prayers being answered and getting to that point?  Are we going to be ignored and left on our own until then?  That's the issue the pasuk is addressing.  Of course at the moment of complete redemption Hashem will be there, but Hashem promises that He will also be there עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם⁠ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר⁠ דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ, until that point in time as well.  Maybe it won't be the complete salvation, maybe it won't be in the form of getting 100% of what we want, maybe it won't be the real end, the real finish line, but He will still be there just the same, providing the small comforts along the way to keep us going.

The gemara says that R' Tzadok fasted 40 years in order to avert the churban. After all that, we know there was still a churban.  Does that mean he wasted 40 years for nothing?  

A bunch of years ago I posted from the Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo that this is the wrong way to look at things.  The Radomsker explains that R' Tzadok in fact had 39.99 years of success, of tragedy averted, of tefilos and fasting that made a difference. It was not enough to completely avert the churban forever, but it was certainly not a waste of time.  Small victories are victories nonetheless.

I wanted to point out one more mareh makom on the theme of koach ha'tefilah that is indirectly related to the topic above, but it will knock your socks off so I have to include it.  R' Chaim Kanievsky in his Orchos Yosher discusses the tremendous power of tefilah k'vasikin, quoting the gemara's (Brachos 9) promise that someone who davens vasikin will come to no harm all day.  He then cites R' Yonasan mi"Prag's commentary to Eichah in which he writes that tefilah k'vasikin is guaranteed to be answered.  Therefore, had Bn"Y davaned tefilah k'vasikin on 9 Av at the time of the churban, the Mikdash would not have been destroyed.  Wow!  Megillas Eicha tells us (3:44) סַכּוֹתָה בֶעָנָן לָךְ מֵעֲבוֹר תְּפִלָּה, Hashem enveloped himself in a cloud and would not accept our prayers.  This is not a mashal, but is meant literally -- Hashem made the sky cloudy so that the precise time of haneitz could not be determined, because otherwise we could have averted the churban.  

I would not have believed this pshat had I not seen it, but there it is, so you can take a look yourself.  I don't know if it is enough motivation to get you up tomorrow morning before 6:00 to make ha'neitz, but as RCK writes, there is still an inyan of getting out of bed as soon as one is able in order to start the day properly with tefilah, and as the Netziv says,  ואם לא תועיל כפי שמתפללים מ״מ תועיל הרבה.

don't stock up for the road

Bnei Yisrael is told that they are not allowed to wage war against Eisav, but can only pass through their land.  When they do so, they should buy food and drink from the local stores (2:6-7):

 אֹ֣כֶל תִּשְׁבְּר֧וּ מֵֽאִתָּ֛ם בַּכֶּ֖סֶף וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֑ם וְגַם־מַ֜יִם תִּכְר֧וּ מֵאִתָּ֛ם בַּכֶּ֖סֶף וּשְׁתִיתֶֽם׃

כִּי֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בֵּֽרַכְךָ֗ בְּכֹל֙ מַעֲשֵׂ֣ה יָדֶ֔ךָ יָדַ֣ע לֶכְתְּךָ֔ אֶת־הַמִּדְבָּ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה זֶ֣ה׀ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֗ה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ֙ עִמָּ֔ךְ לֹ֥א חָסַ֖רְתָּ דָּבָֽר׃

What does כִּי֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בֵּֽרַכְךָ֗ בְּכֹל֙ מַעֲשֵׂ֣ה יָדֶ֔ךָ have to do with buying food?  Rashi explains that Moshe was telling the people to pay full price and not look for discounts, coupons, etc. לפיכך לא תכפו את טובתי להראות כאילו אתם עניים, אלא הראו עצמיכם עשירים.  You should not let Eisav think that you are poor and can't afford it.  On the contrary, show them that Hashem has blessed you and that the price is no concern.  Unlike Ibn Ezra and Rashbam who explain these pesukim as a reshus, a matir -- if you want to buy from them, you can, but if not, not -- Netziv explains that it is a command, אכל תשברו – בלשון צווי, because in doing so you are advertising Hashem's bracha.

HaKsav v'haKabbalah notes that the words  וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֑ם and וּשְׁתִיתֶֽם in the first pasuk seem to be extraneous.  You obviously buy food to eat; you buy water to drink.  Why does the pasuk have to spell it out for us?  He answers that the Moshe was telling Bnei Yisrael that whatever food they bought when passing through Eisav's land should be eaten there, on the spot, and the same with whatever drink they bought.  There was no need to ask for a doggie bag or stock up on supplies for the road.  My wife suggested that based on this, you can read the connection to the next pasuk a little differently.  כִּי֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בֵּֽרַכְךָ֗ ... לֹ֥א חָסַ֖רְתָּ דָּבָֽר׃  You know that for 40 years Hashem took care of you and you can bank on Him.  Therefore, don't clear the shelves off the supermarkets in Eisav's lands because you are worried about tommorow's meal.  Show them your bitachon.  

Maharal on free markets; Ishbitzer on the number 9; Og and Yosef

I have an idea that maybe needs some fleshing out and development, but I think the outline is good enough to share.  

Last week I was learning Maharal with my wife and came across the following idea (2:13):

The gemara (Meg 17b) discusses the structure of shmoneh esrei and explains the order in which the brachos were arranged.  With respect to the ninth bracha of "bareich aleinu" the gemara writes

ומה ראו לומר ברכת השנים בתשיעית אמר רבי אלכסנדרי כנגד מפקיעי שערים דכתיב שבור זרוע רשע ודוד כי אמרה בתשיעית אמרה

We ask for a bracha for our crops in this ninth blessing because the ninth chapter of Tehillim (in our text it is the 10th chapter, but the gemara counts the first 2 perakim of Teh as one) contains the pasuk of שבור זרוע רשע which refers to people who jack up the prices of wheat and try to corner the market.  

How do we know that this is what the pasuk of שבור זרוע רשע is referring to?  Rashi explains

וממאי דבמפקיעי שערים כתיב דכתיב בההיא פרשתא יארב במסתר כאריה בסוכו יארוב לחטוף עני וכי הליסטים אורב את העני והלא את העשיר הוא אורב אלא במפקיעי שערים הכתוב מדבר שרוב דעתם לעניים הוא וקא בעי דוד רחמי עלה דמילתא שבור זרוע רשע ותן שובע בעולם ובכך זרועו שבור ורע תדרוש רשעו בל תמצא וזה שהיה בדעתו להיות רשע כשתדרוש רשעו לא תמצא עולה שלא הספיק לעשותה:

The continuation of the pasuk refers to יארוב לחטוף עני, setting a trap to snare the poor. A normal robber aims for a rich target, not the poor.  Chazal therefore interpret the pasuk as referring to those who inflate the market prices, which disproportionally harms poor shoppers.   

Maharal rejects Rashi's pshat.  If Rashi is correct, ikar chaseir min ha'sefer -- the gemara should have cited the end of the pasuk and explained this whole chain of reasoning.  Maharal explains that the word רשע itself, which the gemara quotes, is the basis for the limud.  Maharal in many places talks about the importance of seder.  There is a normal course by which things function, and interfering with that normal seder is wrong and destructive.  He applies the same idea here.  Someone who tries to artificially inflate prices is a rasha because they are interfering with and disrupting the normal seder of the market (free market theorists, rejoice!).

The 9th bracha undermines the disorder of the rasha.  A tzadik is the opposite side of the coin as the rasha.  The word tzadik is rooted in the letter tzadi, gematriya 90, because the tzadik brings order back to creation.

This talk about the number 9 brought to mind an Ishbitzer on our parsha, who speaks about the significance of the 9th pasuk.  בכל מקום בפסוק התשיעי נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו .  The Ishbitzer tells us that the 9th pasuk in a parsha always reflects a depth of meaning beyond the pshat:

ואומר אלכם בעת ההיא לאמר לא אוכל לבדי וכו' הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבנים וידעים. כאשר היו קרובים לכנוס לא"י והרגיש מרע"ה כי רצון הש"י הוא שע"י יהושוע יכנסו לארץ, והוא היה רוצה שיתפללו ישראל לה' שאינם רוצים במנהיג אחר, וזה שרמז להם במאמרו לא אוכל לבדי וכו' אף שמצינו שאח"כ בקש מה' שהוא יכניסם, ואומר להם כדי שיבינו שהוא צריך לתפלתם כעת, וזה הפסוק הוא פסוק תשיעי מהתחלת הסדרה ובכל מקום בפסוק התשיעי נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו, וכמו שמבואר בפ' בלק [ד"ה ויאמר בלעם], והם לא הבינו ואמרו טוב הדבר, וע"כ אמר אח"כ ואקח מאתכם אנשים חכמים וידועים וכו' ואמרו חז"ל (נדרים כ':) מה שלא הוזכר נבונים כי נבונים לא מצא וז"ש ונבונים לא מצאתי רומז כי לא מצא מי שיבין כוונתו, כי באם הבנתם את כוונתי והתפללתם אולי הייתם מועילים בתפלתכם.

Here in the 9th pasuk Moshe told the people that he could not lead them alone because the burden was too great to bear.  Moshe was hoping that the people would get the hint and daven to Hashem on his behalf to preserve his leadership.  He was hoping that they would read between the lines and get the message below the surface.  But they didn't, and so they ended up with a bureaucracy of judges.  

What does the Ishbitzer mean that בכל מקום בפסוק התשיעי נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו?  Nine is the sefira of yesod, which corresponds to Yosef haTzadik.  Yosef dressed like an Egyptian, spoke like an Egyptian, the chitzoniyus of his identity was Egyptian.  The pnimiyus, however, was completely different.  Yosef never lost sight of his being on of the shivtei K-h.  Don't judge Yosef by his appearance -- there is an עומק שלא כפי פשוטו to who he is.

Rashi explains that the first pasuk of our parsha alludes to the tochacha Moshe gave Bnei Yisrael for their sins in the desert, but the Ohr haChaim sees an allusion to 9 middos necessary to acquire Torah:   ואפשר לפרש כל הכתוב דרך רמז באופן אחר, והוא כי במקרא מועט למד משה כללות יראת ה׳ ומדות ההגונות הצריכין להולכים בתורת ה׳ והם מדות תשעה.  These midos are not spelled our explicitly, but again, נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו.

My hunch as that just like 9 represents the hidden tzidkus of Yosef, there is a 9 which is the opposite side of the coin that on the surface does not look so bad, but there is great evil lurking below that.  I think you find that in our parsha as well (3:11).  The Torah tells us about Og:  הִנֵּ֤ה עַרְשׂוֹ֙ עֶ֣רֶשׂ בַּרְזֶ֔ל הֲלֹ֣ה הִ֔וא בְּרַבַּ֖ת בְּנֵ֣י עַמּ֑וֹן תֵּ֧שַׁע אַמּ֣וֹת אׇרְכָּ֗הּ וְאַרְבַּ֥ע אַמּ֛וֹת רׇחְבָּ֖הּ בְּאַמַּת־אִֽישׁ  Putting aside the details of whether his bed was literally 9 Amos long, or whether that is 9 regular amos or Og sized amos, what I think is important here is the mention of the number 9 as charactering Og.  (The number 4 may allude to this attribute spreading through all 4 olamos, see Maor v'Shemesh.)  

The Zohar in Chukas (12) writes that Og was among the household of Avraham who undertook the mitzvah of bris milah:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה אַל תִּירָא אוֹתוֹ, תְּרֵין אוֹתוֹ אִינּוּן שְׁלֵימִין בְּאוֹרַיְיתָא בִּתְרֵין וָוִי"ן, חַד דָּא, וְחַד, (דברים כ״ב:ב׳) עַד דְּרוֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אוֹתוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא. בְּגִין דְּאִינּוּן אוֹת מַמָּשׁ. עַד דְּרוֹשׁ אָחִיךָ (אחיך ממש) אוֹתוֹ, דְּבָעֵי לְפָרְשָׁא הַהוּא אוֹת, דְּהַהוּא אֲבֵידָה. 

אוּף הָכָא דֵּין אוֹתוֹ, דָּא עוֹג, דְּאִתְדַּבָּק בְּאַבְרָהָם, וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ הֲוָה, וְכַד אִתְגְּזַר אַבְרָהָם מַה כְּתִיב, וְכָל אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ וְגוֹּ. דָּא עוֹג דְּאִתְגְּזַר עִמֵּיהּ, וְקַבִּיל הַאי אָת קַדִּישָׁא, כֵּיוָן דְּחָמָא עוֹג דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְקָרְבִין גַּבֵּיהּ, אָמַר הָא ודַּאי אֲנָא אַקְדִּימְנָא זְכוּתָא דְּקָאִים לוֹן, וְדָא שַׁוִּי לְקָבְלֵיהּ.  בֵּיהּ שַׁעֲתָא דָּחִיל מֹשֶׁה, הֵיךְ יָכִיל לְאַעְקְרָא רְשִׁימָא דְּרָשִׁים אַבְרָהָם.

Meaning, the chitzoniyus of Og, his physical body, had a bris, showing that he was someone connected to Hashem, but that outer appearance just was a disguise for Og's true essence.

In parshas Lech Lecha in the war where Lot is taken captive, a survivor of the battle runs to tell Avraham what happened, (14:13) וַיָּבֹא֙ הַפָּלִ֔יט וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָעִבְרִ֑.  Chazal tell us that that survivor was Og.  At first glance, this sounds like a heroic act -- in the middle of war, Og's concern is for Avraham's family.  Yet the Midrash tells us otherwise. This נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו in the negative sense!  Og reported Lot captured because he was hoping Avraham would go to battle and be killed and he would have Sarah for his own.  

Who is it that is zocheh to take the land of Og, the anti-9, once he is killed?  Our parsha tells us וְיֶ֨תֶר הַגִּלְעָ֤ד וְכׇל־הַבָּשָׁן֙ מַמְלֶ֣כֶת ע֔וֹג נָתַ֕תִּי לַחֲצִ֖י שֵׁ֣בֶט הַֽמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה  It is none other than Menashe, descendent of Yosef, who personified 9 in the positive sense.

This upcoming week is 9 Av, a tragic day, a day of sorrow, but don't be fooled, as we are dealing with the number 9 and נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו. This is a day which is also called a mo'ed, the day mashiach was born, the day in which when our enemies entered the heichel they found the keruvim intertwined in an embrace of love, showing the great love of Hashem for Klal Yisrael. Our parsha writes that after we spent a lot of time wandering around Har Seir, the land of Eisav, Hashem told us  פְּנ֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם צָפֹֽנָה (2:3)  The Midrash explains the word not as a direction, but like the word צפון in the haggadah, i.e. hidden.  If you want to escape Eisav, go hide in the words of Torah.  The Shem m'Shmuel explains that Eisav is all chitzoniyus. If you want to escape, you have to dig deeper, meaning, you have to live a deeper, more meaningful life, a life of   עומק שלא כפי פשוטו.  When that is the aim, then we no longer need to hang around Har Seir in the orbit of Eisav, and we will be able to experience the  עומק שלא כפי פשוטו of 9 Av as well, celebrating it as a moed, as a day of geulah.  

hedging one's bets

The Sheiris Menachem contrasts the story of the maapilim after cheit ha'mergalim as recorded in Shlach (14:40-44):

וַיַּשְׁכִּ֣מוּ בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיַּֽעֲל֥וּ אֶל־רֹאשׁ־הָהָ֖ר לֵאמֹ֑ר הִנֶּ֗נּוּ וְעָלִ֛ינוּ אֶל־הַמָּק֛וֹם אֲשֶׁר־אָמַ֥ר הֹ׳ כִּ֥י חָטָֽאנוּ׃

 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֛ה אַתֶּ֥ם עֹבְרִ֖ים אֶת־פִּ֣י הֹ׳ וְהִ֖וא לֹ֥א תִצְלָֽח

וַיַּעְפִּ֕לוּ לַעֲל֖וֹת אֶל־רֹ֣אשׁ הָהָ֑ר וַאֲר֤וֹן בְּרִית־יְהֹוָה֙ וּמֹשֶׁ֔ה לֹא־מָ֖שׁוּ מִקֶּ֥רֶב הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה׃

with the way the same episode is recounted in our parsha (1:41-43):

תַּעֲנ֣וּ׀ וַתֹּאמְר֣וּ אֵלַ֗י חָטָ֘אנוּ֮ לַהֹ׳ אֲנַ֤חְנוּ נַעֲלֶה֙ וְנִלְחַ֔מְנוּ כְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֖נוּ  הֹ׳ אֱלֹקינוּ וַֽתַּחְגְּר֗וּ אִ֚ישׁ אֶת־כְּלֵ֣י מִלְחַמְתּ֔וֹ וַתָּהִ֖ינוּ לַעֲלֹ֥ת הָהָֽרָה׃

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר הֹ׳ אֵלַ֗י אֱמֹ֤ר לָהֶם֙ לֹ֤א תַֽעֲלוּ֙ וְלֹא־תִלָּ֣חֲמ֔וּ כִּ֥י אֵינֶ֖נִּי בְּקִרְבְּכֶ֑ם וְלֹא֙ תִּנָּ֣גְפ֔וּ לִפְנֵ֖י אֹיְבֵיכֶֽם׃ 

 וָאֲדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֣א שְׁמַעְתֶּ֑ם וַתַּמְרוּ֙ אֶת־פִּ֣י הֹ׳ וַתָּזִ֖דוּ וַתַּעֲל֥וּ הָהָֽרָה

Notice the additions here, the stress on תַּחְגְּר֗וּ אִ֚ישׁ אֶת־כְּלֵ֣י מִלְחַמְתּ֔וֹ, on taking up arms, the plan נַעֲלֶה֙ וְנִלְחַ֔מְנוּ to go up and to wage war, Moshe's admonition not only not to ascend the mountain, but again, the repitition לֹ֤א תַֽעֲלוּ֙ וְלֹא־תִלָּ֣חֲמ֔וּ not to wage war.  

Why did Hashem reject the teshuvah of the maapilim?  Why was it not possible for them to pick up where things left off before the meraglim episode?  The Torah here is cluing us in to the answer.  

Rashi comments earlier in the parsha (1:8) on  רְאֵ֛ה נָתַ֥תִּי לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ that אין מערער בדבר ואינכם צריכים למלחמה. אילו לא שלחו מרגלים, לא היו צריכים כלי זיין.  Hashem promised Eretz Yisrael would be ours without the need for battle, without the need to even take up arms.

The meraglim were not ready to accept Hashem's promises at face value.  Although it seemed like they wanted to make amends, the maapilim were not ready to do so either.  נַעֲלֶה֙ וְנִלְחַ֔מְנוּ ...תַּחְגְּר֗וּ אִ֚ישׁ אֶת־כְּלֵ֣י מִלְחַמְתּ֔וֹ  They were ready to go up to Eretz Yisrael, but just in case that promise of not needing arms and not needing battle did not materialize, they wanted to hedge their bets.  Better to pack some ammunition as well.

You can't hedge your bets on emunah.  Either you trust or you don't trust, but it can't be both.

L'Sichon Melech ha'Emori -- Ki l'Olam Chasdo

  לְ֭מַכֵּה מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃

 וַֽ֭יַּהֲרֹג מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

לְ֭סִיחוֹן מֶ֣לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֑י כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

וּ֭לְעוֹג מֶ֣לֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֑ן כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

Rashi explains that the מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים and מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים refer to the kings of Canaan conquered by Yehoshua. 

Radak, however, explains that the מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים and מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים are Sichon and Og. זכרם בכלל, ואחר כך פרט אותם, להגדיל השבח First the pasuk gives shevach in a general sense, and then dives into the specifics and mentions the kings by name.  

Radak goes on to explain  וְנָתַ֣ן אַרְצָ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ deserves special praise because Sichon and Og are not among the 7 nations of Canaan whose land was promised to Avraham.  Our conquest of those nations is an extra bonus, icing on the cake:

 ועוד חסד גדול מזה, כי לא די שהכה אותם, אלא שנתן להם ארצם לנחלה, שלא באו שאר הגוים, ולא נאספו עליהם להוציאם משם. וזה חסד גדול מאתו, כי חסד הוא תוספת הטובה. ובזו הארץ שנתן להם, הוסיף להם בטובתו, כי לא נתנה לאברהם אבינו אלא מעבר הירדן והלאה שהיא ארץ שבעה גוים ועוד שלשה גוים: קיני וקניזי וקדמוני. ואותם שלשה לא היו להם עד לעתיד לבוא שיהיה מגבול ארץ ישראל

Similarly, R' Tzadok haKohen in Pri Tzadik (Devarim 2) writes:

כי הנה ארץ סיחון ועוג לא נחשבו מכלל שבעת האומות שניתן לישראל כי הלא משרע"ה שלח לו אעברה נא בארצך. וגם עפ"י דין אין עבר הירדן מקודשת בקדושת ארץ ישראל שאין מביאין ממנה בכורים וכמו שנא' ביהושע ואך אם טמאה ארץ אחוזתכם וגו' כידוע שארץ ז' עממין הוא בקליפה זלעו"ז נגד הז' מדות שבקדושה שהם בהתגלות בפועל ועליהם בא המצוה לא תחי' כל נשמה כדי להכניע כל הז' מדות להקדושה. אמנם הג' אומות קני וקניזי וקדמוני שהם אדום ועמון ומואב שהם נגד ג' ראשונות שבקדושה כח"ב אין עוד כח בנו לבררם בעוה"ז בשלימות ולהכניעם עד עת קץ כדאי' מהאריז"ל לכן נצטוו עליהם שלא להתגרות עמם. והנה גם סיחון ועוג המה בקליפה נגד חכמה ובינה שבקדושה לכן דרשו במדרש הפ' הנה כסה את עין הארץ סיחון ועוג שהיו שומרים אותנו וכו' קרא לסיחון ועוג עין הארץ שהם זלעו"ז נגד העיינין שבקדושה שהם מרומזים בחדשים הללו תמוז ואב כידוע מהאריז"ל שתמוז ואב הם בחינת עיינין דמטרוניתא.

According to R' Tzadok, the war against the nations is a spiritual battle as well a physical one.  The seven nations of Canaan can be defeated because we can succeed in the tikun of the seven midos.  Sichon and Og correspond to the klipah of chochma and binah, and their defeat was therefore beyond what might have been expected.

The difficulty with Rashi, which Radak avoids, is that according to Rashi the praises do not follow the chronological order of events, as the defeat of Sichon and Og preceded the conquest of Canaan but is mentioned afterwards.  The difficulty with Radak is the redundancy of first praising Hashem for the defeat of מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים when it could have just mentioned Sichon and Og directly.

Parashas Derachim (derush 7) has an interesting suggestion.  He writes that מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים refers to Edom, Amon, Moav, nations which we were told not to wage war against.  Because Sichon and Og defeated these kings and took part of their land, it made that territory fair game for us to capture.  It is the victory of Sichon and Og over these enemies which we are giving thanks for.

I have no idea what the Sefas Emes (5635) means when he writes that Sichon and Og correspond to the idea of tefillin shel yad and shel rosh.  He then goes on to explain why the mizmor divides וְנָתַ֣ן אַרְצָ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ and נַ֭חֲלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עַבְדּ֑וֹ כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ into two separate statements.  I have yet to unravel what he means.

rodef chessed

יְרוּשָׁלַ֥͏ִם הַבְּנוּיָ֑ה כְּ֝עִ֗יר שֶׁחֻבְּרָה־לָּ֥הּ יַחְדָּֽו׃   (Teh 122:3)   Forget Minneapolis and St Paul, it's Yerushalayim which is the original twin city.  Chazal tell us that there is a Yerushalayim upstairs in heaven that is connected with our Yerushalayim down here - chubrah lah yachdav.   

אֵיכָ֣ה יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד  the navi cries out.  Yerushalayim is all alone and that link has been severed.  This is the churban that we still are trying to repair.  9 Av is all about restoring the connection between Yerushalayim shel matah and Yerushalayim shel maalah, between us and Hashem, between each other.  As Chazal also darshen on chubrah lah yachdav, Yerushalaim brought us together as chaveirim.  

Short of time again this week, but one thought on the parsha:

Moshe sent messengers to Sichon asking permission to pass through his land, adding that there will an economic benefit for Sichon, as Bnei Yisrael will purchase food and drink along the way (2:27-29):

 אֶעְבְּרָ֣ה בְאַרְצֶ֔ךָ בַּדֶּ֥רֶךְ בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ אֵלֵ֑ךְ לֹ֥א אָס֖וּר יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאול׃

אֹ֣כֶל בַּכֶּ֤סֶף תַּשְׁבִּרֵ֙נִי֙ וְאָכַ֔לְתִּי וּמַ֛יִם בַּכֶּ֥סֶף תִּתֶּן־לִ֖י וְשָׁתִ֑יתִי רַ֖ק אֶעְבְּרָ֥ה בְרַגְלָֽי

 כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר עָֽשׂוּ־לִ֜י בְּנֵ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ בְּשֵׂעִ֔יר וְהַמּ֣וֹאָבִ֔ים הַיֹּשְׁבִ֖ים בְּעָ֑ר

Rashi comments: כאשר עשו לי בניא עשו – לא לעניין לעבור בארצם, אלא לעניין מכר אוכל ומים  Meaning, when the pasuk says, "...like the Bnei Eisav and Moav did," it's not talking about allowing BN"Y to cross their land, as we know from Bamidbar 20:21 that Edom did not grant permission for Bnei Yisrael to cross their territory, וַיְמָאֵ֣ן׀ אֱד֗וֹם נְתֹן֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל עֲבֹ֖ר בִּגְבֻל֑וֹ  Rather, the phrase is referring to the purchase of supplies, which Eisav did offer to sell to the Jewish people.  Moshe was pointing out to Sichon that he can avail himself of that same opportunity to make $.

Maharal asks: our pasuk is speaking about Moav as well as Eisav.  How then can Rashi explain that it is referring to selling Bnei Yisrael food and drink when we read later in 23:5 that  לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א עַמּוֹנִ֛י וּמוֹאָבִ֖י בִּקְהַ֣ל ה׳, that a convert from Amon and Moav may not intermarry into Bnei Yisrael because עַל־דְּבַ֞ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם וַאֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר מִפְּת֛וֹר אֲרַ֥ם נַהֲרַ֖יִם לְקַֽלְלֶֽךָּ׃ they did not offer us food when we can to their land?!

Maharal answers ain hachi nami, Moav did sell food to BN"Y just like the Bnei Eisav did.  However, לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם.  They did not come out and **offer** the food and drink.  If you happened to wander into a Moabite store and found what you want on the shelves -- there for sure was no Walmart greeter at the door waiting to welcome Jews -- they would sell you what you needed.  If not, your loss.  They would not go out of their way to solicit business or offer to help.  (See Ramban on that pasuk who rejects this pshat, Chasam Sofer on our parsha, and the post here).

We see an amazing thing.  Amon and Moav are rejected for all eternity not because they had signs saying "No Jews or dogs allowed" in the windows of their stores, or because they refused to serve Jews in their restaurants or sell them supplies.  Amon and Moav are rejected for all eternity because even though they sold us supplies, fed us in their restaurants, etc., they did it begrudgingly.  

When you have an opportunity to do something for someone else -- and certainly in this case, when Amon and Moav stood to benefit financially -- and you drag your feet and show that you are not really interested, that's a crime.  

This reminds me of the gemara (Taanis 21) that tells us that Nachum Ish Gam Zu was blind, had his arms amputated, and his legs cut off because of the following incident: 

אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו רַבִּי וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁצַּדִּיק גָּמוּר אַתָּה לָמָה עָלְתָה לְךָ כָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶם בָּנַיי אֲנִי גָּרַמְתִּי לְעַצְמִי שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְבֵית חָמִי וְהָיָה עִמִּי מַשּׂוֹי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲמוֹרִים אֶחָד שֶׁל מַאֲכָל וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִינֵי מְגָדִים בָּא עָנִי אֶחָד וְעָמַד לִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאָמַר לִי רַבִּי פַּרְנְסֵנִי אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאֶפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר לֹא הִסְפַּקְתִּי לִפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ הָלַכְתִּי וְנָפַלְתִּי עַל פָּנָיו וְאָמַרְתִּי עֵינַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל עֵינֶיךָ יִסּוֹמוּ יָדַיי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל יָדֶיךָ יִתְגַּדְּמוּ רַגְלַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל רַגְלֶיךָ יִתְקַטְּעוּ וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתִּי עַד שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי כׇּל גּוּפִי יְהֵא מָלֵא שְׁחִין אָמְרוּ לוֹ אוֹי לָנוּ שֶׁרְאִינוּךָ בְּכָךְ אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹי לִי אִם לֹא רְאִיתוּנִי בְּכָךְ

Of course there is no comparison between Amon and Moav's sin and Nachum Ish Gam Zu, but on the level Nachum was on, unloading the donkey first was on some infinitesimally small level a chisaron of אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ , of foot dragging and not seizing the opportunity to do good the first moment it presented itself.

We are supposed to be "rodef tzedaka va'chessed." We have to run to do chassadim, not wait for them to come to us, and then only willy-nilly attend to them.  

Rashi says that Leah named her daugher Dinah because (Braishis 30:21) דנה בעצמה, אם זה זכר, לא תהא רחל אחותי כאחת השפחות, ונתפללה ונהפך לנקבה.  Dina is from the word din, which alludes to what was going through Leah's head when she thought about her pregnancy and what would happen if the child was a boy and her sister Rachel would be short changed in the number of shevatim that she would produce.  But who cares what was going through Leah's head?  At the end of the day, what matters is what Leah did.  It's like if a shul has an appeal, and a guy goes home and figures out that if he moves funds from this account to that account and can write off some stock loss and do some other accounting trick, he can donate 2x as much as he had planned.  The shul doesn't give him a big y'yasher koach for his accounting skill, they give him a big y'yasher koach for the check!  Dinah is the cheshbon, it's the accounting.  Why does that matter to be recorded for posterity?

R' Betzalel Rudinsky quoted b'shem R' Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld that there are many women who if they were in Leah's shoes and already had a bunch of boys, would gladly agree if you asked them if they would take a girl instead for the sake of their sister's kavod.  This is not what makes Leah Imeinu special.  What makes Leah Imeinu special is that no one had to ask her.  What makes Leah Imeinu special is that she already thought of doing the right thing for her sister before Rachel or anyone approached her to ask for it.

That's the opposite of אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ, of waiting to be approached.  That's what it means to be rodef chessed.

geulah is not simply a restoration of the past

Before I get to nachamu, just a word about last week's haftarah of chazon because if I don't write this now I will forget by next year. In siman 282 in hil shabbos by the dinim of maftir the S.A. writes that if there is no one who knows how to read the haftarah except for someone who already got an aliya, that person is called up for maftir and says new brachos and reads the maftir pesukim even though he already got an aliya earlier.  Achronim quote from the Rivash (see MB sk 26) an extension of this din that is a chiddush: On shabbos chazon even if there are multiple people in shul who can read the words and even lein the haftarah with the normal trop, that's not good enough -- only someone who can lein chazon with the trop of kinos can be called up for maftir, even if it means calling up someone who already got an aliya.  

We see from here that the haftarah of chazon is not just a regular haftarah with a different tune -- no one says the din of the S.A. would apply at other times if there is someone who can read the words correctly but doesn't know the trop.   It applies specifically to chazon because chazon is a kinah, and it has to be read as such.  If not, then it's like not reading it at all.

Turning to this week, shabbos nachamu, the haftarah of nachamu.  Hashem sends the navi to bring a message of nechama to Klal Yisrael. 

ק֚וֹל אֹמֵ֣ר קְרָ֔א וְאָמַ֖ר מָ֣ה אֶקְרָ֑א (1:6) 

There seems to be a shakla v'terya here, but it's not clear what's going on.  Hashem is saying to call out to the people, and the response is "Mah ekra," what am I supposed to say?  Metzudas David:

קול אומר קרא – קול נבואה אומר להנביא קרא והכרז ברבים.

ואמר – כאלו הנביא שואל מה אקרא 

Hashem just said that the navi has to bring a message of nechama, so what's the question?

When do we give nechama?  You do nichum aveilim after a person dies and is gone forever.  Rashi (Brashis 37:35) writes that Yaakov Avinu could not accept nechama for the loss of Yosef because Yosef in fact was still alive.  Chasam Sofer explains (in Toras Moshe at the end of Va'eschanan, and see Malbim for a different answer) that this is what bothered the navi.  How can I give nechama for Klal Yisrael for the churban ha'bayis when the beis ha'mikdash is still alive for them?  "Haysa k'almana" we read in Eicha -- "k'lamanah" with a kaf ha'dimyon because we are not really an almanah.  We expect Hashem to come back to us, to come back to Yerushalayim, to rebuild the mikdash again.  We are suffering but a temporary separation.  For that, there is no nechama.

The answer Hashem gives is that the ultimate redemption will not simply be a restoration of what once was.  "Yaveish chatzir naveil tzitz."  That beis ha'mikdash of the past built by human hands is gone and will never be brought back. For that, Klal Yisrael needs and deserves nechama.  "U'dvar Elokeinu yakum l'olam" -- there will be another mikdash built by Hashem's hands, and that mikdash will stand for eternity. 

temporary annoyances

Moshe tells Klal Yisrael at the start of Parshas Devarim that "rav lachem sheves ba'har ha'zeh," (1:6) enough dawdling at Sinai, now that the Torah was given and the Mishkan built it is time to move on and head towards Eretz Yisrael.  In between that declaration and the sending the the spies, which would set things back 40 years, Moshe describes how he appointed judges to help manage the burden of leadership. 

The Midrash notes that this episode is out of place.  The appointment Moshe describes is either the appointment of judges that took place immediately after Yom Kippur before the Mishkan was built, or the appointment done after the misonenim story, much later.  Either way, it did not happen after the people broke camp at Sinai to start the journey to Eretz Yisrael.  Why does Moshe in recounting events put things out of order?

Some explain that Moshe was thematically linking the appointment of judges to the journey toward Eretz Yisrael.  Our task is to setup a just society in our homeland.  By appointing judges Moshe was establishing the framework through which that could be accomplished.

Rav Shachter writes that R' Soloveitchik used to have the baal koreh at Shabbos mincha/Mon/Thurs before parshas Devarim stop not at sheni, which is what the sidur says to do, but to read through until after this section describing the appointment of judges.  RYBS said this was the minhag in Brisk.  Not pausing reinforces this link between the journey to Eretz Yisrael at the start of the section and the appointment of judges -- it is one topic.

The Sefono takes a different approach.  He and links the parsha of appointing judges to the theme of Moshe's opening speech -- tochacha.  He ties the parsha not to the road ahead, to Eretz Yisrael, but rather to the sojourn in the midbar:

זֶה סִפֵּר לְהַזְכִּירָם אֶת פִּשְׁעָם, שֶׁאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁבִּשֵּׂר אותָם שֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ בִּלְתִּי שׁוּם מִלְחָמָה, שֶׁהָיָה עִנְיָנָהּ רַב הַתּועֶלֶת וְהַכָּבוד יותֵר מִכָּל נִכְסֵיהֶם וְעִנְיְנֵיהֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר, לא נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּעורֵר דִּבְרֵי רִיבות אִישׁ עַל חֲבֵרו, בְּאפֶן שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְמַנּות מַדְרֵגות שׁופְטִים, עַד שֶׁכָּל עֲשָׂרָה מֵהֶם הָיוּ צְרִיכִים לְדַיָּן פְּרָטִי, וְאֵין זֶה כִּי אִם מֵרעַ לֵב.

Am Yisrael was on the road and moving quickly.  It is an 11 day journey from Chorev to Kadesh Barne'a ,but Klal Yisrael was able to do it in a mere three days, as Hashem wanted to help hurry their arrival into Eretz Yisrael.  How long would it be before they arrived in Eretz Yisrael? Moshe did not anticipate more than a few more days of travel.  And yet, Moshe tells the people, I had to appoint judges along the way.  You could not avoid arguing, you could not avoid having disputes that needed to be worked out and resolved, even for that short period of time, even though you knew you would soon be in Eretz Yisrael, each person with his own portion.

It's like a person who wins the lottery and on the way to collect his winnings gets into a fight with the cab driver about the fare.  You're about to become a millionaire -- who really cares whether the ride costs a few dollars more or a few dollars less?  It's not worth fighting about!  Here too, Moshe was telling Klal Yisrael, "You are about to inherit Eretz Yisrael, the greatest land, the holiest land -- is it really worth fighting about things in the midbar, things that are temporary annoyances, until we get there?!"

Anyone who reads this Seforno has to say to himself/herself: We are in the aschalta d'geula! So why do we keep up the petty arguments with each other?   Would anyone get into a fight with their interior decorator about whether this chandelier or that chandelier belongs in their dining room if they knew that tomorrow they would be moving to Yerushalayim?  Or get into a fight with their neighbor about whose fault it was that their car got dinged if tomorrow they were moving to Eretz Yisrael and the car ain't coming along?  If we really believed geulah was just around the corner, so much of what we bicker over would just be so trivial and unimportant. 

Our 2000 year long trip is almost over -- time to start acting that way.

mesirus nefesh for torah

The parsha tells us that Klal Yisrael immediately agreed to Moshe's suggestion that they appoint dayanim, and for that Moshe was critical of them.  Rashi comments (1:9)

ותענו אותי וגו׳ – חלטתם את הדבר להנאתכם. היה לכם להשיב: רבנו משה ממי נאה ללמוד, ממך או מתלמידך? לא ממך, שנצטערת עליה. אלא ידעתי מחשבותיכם, הייתם אומרים: עכשיו יתמנו עלינו דיינים הרבה, אם אינו מכירנו, אנו מביאין לו דורון, והוא נושא לנו פנים.

R' Chaim Elazary in his Darchei Chaim is medayeik that Rashi doesn't say that the people should have preferred to learn from Moshe because he was the biggest talmid chacham of the dor, that he had heard Torah directly from Hashem at Sinai and therefore no one could know it better than he could.  What Rashi says is that the people should have preferred to learn from Moshe because "לא ממך, שנצטערת עליה" -- Moshe went through more trouble than anyone else, i.e. Moshe had more mesirus nefesh for Torah than anyone else. 

A great rebbe is not necessarily the biggest genius, but rather it's the person who is most willing to suffer with and on behalf of his students.

rav lachem sheves ba'har ha'zeh

 ...Rav lachem sheves ba'har ha'zeh (1:6)

Rashi comments:
רב לכם שבת – כפשוטו.
ויש מדרש: הרבה לכם גדולה ושכר על ישיבתכם בהר הזה – עשיתם משכן מנורה וכלים, קבלתם תורה, מניתם לכם סנהדרין שרי אלפים שרי מאות (ספרי דברים א׳:ו׳).

"You made a mishkan, menorah, and kelim..."   Why does Rashi single out the menorah?  Why does it deserve special mention and is not subsumed under "kelim?" 

I don't have a good answer.  Suggestions?

Another point:

Why does Rashi quote a midrash?  Why is he not satisfied with the peshuto here?  Sifsei Chachamim says Rashi is bothered by the use of "rav" instead of "dai," but he does not explain why one term is more appropriate than the other.  I wont do your homework for you -- get our a concordance and check where else "rav" is used and see what the difference between those pesukim and this one is.  Does the term "rav" apply to a measure of time? 

I would suggest that Rashi is bothered by the entire phrase.  Why not just say פְּנ֣וּ׀ וּסְע֣וּ לָכֶ֗ם etc (pasuk 7)?  Compare with Gur Aryeh in next week's parsha 3:26, Hashem's response of "rav lach" to Moshe's tefilah.  It is the phrase itself which is unnecessary, not the usage of one word vs another which bothers Rashi.

Why indeed does Hashem not simply say פְּנ֣וּ׀ וּסְע֣וּ לָכֶ֗ם -- why the need to add that they have spent too much time at Sinai?  Netziv explains that there is a lesson and tochacha (see Kli Yakar as well) here:

רב לכם שבת בהר הזה – הרי היה קשה לפניו יתברך העיכוב שלכם אפילו בהר הנבחר והנעלה, כי היה חפץ למהר להכניסכם לארץ.

Even though you were "b'har ha'ZEH," the singular mountain of Sinai, the exalted place of mattan Torah -- what could be greater than that? -- Hashem wanted you to move on and not spend more time there.  The goal is not to attain spiritual heights in a desert, but rather to get to Eretz Yisrael and build a country.