From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:07 AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Nitzovim - Vayeilech, 5766




                                                How Can I Be Sure?

                      By Rabbi Joshua (uncertainly known as The Hoffer) Hoffman


  The other day I attended a mincha minyan in Midtown Manhattan that was followed by a short class on the weekly Torah reading. I do not know the name of the rabbi who delivered the class, so I offer my apologies for not quoting him by name. The rabbi raised the question of the seeming incongruity between the two Torah portions that are read this week. On the one hand, the first parsha, Nitzovim, refers to a state of stability, a call for Jewish people to gather in one place and stand there without moving. On the other hand, the second parsha, Vayeilech, refers to Moshe's movement from one tribe to the other, to give his final farewells before dying. Thus, the two words, 'nitzovim', which means to remain stationary, and 'vayeilech,' which means 'and he walked,' seem to be opposite terms, and it therefore seems incongruous to join them together and call them parshas Nitzovim - Vayeilech. Although the question itself is not really a question, since the beginning of one parsha really has nothing to do with the beginning of another parsha, I believe that the rabbi was merely using the question as a springboard for his discussion that followed. In any case, he answered that although, in the Jewish religion, we find areas in which we are allowed to go forward with our own initiative, such as in prayer, which has certain sections in which one can add his own personal petitions, still, the basic structure must remain inviolate. The rabbi went on to mention, in all, three areas in which we find this apparent dichotomy. I would, by virtue of Netvort license, use the same springboard as the rabbi who delivered the talk did, but suggest a different explanation for the joining of the two concepts, stability and movement, in light of a midrash which comments on a verse in parshas Vayeilech.


  As a prelude to telling Moshe to call Yehoshua to the tent of meeting, God says to him, "Behold ('hein') your days are coming near to die " (Devorim 31:14). Moshe replied that he was surprised to hear God using the same word - hein - with which he had praised God, saying 'Behold ! To the Lord your God are the heavens, and highest heavens, the earth and everything that is in it" (Devorim 10:14), to tell him that he would die without entering the Holy Land. God replied to Moshe that apparently he had forgotten that when God originally told him to lead the Jews out of Egypt, he had also replied used the word 'hein,' saying, "Behold they will not listen to me" (Shemos 4:1). Moreover, he sinned at the incident of the Mei Merivah, when he hit the rock instead of hitting it, as God said, "because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel" (Bamidbar 20:12). Rabbi Chaim Ya'akov Goldvicht, in his Asufos Ma'arachos to parshas Veyeilech, notes that two questions arise after reading this midrash. First, why should Moshe's praise of God be a reason for his punishment ? Second, why did God tell Moshe that he would die because of the 'hein' that he said in connection with his assumption that the people would not believe him, when the Torah itself says that he would not enter the land because of what he did at the incident of the Mei Merivah ?


  Rabbi Goldvicht answers his first question by saying that Moshe's recognition of God's greatness exacerbated his comment about the Jewish nation not believing him. Since God is, in fact, so great, Moshe should have believed that He is able to create circumstances that will move the people to believe in their coming redemption. As far as the second question, Rabbi Goldvicht explains that the roots of Moshe's sin at Mei Merivah were already extant when he said that the people would not believe him. Still, says Rabbi Goldvicht, we need to understand the function of the word 'hein'; in this entire process. He offers an explanation of the problematic nature of this word that is also suggested by Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch in his Ta'am VoDa'as. Rabbi Sternbuch, in his discussion, adds a point not made by Rav Goldvicht, and I would like to add a further point, not made by either of them.



  The word 'hein,' explain Rabbis Goldvicht and Sternbuch, implies certainty. According to Rabbi Sternbuch, Moshe asked God why He informed him of his coming death using that word, which implies certainty, and thereby removed the element of doubt that usually surrounds a person's demise. The psychological and theological ramifications of this certainty are great, and Moshe wanted to know why he was being subjected to them. God replied that He was simply using His trait of measure for measure. Since Moshe expressed such certainty in regard to the Jewish people, implying that he knew for certain that they would not believe him when he said their redemption would come soon, God used the same expression to inform him of his death. In regard to the Mei Merivah, as well, Moshe felt certain that he needed to hit he rock, rather than speak to it, and this also bespoke a lack of trust in the people expressed with certainty. Neither Rabbi Sternbuch nor Rabbi Goldvicht, however, spell out the deeper implications of this expression of certainty in regard to the sin at Mei Merivah, which the Torah spells out as the reason for Moshe's punishment of not leading the nation into the land. I would like to explore these implications, based on another midrash.


  The Yalkut Shimoni in parshas Chukas mentions a midrash which says that when Moshe hit the rock, he displayed a failure to appreciate the growth the nation had undergone during its years in the wilderness. At Refidim, when the people asked for water, God told Moshe to hit the rock. Therefore, when, forty years later, at Mei Merivah, they again asked for water, Moshe thought that he was, again, to hit the rock in order to provide them with water. As Rashbam explains, on the level of 'pshat,' without citing the midrash, Moshe assumed that God meant for him to hit the rock, since He told him to take his staff with him. Even though God explicitly told him to speak to the rock, Moshe understood this to mean that the way one speaks to a rock is by hitting it. This assumption was strengthened by the fact that, at Rephidim, that is exactly what God told him to do. The mistake Moshe made, says the midrash, is that he did not realize that, whereas at Rephidim he needed to hit the rock, because the people were not yet on a level to properly absorb the message implied in speaking to it, after forty years of witnessing God's daily miracles, they were ready. Moshe, thus, failed to appreciate the nation's growth, and still viewed them as he did when they were in their spiritual infancy. Simply stated, he froze his image of them at a particular point in time, and retained that image permanently. This image-freezing, I believe, is what occurs when a person is too certain of his perception of others, and that is what the midrash is telling us when it explains that Moshe was punished for using the word 'hein.'


  Returning to our original observation of the seeming incongruity between the two parshiyos of Nitzovim, the opening word of which implies a fixed state, and Vayeilech, the opening word of which implies a progressive state, I would like to suggest, in light of our discussion of the midrash concerning Moshe and his use of the word 'hein,' that there is, in fact, no incongruity. There are times in life when we need to interrupt our usual routine and take stock of where we are going. All of us must do this on Rosh Hashanah, the day of divine judgment. In fact, the Zohar explains the first verse in parshas Nitzovim, "You are all standing this day before the Lord your God,' as being an allusion to the day of Rosh HaShanah. However, the period of introspection that we begin on Rosh Hashanah should lead us to repentance and a closer relationship with God. The process of standing erect before God on Rosh HaShanah, then, is to make us realize that we can, in fact change, and that we should not freeze ourselves into the time frame of our previous actions. Because we have been blessed with free will, we are always capable of change and improvement, and are therefore subject to the consequences if we do not exercise this capacity. May we all grow in our relationship with God during the coming days of judgment and mercy, and merit a wonderful new year.


  Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

  To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.