BEHAALOSECHA – UNDERSTANDING COMPLAINTS

BEHAALOSECHA – UNDERSTANDING COMPLAINTS By Yehonasan Gefen “The people were like those who seek complaints in the ears of HaShem, and HaShem heard and His wrath flared…” As the Jewish people were on the verge of entering Eretz Yisroel, they began complaining to HaShem. It is not immediately apparent what exactly they were complaining about. Rashi, based on the Sifri, explains that, in truth, they had no specific complaint, rather they were seeking a pretext to justify distancing themselves from HaShem. In a similar vein, the Seforno writes that they had no valid reason to complain, but they made it appear as if they were complaining about the difficulty of the journey. These explanations help answer the question of why the Torah writes that they were “like” complainers, as opposed to being actual complainers. It is possible to answer that the Torah is alluding that they were not really complaining about anything. Therefore they were not genuine complainers who had a real grievance, rather they were like complainers in that they made out as if they had a gripe. We learn from the Sifri that there are occasions when a person can voice a complaint or make an argument, when in truth, he doesn’t really believe in what he is saying. Rather he is using it as an excuse to justify an undesirable form of behavior. In the case of the misonenim, this undesirable behavior manifested itself in the people’s desire to distance themselves from HaShem. We see a further striking example of how what a person says does not necessarily represent what he means, in the argument between Kayin and Hevel that culminated in the murder of Hevel. The Torah tells us that Kayin spoke with Hevel before he killed him. “And Kayin spoke to Hevel his brother, and whilst they were in the field, Kayin rose up against his brother, Hevel, and killed him.” The Torah does not tell us what Kayin spoke about with Hevel. Targum Yonasan tells us that Kayin spoke words of kefira (denial of G-d) to Hevel, arguing that there was no G-d, and no concept of reward and punishment. Hevel argued with Kayin and in the midst of their argument, Kayin rose up and killed Hevel. Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita, asks why the Torah refrained from presenting this seemingly fundamental philosophical debate, leaving it to Chazal to fill in the details. He answers that the Torah was teaching us that Kayin didn’t necessarily believe in what he was saying, rather he was looking for an excuse to initiate an argument with his brother. The Torah refrained from revealing Kayin’s words because their actual content was irrelevant. We see again from here that a person’s most passionate arguments may be a screen to hide his true intentions. In this vein, the story is told of a number of yeshiva bachurim in the Yeshiva of Volozhin, who left the yeshiva and ultimately left Torah observance. Years later, they approached their Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, and told him that they had kashas on fundamental aspects of Torah thought, that they wanted to pose to him. Before they could ask their questions, he rhetorically asked them what came first – did they have kashas that caused them to leave Yiddishkeit, or did they leave Yiddishkeit and then come up with the kashas. His point was that they didn’t leave observance because of deep philosophical questions. Rather, they left Torah and then came up with the kashas so as to give their abhorrent behavior a veil of validity. This phenomenon remains common nowadays. Rav Dovid Orlofsky Shlita tells of a Mashgiach of a Yeshiva who approached him with regard to a yeshiva bachur who claimed to have doubts in Emuna, and as a result, was beginning to get involved in objectionable activities. The Mashgiach told Rav Orlofsky that he had spent much time with the boy discussing Jewish thought, studying the philosophical works of great Jewish thinkers such as the Rambam and Rav Yehuda HaLevi . Yet nothing had helped, and he continued on his path away from Torah. Rav Orlofsky explained that it was clear that bachur had no genuine issues in Emuna, rather he enjoyed going to town more than learning in the Beis Medrash! All the Mashgiach’s philosophical arguments met deaf ears, because they meant nothing to the boy. It was more instructive to address the real issues that were causing his descent from Yiddishkeit. How can a person develop the skill of discerning when a person is saying one thing but doesn’t really mean what he is saying? The incident of the misonenim also helps answer this. After the people began complaining, ostensibly about the difficult journey, the Torah tells us that, “HaShem heard (vayishma) and His wrath flared…” What does the Torah come to teach us by telling us the seemingly obvious fact that HaShem ‘heard’? The verb, ‘lishmoa’ does not merely mean to hear, rather it also can mean, ‘to understand’. Therefore, the Torah is telling us that HaShem understood the true intents of the people – that they had no real complaint, rather they were looking to distance themselves from Him. He reacted accordingly. Or course, we are not able to understand a person’s thoughts. However we can strive to emulate HaShem by discerning what he really means when he says something, and consequently come to a more accurate understanding of what he really means. For example, a person may ask, why there is so much suffering in the world. There are numerous possible reasons as to why a person may ask such a question; he may have experienced a tragedy and be grappling with it; he may have a genuine desire to understand this difficult issue; or he may be simply using this issue as an excuse to attack Judaism. The only way to discern his true intent is to probe further as to what exactly he means – in this way, one can address his real issue. Similarly, a child may complain that he does not enjoy school. A parent could take this complaint at face value and try to help him enjoy learning more. However, if the parent probes further, he may discover that in truth the child has no problem with his studies, rather there is a different problem, for example, another boy may be bullying him and therefore he doesn’t want to go to school. With this understanding, the parent can now address the problem in a far more effective way. The lessons of the episode of the misonenim are as relevant today as they were in the desert. May we all merit to emulate HaShem and learn to understand the true meaning of people’s words. “The people were like those who seek complaints in the ears of HaShem, and HaShem heard and His wrath flared…” As the Jewish people were on the verge of entering Eretz Yisroel, they began complaining to HaShem. It is not immediately apparent what exactly they were complaining about. Rashi, based on the Sifri, explains that, in truth, they had no specific complaint, rather they were seeking a pretext to justify distancing themselves from HaShem. In a similar vein, the Seforno writes that they had no valid reason to complain, but they made it appear as if they were complaining about the difficulty of the journey. These explanations help answer the question of why the Torah writes that they were “like” complainers, as opposed to being actual complainers. It is possible to answer that the Torah is alluding that they were not really complaining about anything. Therefore they were not genuine complainers who had a real grievance, rather they were like complainers in that they made out as if they had a gripe. We learn from the Sifri that there are occasions when a person can voice a complaint or make an argument, when in truth, he doesn’t really believe in what he is saying. Rather he is using it as an excuse to justify an undesirable form of behavior. In the case of the misonenim, this undesirable behavior manifested itself in the people’s desire to distance themselves from HaShem. We see a further striking example of how what a person says does not necessarily represent what he means, in the argument between Kayin and Hevel that culminated in the murder of Hevel. The Torah tells us that Kayin spoke with Hevel before he killed him. “And Kayin spoke to Hevel his brother, and whilst they were in the field, Kayin rose up against his brother, Hevel, and killed him.” The Torah does not tell us what Kayin spoke about with Hevel. Targum Yonasan tells us that Kayin spoke words of kefira (denial of G-d) to Hevel, arguing that there was no G-d, and no concept of reward and punishment. Hevel argued with Kayin and in the midst of their argument, Kayin rose up and killed Hevel. Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita, asks why the Torah refrained from presenting this seemingly fundamental philosophical debate, leaving it to Chazal to fill in the details. He answers that the Torah was teaching us that Kayin didn’t necessarily believe in what he was saying, rather he was looking for an excuse to initiate an argument with his brother. The Torah refrained from revealing Kayin’s words because their actual content was irrelevant. We see again from here that a person’s most passionate arguments may be a screen to hide his true intentions. In this vein, the story is told of a number of yeshiva bachurim in the Yeshiva of Volozhin, who left the yeshiva and ultimately left Torah observance. Years later, they approached their Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, and told him that they had kashas on fundamental aspects of Torah thought, that they wanted to pose to him. Before they could ask their questions, he rhetorically asked them what came first – did they have kashas that caused them to leave Yiddishkeit, or did they leave Yiddishkeit and then come up with the kashas. His point was that they didn’t leave observance because of deep philosophical questions. Rather, they left Torah and then came up with the kashas so as to give their abhorrent behavior a veil of validity. This phenomenon remains common nowadays. Rav Dovid Orlofsky Shlita tells of a Mashgiach of a Yeshiva who approached him with regard to a yeshiva bachur who claimed to have doubts in Emuna, and as a result, was beginning to get involved in objectionable activities. The Mashgiach told Rav Orlofsky that he had spent much time with the boy discussing Jewish thought, studying the philosophical works of great Jewish thinkers such as the Rambam and Rav Yehuda HaLevi . Yet nothing had helped, and he continued on his path away from Torah. Rav Orlofsky explained that it was clear that bachur had no genuine issues in Emuna, rather he enjoyed going to town more than learning in the Beis Medrash! All the Mashgiach’s philosophical arguments met deaf ears, because they meant nothing to the boy. It was more instructive to address the real issues that were causing his descent from Yiddishkeit. How can a person develop the skill of discerning when a person is saying one thing but doesn’t really mean what he is saying? The incident of the misonenim also helps answer this. After the people began complaining, ostensibly about the difficult journey, the Torah tells us that, “HaShem heard (vayishma) and His wrath flared…” What does the Torah come to teach us by telling us the seemingly obvious fact that HaShem ‘heard’? The verb, ‘lishmoa’ does not merely mean to hear, rather it also can mean, ‘to understand’. Therefore, the Torah is telling us that HaShem understood the true intents of the people – that they had no real complaint, rather they were looking to distance themselves from Him. He reacted accordingly. Or course, we are not able to understand a person’s thoughts. However we can strive to emulate HaShem by discerning what he really means when he says something, and consequently come to a more accurate understanding of what he really means. For example, a person may ask, why there is so much suffering in the world. There are numerous possible reasons as to why a person may ask such a question; he may have experienced a tragedy and be grappling with it; he may have a genuine desire to understand this difficult issue; or he may be simply using this issue as an excuse to attack Judaism. The only way to discern his true intent is to probe further as to what exactly he means – in this way, one can address his real issue. Similarly, a child may complain that he does not enjoy school. A parent could take this complaint at face value and try to help him enjoy learning more. However, if the parent probes further, he may discover that in truth the child has no problem with his studies, rather there is a different problem, for example, another boy may be bullying him and therefore he doesn’t want to go to school. With this understanding, the parent can now address the problem in a far more effective way. The lessons of the episode of the misonenim are as relevant today as they were in the desert. May we all merit to emulate HaShem and learn to understand the true meaning of people’s words.

GOING UP TO THE HEAVENS - NITZAVIM

After a lengthy admonition regarding the consequences of not following the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu famously assures the people that despite the seeming difficulty in learning and keeping the Torah, it is actually easily attainable.
“For this commandment that I command you today, it is not hidden from you and it is not distant. It is not in the heavens, [for you] to say, ‘Who can ascend to the heavens for us and take it for us and let us hear it, so that we can perform it?’ Nor is it across the sea, [for you] to say, ‘Who can cross to the other side of the sea for us and take it for us, and let us hear it, so that we can perform it?’ Rather the matter is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to perform it.”
Rashi explains that these verses are referring to the whole Torah as opposed to any specific Mitzvo. On the words, “it is not in the Heavens”, the Gemara observes, that if it was in the Heavens, then we would somehow have to go up there to learn it. And on the words, “nor is it across the sea”, the Gemara points out that if it were across the sea, we would have to cross the sea to learn it.
The following story involving the great tzaddik, Rav Zalman of Volozhin zt”l demonstrates the lesson we should take from this Gemara. On one occasion, Rav Zalman was learning in a small village. On the other side of the river was the great town of Vilna. In the middle of the night, Rav Zalman felt a great desire to study a particular sefer (book) that was in the main Beis Hamidrash (study hall) in Vilna. He didn’t hesitate for one moment, rather he went out in the middle of the night in the freezing cold weather to Vilna until he found the book that he desired. The onlookers were shocked at how he could go to such extremes in such cold weather to get a book. He explained with the verses in Nitzavim that say that the Torah is not in the Heavens and is not across the sea. He then quoted the aforementioned Gemara stating that if the Torah was in the Heavens or across the sea, one would have to go there to study it. The short journey across the river to get to Vilna was nearer than the Heavens and even closer than across the sea. Accordingly, he felt that he had to make the required effort to attain the book that he needed for his Torah learning. We learn from Rav Zalman’s actions that whilst HaShem does not make impossible demands on us with regard to learning Torah, He does expect us to make considerable effort to learn to the best of our abilities.
We further learn from a Gemara in Yoma that any obstacles blocking our ability to learn Torah are not insurmountable. The Gemara says that when a man comes to the next world he will be asked about his Torah learning. The Gemara anticipates a number of excuses that one may use to justify his failure to learn. He may claim that he was too poor, and because of his poverty he had to spend all his time trying to earn a livelihood. Alternatively, he may argue that he was too rich, and that he was too distracted by his business to learn. Moreover, he may maintain that since he supported Torah with his money, he was exempt from learning Torah himself. Thirdly, he may contend that he was too beautiful to be able to avoid the yetser hara of immorality. The Gemara proceeds to provide examples of people who faced the most difficult tests in these areas, and despite this, succeeded in learning and observing the Torah. Hillel was an extremely poor man and he could not even afford to pay the entrance fee to the Beis Hamidrash, yet he went to extreme ends to try to learn. Rebbe Elazar was extremely rich and faced tremendous pressure to focus on his businesses, but he preferred to focus on his learning. Yosef HaTzadik was exceptionally beautiful and faced great tests in immorality, yet he withstood the temptation. This Gemara teaches us that no-one can claim that it was impossible for him to learn or observe Torah because of his circumstances. Of course, there are challenges that must be overcome, but with the requisite effort, everyone can learn and observe the Torah.
What is the key factor that determines whether a person to overcome the many obstacles preventing him from Torah learning? It seems that this can be answered with Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l’s response to a question he was asked by a businessman. The man told him that he was so busy that he only had a very short amount of time available to learn each day. He asked Rav Yisroel what he should learn in that short time. Rav Yisroel answered him that he should learn Mussar . Once he does that, he would soon realize that he could find considerably more time to learn! Rav Yisroel was communicating to him that the reason that he could not find more time to learn was that learning did not have a high enough priority in his life. By learning Mussar he would develop his appreciation of the importance of learning Torah to his life and as a result he would find more time. We learn from here that if a person appreciates the true value of Torah learning, then he will place it far higher up in his list of priorities. As a result, he will find it far easier to overcome all the barriers and distractions that prevent him from learning.
A person may intellectually realize that Torah learning is very important to their lives, but it still remains very difficult to internalize this and apply it to one’s life. Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l gives a very insightful suggestion in this area. When a person is very tired, it is difficult for him to motivate himself to do anything that involves much effort or thought, including learning Torah. Similarly, if someone were very busy, he would find it very difficult to find any time to learn. However, if one were to offer him a large sum of money to learn Torah for half an hour extra, then he would suddenly find the time and energy! This teaches us that if something is valuable enough then a person will conjure up the time and energy to do it, despite the difficulty. Chazal teach us that one moment of learning Torah is infinitely rewarded, more than any other Mitzvo, needless to say it is of infinitely more value than all the money in the world. Accordingly, when a person is busy or tired, if he would think that of the reward that he could accrue by taking a few minutes to learn Torah, then he could surely overcome the challenges and do so.

As the Yamim Noraim (High Holy Days) approach, it is essential to assess one’s life priorities and ask oneself if he truly devotes as much time to learning Torah as possible. Chazal’s assertion that he must go up to the Heavens and across the sea to learn Torah, teach him he must certainly try to overcome the smaller challenges that he faces.