concealed plans

 Yalkut Shimoni 814:

 דָּבָר אַחֵר: אָמַר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף נִכְנָסִין לָאָרֶץ וַאֲנִי אֵינִי נִכְנָס. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּאַרְצוֹ, אֲדוֹנָתוֹ אָמְרַת לוֹ (בראשית ל״ט:י״ד) ״רְאוּ הֵבִיא לָנוּ אִישׁ עִבְרִי״ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֵר אֶלָּא אָמַר (שם מ׳:ט״ו) ״כִּי גֻּנֹב גֻּנַבְתִּי מֵאֶרֶץ הָעִבְרִים״, אַתָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדֵיתָ בְּאַרְצְךָ, בְּנוֹת יִתְרוֹ אוֹמְרוֹת (שמות ב׳:י״ט) ״אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ״ וְאַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ וְשׁוֹתֵק, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אַתָּה נִקְבָּר בְּאַרְצְךָ

 

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם אַתָּה נִקְבָּר אֶצְלָן, בִּזְכוּתְךָ הֵן בָאִין עִמְּךָ. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁנִּתְפַּזְּרוּ מָעוֹתָיו בִּמְקוֹם אֲפֵלָה אָמַר אִם אֲנִי אוֹמֵר הָאִירוּ לִי שֶׁאֲלַקֵּט מָעוֹתַי אֵין כָּל בְּרִיָּה מַשְׁגַּחַת עָלַי, מֶה עָשָׂה, נָטַל זָהוּב אֶחָד וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ בְּתוֹכָן וְהִתְחִיל צוֹוֵחַ וְאוֹמֵר בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִכֶּם, הָאִירוּ לִי, זָהוּב אֶחָד הָיָה לִי וְנָפַל מִמֶּנִּי, בָּאוּ וְהֵאִירוּ לוֹ, מֶה עָשָׂה, מִשֶּׁנָּטַל אֶת הַזָּהוּב לִקֵּט מָעוֹתָיו. כָּךְ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם נִקְבָּר אַתָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר הֵן בָּאִים בִּזְכוּתְךָ וְאַתָּה בָּא בְרֹאשָׁן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיַּרְא רֵאשִׁית לוֹ כִּי שָׁם חֶלְקַת מְח(וֹ)קֵק סָפוּן וַיֵּתֶא רָאשֵׁי עָם״.

 

There is not a "davar achier..."  between the first half of the Midrash and the second.  It's all one pshat, one answer as to why Moshe's bones (Moshe himself could not enter Eretz Yisrael because of the cheir of Mei Meriva; his question was why he could not even be buried there) could not be brought into Eretz Yisrael for burial like Yosef's.  How do the two halves here connect?  It sounds like each statement could stand on its own as a reason.

 

Moshe began his prayer to Hashem  אַתָּ֤ה הַֽחִלּ֙וֹתָ֙ לְהַרְא֣וֹת אֶֽת־עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶ֨ת־גׇּדְלְךָ֔ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ֖ הַחֲזָקָ֑ה.  The Baal haTurim points out that the only other occurrence of the term  הַֽחִלּ֙וֹתָ֙ is in Megillas Esther, after Haman was forced to parade Mordechai around on the king's horse:

 

ויאמרו לו חכמיו וזרש אשתו אם מזרע היהודים מרדכי אשר החלות לנפל לפניו לא תוכל לו כי נפול תפול לפניו

 

Interestingly, the word לְהַרְא֣וֹת also appears only in Megillas Esther in two places:

 

להראות העמים והשרים את יפיה (1:11) when Vashti was ordered to appear

 

את פתשגן כתב הדת אשר נתן בשושן להשמידם נתן לו להראות את אסתר ולהגיד לה ולצוות עליה לבוא אל המלך להתחנן לו ולבקש מלפניו על עמה. (4:8) when Mordechai reveals to Esther what Haman is plotting and tells her that she must go and appeal to Achashveirosh.

 

How do the future events of the megillah connect to Moshe's tefillah in our parsha?

 

The Sanz Klausenberger in Shefa Chaim writes that had we been there to witness Esther being taken to the palace, we would have broken down in tears and called a kinus tefillah, a fast day, we would be singing "acheinu..." like for the hostages.  70 years seemed to have passed with no geulah, Achashveirosh's party was to celebrate our hopelessness, and now this happens for the icing on the cake.  Yet that was not Mordechai's reaction at all.  

 

וּבְכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם מׇרְדֳּכַי מִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי חֲצַר בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים לָדַעַת אֶת שְׁלוֹם אֶסְתֵּר וּמַה יֵּעָשֶׂה בָּהּ (2:11)

 

Mordechai every day visited the palace to check on what was going on and that's it.

 

Mordechai understood that as bad as things look, the midas ha'din always has rachamim couched within it.  Something is going to happen.  Something good is going to come out of this.  He may not have anticipated exactly how things would work out, but he trusted that things would work out and it would be through Esther.  What looks like the beginning of a tragedy is really the beginning of yeshu'a.

 

I think in the past I've quoted the Sefas Emes' comment on the pasuk ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר ויצא בתוך העיר ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה (4:1).  Says the Sefas Emes, ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה, he knew that in Shamayim everything that happens is l'tov, everything is part of the yeshu'a.  L'maaseh, the rest of us living on planet earth don't see it.  Therefore, despite knowing that at the end of the day things would somehow work out,  ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר, Mordechai had to put on an act and behave like the rest of us and cry out in pain.

 

The gemara at the end of Makkos tells us that while everyone was crying, R' Akiva laughed when he saw foxes coming out of the makom mikdash.  R' Akiva was able to see how behind even the greatest tragedy there is rachamim, even when invisible to everyone else.

 

This is what Moshe was saying as well.  Hashem revealed Himself אֶ֨ת־גׇּדְלְךָ֔ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ֖ הַחֲזָקָ֑ה, with the midsa ha'din, but at the same time and in the very same action, it is את גדלך – זו מדת טובך, as Rashi explains.  On the one hand, Moshe is begging for mercy, for an "out" on the gzar din, yet on the other hand, as the Baal haTurim comments, ואתחנן – בגימטריא שירה, he is singing shirah because he knows that if the gzar din stands, it is l'tovah as well, just in a more concealed way.  Heads he wins, tails he wins.  It's just a matter of how it will play out.

 

Let's get back to the Yalkut Shimoni.  How can Moshe be blamed for the fact that the daughters of Yisro said to their father אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנו?  He wasn't even there when they were speaking! 

 

The Yismach Moshe quotes an amazing pshat from the Zohar on that pasuk of אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנו and even if you don't like anything else I wrote, you have to love this.  The אִישׁ מִצְרִי is not talking about Moshe at all.  The אִישׁ מִצְרִי is talking about the Mitzri in Egypt who raised his hand to strike a Jew, and as a result of that Moshe reacted and killed him with the Shem haMeforash, setting in motion the chain of events that would years later bring him to Yisro's house.  The daughters of Yisro of course didn't realize they were saying this, but a spark of ruach ha'kodesh came into their mouths and the right words came out.  It's that אִישׁ מִצְרִי who deserves the credit, because otherwise Moshe would not be there. 

 

The bnos Yisro didn't know what they were saying, but their words and the real meaning behind them was revealed to Moshe.  The significance of that Mitzri's actions would not be evident to an onlooker and is not even evident to us as we read it in chumash.  From Moshe's perspective at that moment, his life was ruined.  He was forced to leave the palace and become an outlaw.  But in the long run, look at how events unfolded.  Wow, if even this Mitzri who certainly had nothing of the sort in mind gets credit for saving the bnos Yisro, can you imagine the credit someone who goes into things trying to save people gets?

 

This is how the Yismach Moshe fits the two halves of the Yalkut together. For whatever reason, Hashem decided that the concealed rachamim of Moshe remaining outside Eretz Yisrael outweighs the benefit of the revealed rachamim he was requesting.  Although not immediately apparent, this was the greater benefit to Klal Yisrael.  Who are you, Moshe, to argue?  Didn't I reveal to you the true meaning of אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ?  That Mitzri intended to harm, but nonetheless, he was the start of a chain of events that led to bnos Yisro being saved, and so he gets credit.  Kal v'chomer if you stay in chu"l so as to enable future generation to experience redemption, how great will your credit be. 

נַֽחֲמ֥וּ נַֽחֲמ֖וּ עַמִּ֑י יֹאמַ֖ר אֱלֹֽקיכֶֽם.  The ultimate nechama will come from אֱלֹֽקיכֶֽם, the midas ha'din, when we are zocheh to see just how all the events that we experience as tragedies will be revealed as having been l'tovah.

when remaining passive is not a choice

I went to a minyan on 9 Av that invites community members to do a little intro and explanation of each of the kinos before it is recited by the tzibur. I knew that the individual who was going to introduce the kinah that speaks of the horrible starvation in Yerushalayim אִם תֺּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עוֹלְלֵי טִפּוּחִים אַלְלַי לִי has very different hashkafos that I do, but I was still shocked that he or anyone would use this as the opportunity to speak of our obligation to worry about our being the cause of starvation in Gaza. Whether there is in fact starvation is itself subject to debate, but I certainly am not going to worry about the Gazan people any more than their leaders, who obviously think it more important to continue to hold I hostage than to release them and disarm, do. When I see that young Jews overwhelmingly support Mamdani for mayor of NY, I am discouraged, but I figure they are misguided, unaffiliated folks who are tinok she'nishba in secular culture. But when I hear people in an orthodox shul speaking about our need to be concerned about our causing starvation in Gaza and no one gets up and walks out, instead there is shtika k'hodaah, it is frightening. To be fair, I am confident that the vast majority of people at that shul do NOT agree with this individuals sentiments, but sof kol sof, they gave him a platform and very politely listened to what I think are words of poison.

We read in our parsha

וְצַו אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר לִפְנֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה.

וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר.

עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹקי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם נֹתֵן לָכֶם.

What is the connection between וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא and the previous or following pasuk? As Ohr haChaim puts it:

צריך לדעת כונת הכתוב מה בא להודיע במאמר זה, ומה קשר יש לו לא עם מה שלפניו ולא עם מה שלאחריו

The GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu connects it all the way to the beginning of the parsha. Moshe was saying that his tefilos, with all his tzidkus, were not answered, but Bn"Y as a people, despite all their failings, despite ַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר engaging in the most disgusting avodah zarah, are still guaranteed to go to Eretz Yisrael, לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Very uplifting.

The Alshich has a different pshat. Had Bn"Y been worthy, that the zechus of Yehoshua alone would have been enough to guarantee them victory in the conquest of E Yisrael. כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר...וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם. That is no longer the case because of the sin of worshipping Baal Pe'or. But, says the Alshich, weren't those who worshipped Pe'or already punished? Wasn't there a plague that wiped out those who sinned? The next pasuk answers that question: וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר. Pinchas jumped up with his spear and took care of business, but what were the rest of you doing? You were sitting there, you were passive, you didn't do anything. True, you were not the one's who worshipped Baal Pe'or, but you stood by idly while others did. Yehoshua's zechuyos are not enough anymore. עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם You all have to do your part, each individual being careful about his shemiras ha'mitzvos. You have to get up and take action and do something meaningful.  

A person cannot sit back and say, "I don't hold that political view, so what do I care what others say?" or "My children are married to the best families, to bnei Torah, to bais Yaakov girls, so I'm not responsible for the 70% intermarriage rate in America," or "I send my kids to the best yeshiva, so what can I do if my neighbor sends his kids to public school?" These are of course different issues that call for different types of reactions and different strategies to address, but the common denominator is that we cannot just be וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר The Baal Peor is right across from you, staring you in the face, and all you can do is sit passively while this is going on? I am not saying to sit on Twitter  24x6 debating the Israel bashers, or to engage in disruptive or harmful  behavior. That's not healthy or positive either. But do something. Don't sit passively and let others dictate the narrative or the outcome.

So what should we be doing? This shiur of R' Meir Lichtenstein discussing how his grandfather, the Rav, approched kinos, is worth watching in tis entirely, but I want to highlight just one snippit. B'kitzur, RML contends that the Rav used kinos as a springboard to think about and discuss some of the big questions, e.g. How do we relate to Am Yisrael, to Eretz Yisrael? What is our mission? The Rav would spend hours and hours on kinos, giving full shiurim on individual lines of the text. (Parenthetically, RML mentions that his father did not approach kinos that way.) Today, many American Rabbis follow in the Rav's footsteps, and there are programs you can watch online that can fill your entire day of 9 Av. Here is RML's reaction:

I will just add my own editorial 2 cents.  Sometimes feel that every dollar spent on more and bigger institutions that perpetuate J  life in galus is another dollar that is throwing good money after bad.  You are investing in beautifying the lifeboat so you can stay in it longer and be more comfortable there instead of encouraging people to row faster for land. לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ  is not the end of the pasuk above.  It's   לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Let's not forget the end goal.  Let's not let 9 AV get away from us without at least thinking about what the end goal is.

don't settle for a glass half full

 וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל⁠ ה׳ בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר  Why did Moshe pick that specific time --  בָּעֵת הַהִוא -- to daven and not earlier, when Hashem first told him that he would not enter Eretz Yisrael?  Rashi answers: בעת ההיא – לאחר שכבשתי ארץ סיחון ועוג דמיתי שמא הותר הנדר.  

There is a major machklokes Rishonim and Achronim as to whether mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eiver haYarden.  Some hold none apply mi'doraysa, only mi'derabbanan, others hold they do apply mi'doraysa, and some split between halachos like terumos u'maasros which do apply, and other halachos which do not.  Chazal darshen in a few places that certain halachos (orlah, nigei batim, korban ha'omer, shevi'is) apply in "HA'aretz" = Eretz Yisrael proper, THE land,  to the exclusion of Eiver ha'Yarden.  The question becomes whether these derashos are the exception that prove the rule that Eiver haYarden is otherwise the same as Eretz Yisrael, or do they establish that Eiver haYarden is in fact categorically different.  

Assuming that mi'doraysa mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eiver haYarden, and perhaps the war against Sichon and Og was a milchemes mitzvah of kibush ha'aretz, then Eiver ha'Yarden would seem to be, for all intents and purposes, the same as Eretz Yisrael.  Mishne laMelech in his sefer Parashas Derachim (derush #8) asks if so, what then does Rashi mean שמא הותר הנדר, maybe Hashem's oath was cancelled?  Were the neder in force, then Moshe should not only have been prevented from entering Eretz Yisrael proper, but should also have been barred from Eiver ha'Yarden as well!  

To make the same point in a slightly different way (see also the Meshech Chochma in this post ) , the gemara in Sotah (14a) writes:

דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְאַוָּה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לִיכָּנֵס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל? וְכִי לֶאֱכוֹל מִפִּרְיָהּ הוּא צָרִיךְ?! אוֹ לִשְׂבּוֹעַ מִטּוּבָהּ הוּא צָרִיךְ?! אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר מֹשֶׁה: הַרְבֵּה מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶכָּנֵס אֲנִי לָאָרֶץ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְקַיְּימוּ כּוּלָּן עַל יָדִי.

If mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eivar haYarden, then shouldn't Moshe have gotten what he wanted once he got to Eivar HaYarden?  

This question is a little less difficult, because there are mitzvos that apply only in Eretz Yisrael proper, e.g. you can't fulfill the mitzvah of binyan beis ha'mikdash in Eiver haYarden, and you can't conquer all of the 7 umos by staying in Eivar haYarden.  

To answer the Ml"M one is forced to say that even if mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eiver ha'Yarden, there is still a qualitative difference between those lands and Eretz Yisrael proper.  

Rav Shalom Messas, the former Sefardic Rav haRoshi of Yerushalayim, in his sefer derashot v'Yatazah haChamah offers a different explanation as to the significance of  בָּעֵת הַהִוא which I think is even more insightful when seen in context of the above discussion.  Before getting to his answer, let me preface one other question: why does Moshe bother to tell us about his tefilah to Hashem if at the end of the day it was rejected and made no difference?  

Rav Messas writes that the shevatim of Reuvain and Gad saw Eiver haYarden as being as good as, if not better than Eretz Yisrael proper.  This was their "eretz zavas chalav u'devash," as this was the land that could sustain their flocks.  Assuming that mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz apply in Eivar haYarden, they had even more reason to stay put and not bother themselves with entering Eretz Yisrael proper.  They had all the upside of actually being in Eretz Yisrael without having to actually cross into the land.  Therefore, it was precisely at that moment, בָּעֵת הַהִוא, right after the conquest of Sichon and Og and the demand by Reuvain and Gad to settle in their territory, that Moshe chose to daven to be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael and chose to share that tefilah with us.  Moshe is telling us not to make the mistake of thinking that a glass half full is satisfactory, that having Eivar haYarden fulfills the dream of yishuv ha'aretz and is enough to satisfy.  I had all that too, said Moshe, and I still poured my heart out to beg Hashem to let me enter Eretz Yisrael proper.  

In the famous address given by R' Tzvi Yehudah on Yom ha'Atzmaut 1967 (in full in Hebrew here and English translation here) he reflected on the joy with which the partition plan of 1947 was met in contrast to his own feeling of pain :

לפני י"ט שנה, באותו לילה מפורסם, בהגיע ארצה החלטתם החיובית של מושלי אומות-העולם לתקומת מדינת ישראל, כשכל העם נהר לחוצות לחוג ברבים את רגשי שמחתו לא יכולתי לצאת ולהצטרף לשמחה. ישבתי בדד ואדום כי נטל עלי. באותן שעות ראשונות לא יכולתי להשלים עם הנעשה, עם אותה בשורה נוראה, כי אכן נתקיים דבר ד' בנבואה בתרי-עשר - "ואת ארצי חילקו"! איפה חברון שלנו - אנחנו שוכחים את זה?! ואיפה שכם שלנו - אנחנו שוכחים את זה?! ואיפה יריחו שלנו - אנחנו שוכחים את זה?! ואיפה עבר הירדן שלנו?! איפה כל רגב ורגב? כל חלק וחלק, של ארבע אמות של ארץ ד'?! הבידינו לוותר על איזה מילימטר מהן? חלילה וחס ושלום!

באותו מצב מזועזע בכל גופי, פצוע כולי וחתוך לגזרים - לא יכולתי אז לשמוח. כך היה המצב לפני י"ט שנים, באותו לילה ובאותן שעות. למחרת בא אל ביתנו איש ברית קדשנו, הגאון רבי יעקב משה חרל"פ זצ"ל - היה לו צורך לבוא וכלום יתכן שלא היה בא?! התייחדנו אז שנינו, רגעים אחדים, באותו חדר קטן ומקודש שב"בית הרב" - ולאן יבוא אז אם לא לשם?! מזועזעים ישבנו ודמומים. לבסוף התאוששנו ואמרנו שנינו כאחד: "מאת ד' הייתה זאת, היא נפלאת בעינינו". נקבעה החותמת!

This is what Moshe was trying to tell us.  Sichon and Og were conquered, the people were now able to fulfill mitzvos that they were unable to fulfill all those 40 years in the desert, they now had land they could call their own to live in peace and raise their flocks -- you can imagine the people of Reuvain and Gad dancing in the streets, just like they danced in the streets in 1947!  Enter Moshe to throw cold water on the party and remind us to not lose sight of the bigger picture, not to be satisfied when there is so much more to strive for and achieve.  

But what are we supposed to do if that bigger picture is not politically achievable at this moment, or militarily achievable at this moment, or we are religiously not worthy of it at this moment?  What can we do?

Like Moshe, we can daven for it.  We can beg Hashem to allow us to get there.   

why does Moshe tell us about his rejected tefilah?

1) Why do we need to know the behind the scenes story of Moshe's unsuccessful bid through his many tefilos to be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael?  That's between him and the Ribono shel Olam; why does Moshe tell us about it?  Ibn Ezra writes:

וטעם זאת הפרשה לחבב ארץ ישראל, ואם הארץ תהיה חביבה ישמרו מצות השם, שלא יגלו ממנה.

Moshe's actions are a lesson in love for Eretz Yisrael.  If we love Eretz Yisrael and observe mitzvos properly in Eretz Yisrael, then we would not have to suffer galus.  Is it any wonder that this is the parsha we read right after Tisha b'Av?

2) The parsha tells us that we will go into galus and וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם מִשָּׁ֛ם אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ וּמָצָ֑אתָ כִּ֣י תִדְרְשֶׁ֔נּוּ בְּכׇל־לְבָבְךָ֖ וּבְכׇל־נַפְשֶֽׁךָ (4:28)  The word וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם is in the plural, but the word וּמָצָ֑אתָ is in the singular.  During the three weeks we talk about sinas chinam that destroyed the mikdash and ahavas chinam needed to bring it back.  Sefas Emes comments (5664) on our pasuk that כי בעת שמתעורר הרצון והתשוקה של בנ"י אל השי"ת נעשין אחדות א' שזה הרצון לה' מאחד ומחבר נפשות בנ"י.  If each of us individually takes it upon ourselves to search out Hashem, then וּמָצָ֑אתָ, we will find him as one, united together.  It doesn't matter that your form of וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם is by learning a Ketzos and someone else's form of וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם is via Likutei Moharan.  You share the same mission, so the result is וּמָצָ֑אתָ.  I think I've quoted the Ishbitzer on the pasuk "yismach lev mivakshei Hashem" at every one of my kids' sheva brachos because this pasuk is the geder, the definition, of what a good marriage is.  "Mevakshei Hashem" is in the plural because each and every person has his/her own way of being mevakesh Hashem.  No two people are alike, no two people have the same avodah, even if they are as close as husband and wife.  However, the pasuk says "yismach lev" in the singular -- it has to be done with one heart.  That's what marriage is all about, having the same lev.  The Sefas Emes is telling us the same vort on a national level.  וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם, every one of us in our individual way, but at the end of the day,וּמָצָ֑אתָ  we don't discover Hashem as individuals, but rather as a community, as a people. נַחֲמ֥וּ נַחֲמ֖וּ עַמִּ֑י  Hashem gives us consolation as an "am," as a people, not as isolated individuals.  

My son quotes the Sefas Emes (5653) on the opening of Eicah, אֵיכָ֣ה׀ יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד.  It's not the destruction that Yirmiyahu focusses on, but rather it's being alone, separated from Hashem.  The destruction was just an outgrowth of that, a symptom, not the cause.   Moshe in our parsha tells us the road out of galus is וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם מִשָּׁ֛ם אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ, reuniting with Hashem.  The rest of the story -- the return from exile, the binyan ha'bayis -- will take care of itself once you fix the root cause.

The Yalkut writes:

ועוד משל למה״ד לרועה שיש לו צאן ונכנס ארי וטרפן למי מנחמים לא לבעל הצאן, כך צאן אובדות היו עמי, אעפ״כ לכו ופייסו את כנסת ישראל, מיד מתכנסין כל הנביאים והולכים אצלה והיא אומרת להם איך תנחמוני הבל ותשובותיכם נשאר מעל, א״ר אבא בר כהנא דבריכם צריכים מירוק, עד עכשיו אזני מלאות מן התוכחות שהוכחתם אותי ועכשיו אתם באים לנחמני, הלך הושע לנחמה א״ל הקב״ה שלחני אצלך לנחמך, אמרה לו מה בידך אמר לה אהיה כטל לישראל, אמרה אתמול אמרת לי הכה אפרים שרשם יבש פרי בל יעשון, ועתה אתה אומר לי כך לאיזה נאמין לראשונה או לשניה. הלך יואל לנחמה, א״ל הקב״ה שלחני אצלך לנחמך, א״ל מה בידך, א״ל והיה ביום ההוא יטפו ההרים עסיס, א״ל אתמול אמרת הילילו שכורים ובכו הילילו כל שותי יין על עיס כי נכרת מפיכם ועכשיו אתה אומר כן לאיזה נאמין לראשונה או לשניה.

The Yalkut continues navi after navi with the same story -- each one tries to offer nechama, but each one is rejected by Klal Yisrael with the same argument: "Why should we believe you and accept your nechama when previously you castigated us and told us how bad we are?  Should we believe what you say this time or what you said in the past?" Finally, the Midrash concludes:

 מיד הולכים כלם לפני הקב״ה ואומרים רבש״ע אינה מקבלת ממנו תנחומין שנאמר עניה סערה לא נחמה, א״ל הקב״ה אני ואתם נלך וננחמנה הוי נחמו נחמו עמי – נחמוה נחמוה עמי אין ראוי לילך אלא אני בעצמי 

Nachamu nachamu not ami, my nation, but imi, with me, with Hashem himself kavyachol. אֵיכָ֣ה׀ יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד, all alone!  The tikun therefore is when Hashem kavyachol Himself comes back to be with us.  

 ירושלם הבנויה כעיר שחוברה לה יחדיו A chibur and connection between each other, a chibur between Klal Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael and Yerushalayim, and most of all, a chibur between us and Hashem.

3) Yesterday in a 9 Av talk someone mentioned a shaila that came up related to the Holocaust.  Sadly there is halachic literature on all kinds of extreme issues that r"l we should never have to deal with again, some of which never before had been dealt with in our history.  The wanton cruelty of the sho'ah is unparalleled.   

My daughter now lives in Yerushalayim and when she called before Shabbos she asked how we can say nacheim and refer to עיר הבּזויה והחריבה, the desolate, destroyed city, when Yerushalayim is that way no more.  This issue is discussed in poskim, but the technical details are not for now.  The point I want to make is that a generation or two ago (depending on how old you are) we had shailos that had never been asked before because we were faced with persecution the likes of which we had never seen.  Now we have shailos that have never been asked before because we are in the aschalta d'geula and we have issues that have never come up before.  Tell me what cheilek of shulchan aruch I look in to figure out if I should be in favor or opposed to judicial reform?  The whole shulchan aruch is only for halachos that only apply in galus, so how am I going to find it there!? We are in unchartered waters.  Baruch Hashem that we are here, with all the confusion, with all the difficulties.  

4) I am stuck on Rashi's comment on the words  וְצַ֥ו אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁ֖עַ וְחַזְּקֵ֣הוּ וְאַמְּצֵ֑הוּ כִּי־ה֣וּא יַעֲבֹ֗ר לִפְנֵי֙ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה (3:25) where Rashi implies that the battle of Ai was lost because Yehoshua did not personally march at the head of the army in battle:

כי הוא יעבר – אם יעבר לפניהם – ינחלו, ואם לאו – לא ינחלו. וכן אתא מוצא כששלח מן העם אל העי, והוא יושבב לו, ויכו מהם אנשי העי וגו׳ (יהושע ז׳:ה׳). וכיון שנפל על פניו, אמר: קום לך (יהושע ז׳:י׳). קם לֵךְג כתיבד – אתה הוא העומד במקומך ומשלח את בניי למלחמה, למה זה אתה נופל על פניך (יהושע ז׳:י׳), לא כך אמרתי למשה רבך: אם הוא עובר – עוברים, אם לאו – אין עוברים.

The gemara (San 45a) offers a different interpretation of those same words קם לֵךְ:

 בתר דנפק אוקים רב אמורא עליה ודרש כאשר צוה ה' את משה עבדו כן צוה משה את יהושע וכן עשה יהושע לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה' את משה א"כ מה ת"ל קום לך א"ל אתה גרמת להם והיינו דקאמר ליה בעי ועשית לעי ולמלכה כאשר עשית ליריחו ולמלכה 

Rashi there explains: קום לך. משלך ומידך היתה זאת להם שאף בשבילך נענשו שלא קיימת את דברי  It was because Yehoshua declared the spoils of Yericho off limits that the battle of Ai was lost.  Had he not done so, Achan would not have done anything wrong in helping himself to the loot.  

Granted that you can have different aggadic interpretations to the same words of קום לך, but why should Rashi have gotten into the issue at all?  He could have just said Rashi  כי הוא יעבר – אם יעבר לפניהם – ינחלו, ואם לאו – לא ינחלו.  

not too distant

My wife and I have been learning Mishlei with the GR"A and when I came across the GR"A's comments to the pasuk (1:24)  יַ֣עַן קָ֭רָאתִי וַתְּמָאֵ֑נוּ נָטִ֥יתִי יָ֝דִ֗י וְאֵ֣ין מַקְשִֽׁיב I thought of this week's haftarah.  GR"A explains that the pasuk is referring to Hashem reaching out to bring someone back. There pasuk describes two stages: קָ֭רָאתִי is when the person is not too far away and can still hear Hashem's call.  נָטִ֥יתִי יָ֝דִ֗י, when the person is too distant, Hashem kavyachol waves to try to get the person's attention.  

Maybe that's what the navi means when Yeshayahu says  דַּבְּר֞וּ עַל־לֵ֤ב יְרוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ וְקִרְא֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יהָ. Yeshayahu is saying that we are not so distant, we have not strayed too far.  קִרְא֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יהָ, call to Yerushalayim -- we are still within earshot, we just need to open our ears to listen.

tefillin with only 2 parshiyos?

The gemara in R"H tells us that R' Abahu made a takana to blow teruah, shevarim, and shevarim-teruah to cover all the bases of the different minhagim that had been in practice.  The Rishonim quote R' Hai Gaon as having asked how something as basic as shofar blowing that we do every year and is such an important mitzvah could have been forgotten.  How could there have been different minhagim -- everyone should have had the same mesorah of how to do the mitzvah.  

Achronim ask the same question about tefillin of Rashi/R"T.  People put on tefillin every day.  How could the correct way to do the mitzvah have been forgotten?

R' Yosef Messas offers an interesting answer: the parshiyos of shema and v'haya im shamo'a were not given until the 40th year in the midbar, as we only find them in sefer Devarim.  For the duration of the time in the midbr, the tefillin must have had only 2 parshiyos.  We also know that when Moshe died thousands of halachos were forgotten.  It could be that there was never a strong mesorah established as to how the last 2 parshiyos should be added.

This chiddush gadol, that the nature of the mitzvah changed from what was given at Sinai (which seems to fly in the face of the first Rashi in Behar), is entertained by the Kli Chemdah, who rejects it.  The Mishna writes that the 4 parshiyos of tefillin are m'akeiv each other -- it's all or nothing.  Asks the gemara (Men 34): peshita -- isn't this obvious?  If the mitzvah originally required only 2 parshiyos, why does the gemara think this is such a davar pashut?  Perhaps if one cannot fulfill the mitzvah as it ultimately was performed from year 40 in the midbar onward, one should still fulfill the mitzvah with 2 parshiyos as it was given at Sinai?  See R' Kasher in Torah Shleima here, and R' Ovadya's teshuvah in Yabia Omer I:3 footnote 10.

nachamu - when leaders fail to speak up

1) Everybody knows the famous words of the haftarah (Yeshayahu 40), "Nachamu nachamu ami...," but what I think most people don't know is the context.  In the previous chapter the navi tells Chizkiyahu הִנֵּה֮ יָמִ֣ים בָּאִים֒ וְנִשָּׂ֣א׀ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּבֵיתֶ֗ךָ וַאֲשֶׁ֨ר אָצְר֧וּ אֲבֹתֶ֛יךָ עַד־הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה בָּבֶ֑ל that all of his children and his treasure will be carried off into galus to Bavel.  Chizkiyahu responds to this prophecy by saying ט֥וֹב דְּבַר ה׳ אֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבַּ֑רְתָּ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י יִהְיֶ֛ה שָׁל֥וֹם וֶאֱמֶ֖ת בְּיָמָֽי׃,  all good by me so long as it does not happen in my lifetime -- what happens afterwards is their problem.  Malbim tries to put a positive spin on it and say that what Chizkiyahu meant is that things can always change.  A nevuah of bad tidings can always be averted if people do teshuvah, so there is no need to yet worry and panic.  Still, Chizkiyahu has just heard unbelievably bad news and that's the best response he can muster?!  That's all he has to say?!   

R"Y Kara comments: והיה לו לבקש רחמים על ישראל שנגזר עליהםב גלות בבל בשבילו ולא ביקש. אמר הקב״ה: חזקיה שהיה לו לנחם אתכם ואינו מנחם את ירושלם ואינו מבקש רחמים על ישראל, אלא אמר טוב ולבד שיהיה שלום ואמת בימי, הריני מנחם את ירושלם. הדא הוא דכתיב: נחמו נחמו עמי  Hashem said, "Chizkiyahu should have consoled the nation, should have consoled Yerushalayim, should have begged for mercy on the people, and he didn't.  Therefore, I will console them myself -- nachamu nachamu ami..."   

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, what we see from the navi is that sometimes our leaders miss the boat.  They hear the dvar Hashem all right, maybe even better than you or I can hear it, but their reaction is all wrong.  But what we also see from the navi is that even in those circumstances, Klal Yisrael will still find direction because Hashem himself will step in to guide us if our leaders fail.

2) I noticed a Seforno in our parsha that reads pesukim in Beshalach in way I had not thought about before and in a way which Seforno himself in Beshalach does not clue you in to.  Rashi comments on the dibra of Shabbos,  שָׁמ֛֣וֹר אֶת־י֥וֹם֩ הַשַּׁבָּ֖֨ת לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ה׳ אלקיך , that the כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ refers to the fact that the commandment to keep Shabbos had already been given at Marah.  Rashi is referring to Shmos 15:25 שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃, where he explains (based on Sanhedrin 56) that the chok and mishpat are במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהן: שבת, פרה אדומה, וכיבוד אב ואם,א ודינין.  

Seforno helps answer the question that begs asking: What is the purpose of the Torah here alluding to the fact that the command of Shabbos was already given in Marah?  He explains that the dibra is not coming to tell us the historical fact of when the mitzvah of shabbos was given, but rather is coming to tell us how to keep shabbos properly.  The parsha there in Beshalach continues וַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ אִם־שָׁמ֨וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַ֜ע לְק֣וֹל ה׳ אלקיך  וְהַיָּשָׁ֤ר בְּעֵינָיו֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְהַֽאֲזַנְתָּ֙ לְמִצְוֺתָ֔יו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֖ כׇּל־חֻקָּ֑יו כׇּֽל־הַמַּחֲלָ֞ה אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֤מְתִּי בְמִצְרַ֙יִם֙ לֹא־אָשִׂ֣ים עָלֶ֔יךָ כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י ה׳ רֹפְאֶֽךָ.  I had always read this as a separate command, but Seforno explains that it's a continuation of the previous pasuk, a continuation of the שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃.  Shabbos is not just a day to relax in your hammock all day, sipping kiddush scotch and eating cholent.  Shabbos has to be a day of,  וְהַֽאֲזַנְתָּ֙ לְמִצְוֺתָ֔יו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֖ כׇּל־חֻקָּ֑יו , a day spent learning Torah, thinking about avodah. The dibra tells us that your shemiras shabbos has to be  לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ , to make it a holy day, and we were given the template of how to do that כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ה׳ אלקיך in Marah.

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, explained the Rashi in parshas Emor (Vayikra 23:3) מה עניין שבת אצל מועדות? ללמדך שכל המחלל את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילו חילל את השבתות, וכל המקיים את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילוא קיים את השבתות as making a similar point.  The test of whether a person's shmiras Shabbos is l'shem shamayim or not is how the person keeps the moadim.  No one relaxes preparing for Pesach.  Building a sukkah takes work. If you keeps Shabbos but slack off on the moadim, it's like chilul Shabbos because it shows the shmiras Shabbos was only for the sake of having a day to relax and sleep but not really l'shem mitzvah.

3) Rashi comments on לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (4:2) as follows: לא תוסיפו – כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות, וכן: לא תגרעו  I saw a diyuk in Rashi: why does Rashi add the words  וכן: לא תגרעו at the end?  The pasuk itself says וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ!  Something to think about.  

4) What would nachamu be without this?  (Do you prefer the original?)

tefilah without negiyos

1) Last week I posted that Hashem did not stop Moshe from davening 515 tefilos even though he could have told Moshe right off the bat that he was not going to allow him to enter Eretz Yisrael because the yesod of tefilah is dveikus with Hashem, connecting to Hashem, irrespective of whether you get what you want.

My son beat me to expanding on this idea with the question of the Sefas Emes: Rashi writes that Moshe's tefilah was a model tefilah of how tzadikim should daven because rather than invoke his zechuyos, Moshe asked Hashem to give him what he wanted as a matnas chinah, a free gift.  How we we know, asks Sefas Emes, that this is the ideal tefilah?  Aderaba, perhaps had Moshe asked to be heard in the merit of his zechuyos he would have gotten what he wanted?

In the Sichos of R' Noson Tzvi Finkel he quotes R' Chaim Kamil who answered based on this same yesod of what tefilah is.  The measure of effective tefilah is not whether or not you get what you want.  The measure of effective tefilah is whether it brings you to greater dveikus to Hashem.  There was no one who came closer to Hashem than Moshe Rabeinu.  Therefore, it is his tefilah, even though his request was denied, which serves as a model for how to daven.

2) Va'Eschanan el Hashem ba'eis ha'hi -- when exactly was the "eis ha'hi" when Moshe offered this prayer?  One would expect that Moshe davened immediately after the sin of Mei Meriva, as soon as Hashem told him that he would not enter Eretz Yisrael, which is in fact how the Tur and others learn our parsha.  The problem is that in the parsha of Mei Meriva the Torah never mentions any such prayer.  Rashi and most other meforshim therefore read "ba'eis ha'hi" as occurring at the same time as the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og that we read about at the end of last week's parsha.  Rashi writes that Moshe thought that if he was able to enter the lands of Sichon and Og, perhaps Hashem will allow him to enter Eretz Yisrael as well.   

Ramban takes a slightly different approach.  The end of last week's parsha closes with Moshe recounting his appointment of Yehoshua to lead the conquest of Eretz Yisrael.  In our parsha Moshe gives us the background to that event.  He tells us that at that time, when he was told of his impending death, he offered two prayers: 1) he requested to be able to enter Eretz Yisrael; 2) he asked Hashem to appoint a good leader for Klal Yisrael if he could not continue on.  In Parshas Pinchas, when these events occurred, Moshe never told us of this first prayer because Hashem vetoed his request.  He reveals it now as necessary background to Yehoshua's taking over.

The Ishbitzer in Mei HaShiloach (vol 2) addresses the issue of the timing of Moshe's prayer and in a deep comment flips Ramban's approach on its head.  Instead of Moshe's prayer and Hashem's veto being recorded as background to Yehoshua's appointment, Mei HaShiloach says that it is Yehoshua's appointment which sets the stage and is the background for Moshe's tefilah.  The biggest obstacle to tefilah which, as we've learned, is all about connecting to Hashem, is our negiyos -- we stand to get something out of it.  We have a vested interest, and so prayer becomes about our interests instead of about G-d.  Moshe's tefilah is a model of what prayer should be.  Moshe tells Klal Yisrael that he davened "ba'eis ha'hi" after relinquishing control to Yehoshua, after proving that I have absolutely no vested interest, that I am not asking because I want to continue to be the head honcho, then I davened to be able to enter Eretz Yisrael.  Then I was able to offer a true tefilah.

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. 

davening - an end in itself

Moshe davened 515 tefilos, gematriya of "va'eschanan," pleading with Hashem to let him enter Eretz Yisrael, but in the end, Hashem answered "rav lach" and told him to cease davening.

Hashem knew in advance what the outcome would be.  Why then did he wait until Moshe davened 515 tefilos before stopping him?  Why not just tell him up front, after one tefilah, that the answer is no?

The yesod of tefilah is dveikus, writes R' Nissin Yagen.  We daven to connect to Hashem.  All the good things we hope to get from G-d by davening, whether it be refuah, bracha, geulah, etc., are all just ancillary benefits, but they are not why we daven.  A conversation with G-d is not a means to an end -- it is an end in itself.   

Had Hashem stopped Moshe after one tefilah, Moshe would have been deprived of 514 other opportunities to grow in his connection to Hashem. Therefore, even though Hashem knew the answer would be no, he let Moshe keep davening.

Va'Eschanan -- the parsha of nechama

Rambam (Tefilah 13:2):

עזרא תיקן להם לישראל שיהו קורין קללות שבספר ויקרא קודם עצרת ושבמשנה תורה קודם ראש השנה. והמנהג הפשוט שיהו קוראין במדבר סיני קודם עצרת. ואתחנן אחר תשעה באב. אתם נצבים קודם ראש השנה. צו את אהרן קודם הפסח בשנה פשוטה. לפיכך יש שבתות שקורין שחרית שני סדרין כגון אשה כי תזריע וזאת תהיה תורת המצורע. אם בחקותי עם בהר סיני וכיוצא בהן כדי שישלימו בשנה ויקראו אותן הסדרים בעונתן:

We all think that you have to lein Devarim before Tishba B'Av and get in the pasuk of "Eicah esa livadi..."and m'meila, it just happens to work out that Va'Eschanan then falls out the week afterwards.  Rav Soloveitchik showed from this Rambam that just the opposite is true.  The reason we end up leining Devarim before Tisha b'Av is because Va'Eschanan always has to come after Tisha b'Av.  Va'Eschanan is the nechama for destruction as it tells us that even though there may be galus and churban, ultimately we will enter Eretz Yisrael. 

carry the vision with you

1. "Va'Eschanan el Hashem ba'eis ha'hi..."  Why did Moshe choose to daven davka then, ba'eis ha'hi, at that moment?  Rashi explains that since Moshe had entered the land of Sichon v'Og, he was already part of the way there into Eretz Yisrael, and therefore he thought he could ask Hashem to let him go the rest of the way.  It was an opportune moment to see if he could get what he wanted.  Netziv offers a different explanation.  Moshe foresaw that the splitting off of the tribes of Reuvain and Gad after the defeat of Sichon and Og and their settling in Eiver haYarden would lead to eventual galus.  The only thing that preserves Klal Yisrael in galus in Torah.  Therefore, Moshe wanted to enter Eretz Yisrael so that he could help reveal the torah of Eretz Yisrael, which is, as we learned last week, qualitatively different, deeper, more profound, than Torah learned elsewhere. 

2. Moshe Rabeinu is nitzchiyus.  Moshe Rabeinu brought down the Torah for us from Har Sinai and Torah is ours forever in its same immutable form.  Moshe Rabeinu at the beginning of our parsha davened to be able to enter Eretz Yisrael because had he done so then Eretz Yisrael would have been ours forever -- no galus, no Tisha b'Av, game over, complete geulah (see Ohr haChaim 3:25).  Why should Klal Yisrael have to wait for geulah?  "E'ebrah na v'ereh es ha'aretz…"  Rashi says "na" here is "lashon bakasha," like saying please, but, as the Sifsei Chachamim points out, that's not what the word "na" usually means.  What it usually means is "now," which is how the Targum translates the pasuk.  Moshe said, "We want geulah now!" -- not in a few thousand years.  And had Moshe entered the land, then it would have been the geulah right then.

Hashem responded to Moshe's prayers by letting him see Eretz Yisrael.  He couldn't physically go there, but he would have a vision of the land, something to carry in his mind and heart.  Sefas Emes explains that because Moshe is nitzchiyus, this too became ours forever.  Wherever we may be in galus, no matter how long we may be in galus, we will always  have in our minds a vision of Eretz Yisrael.  

3. The Torah ends its record of Moshe's tefilah and Hashem's response with the pasuk, "Va'neishev ba'gai mul Beis Pe'or." (3:29)  The Kotznitzer Magid writes that the Torah is not switching gears here and going from the report of the dialogue between Hashem and Moshe back to a note on geography, where Bnei Yisrael were camped.  Rather, this too is part of the dialogue, part of what Hashem said to Moshe.  "Va'neishev" -- we sat, in the plural.  Hashem is telling Moshe, "Don't think you being left all alone.  I am here with you -- va'neishev -- we will together sit here.  Just like you, Moshe, are waiting here in galus until the day that you can lead the Jewish people back into the land for a geulah of nitzchiyus, I'm here with you, waiting for that day as well."  

Nachamu Nachamu ami...  The process of return has started, the revelation of toras Eretz Yisrael grows every day.  We need to appreciate the special gift that we have!

the nechana in Moshe's tefilah

What's the connection between the end of the previous parsha -- where Moshe charges Yehoshua not to fear war against Canaan because G-d will help with that conquest just like he helped with the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og -- and the tefilah of Moshe which opens our parsha? 

Ramban (see also Ibn Ezra) explains that there is a gap in the narrative that Moshe is filling in. Moshe told us at the end of last week's parsha that Yehoshua would be in charge, but he never explained why he would not be filling that role himself.   Our parsha fills in the rest of the story.

I am not sure how Ramban would explain why the Torah needs to record the entire tefilah of Moshe in all its detail.  The only point that we need in order to close the narrative gap is the fact that G-d rejected Moshe's tefilah for whatever reason.  In fact, all we really need to know is that Moshe sinned and would therefore not be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael.   
Alshich suggests that the Torah here is delivering a powerful psychological boost to the people.  Moshe records his tefilah as a nechama (Shabbos Nachamu!) to Klal Yisrael.  Imagine the people's reaction to hearing that Yehoshua would be the one in charge: You took us this far and are now abandoning us?  You took us this far and now are giving up the fight?  So Moshe tells them that's not the case.  To the contrary, he davened because he wanted to join them and continue the journey.  He was even willing to give up his role as leader and enter Eretz Yisrael as just a simple Jew, a regular member of the klal, if only to be with them at that moment when they were zocheh to come into the land.  Moshe was in effect telling the people look at the great effort I made through tefilah so as not to forsake you.
 
Hashem turned Moshe down, "Va'yisaber Hashem l'ma'anchem," for the sake of the people.  Moshe spent his life working miracles; the dor de'ah of the midbar needed that type of leadership.  The generation which entered Eretz Yisrael had to find G-d in the mundane world -- no miracles.  Their leader is Yehoshua.  Moshe here told the people that G-d had to turn his prayers down because his neshoma was needed in chutz la'aretz, in the midbar, because he was the eternal leader of the dor de'ah; at the time of ultimate redemption he would need to be there to lead them into Eretz Yisrael. 
 
Alshich writes that we see from here that no Jewish soul is forsaken.  The dor de'ah were stuck in the midbar because they rejected Eretz Yisrael and trusted in the report of the meraglim.  They took the word of the spies over that of Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua, and Kaleiv.  Nonetheless, G-d did not let Moshe enter Eretz Yisrael so as to allow for the future redemption of even these souls.
 
We've discussed What of the souls of the dor ha'midbar, the generation Moshe served as the leader of for some many years?  Who would lead them to Eretz Yisrael in the future if there was no Moshe Rabeinu?  Therefore, Moshe had to remain outside the land.  Amazing: to bring the generation who had sinned with the meraglim and rejected the land eventually into the land, Moshe is denied the privilege he so wanted.  To prevent Jewish souls from being lost, Hashem denied the dying request of the great Moshe.