Expansion Opportunities

הֶחֱזִיקוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה מְלֹא חֹפֶן שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְלֹא חֹפֶן שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, מִכָּאן שֶׁמּוּעָט מַחֲזִיק מְרֻבֶּה

Parshas Vaera speaks about seven out of the ten Makkos, describing in great detail the discussions between Moshe Raabeinu and Pharoah as well as the way that each of the Makkos came to be. When it comes to Makkas Shechin , the sixth Makkah, the Torah tells us that Hashem gave the following instructions to Moshe and Ahron: קְחוּ לָכֶם מְלֹא חׇפְנֵיכֶם פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן וּזְרָקוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַשָּׁמַיְמָה לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה׃. Both Moshe and Ahron were to fill their hands with the ashes of an oven, and Moshe was to throw the ashes towards the heavens.

The Medrash, here, explains that this was no simple matter, rather: נֵס גָּדוֹל נַעֲשָׂה בַּשְּׁחִין. The Nes, as described by the Medrash, was that while both Moshe and Aharon had filled their hands, הֶחֱזִיקוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה מְלֹא חֹפֶן שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְלֹא חֹפֶן שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, Moshe would hold the combined amount of פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן in his hands along. The Medrash concludes with a broad statement: מִכָּאן שֶׁמּוּעָט מַחֲזִיק מְרֻבֶּה.

There are several questions that can be asked on this Medrash, as we seek to understand its content and message.

First, the Medrash begins by describing the events it is to describe as נֵס גָּדוֹל, which is curious. While it was certainly a Nes that Moshe’s hands held double the amount of פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן that they should have, this hardly seems to be a Nes of notable magnitude in the context of the Makkos. Why then does the Medrash assign it such importance?

This question is magnified by the way the Medrash explains the next Passuk.

After Moshe Rabbeinu had the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן in his hands, he was threw it into the sky, וְהָיָה לְאָבָק עַל כׇּל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם and it fell upon the whole land of Mitzrayim . The Medrash, here, tells us: וְעוֹד נֵס אַחֵר נַעֲשָׂה בַּשְּׁחִין, there was yet another Nes related to the Makka of Shechin . Geneally , explains the Medrash, אָדָם מְפַזֵּר עָפָר קַב אֶחָד אֵין מְפַזֵּר אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, if a person throws dust into the sky, it will perhaps travel a short distance. In this case, however, משֶׁה נָטַל מְלֹא יָדוֹ וּפִזְרוֹ עַל כָּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, Moshe threw the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן into the air and it spread over the whole Mitzrayim .

These two Nissim don’t really seem comparable—certainly the dispersion of the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן over the entirety of Mitzrayim is a bigger Nes then the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu held more of the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן than he should have been able to. Yet the Medrash refers to the latter as a נֵס גָּדוֹל and the former as a נֵס אַחֵר. This seems to indicate that the Nes of מּוּעָט מַחֲזִיק מְרֻבֶּה was a greater Nes—why? What is it about this Nes that garners this description?

We must also understand why this Nes occurred at all. The amount of פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן contained in the hands of Moshe Rabbeinu and Ahron HaKohen combined was clearly not enough to spread out עַל כׇּל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, why then were both necessary? Although the additional measure of ashes reduced the Nes by a small degree, it necessitated the additional Nes of מּוּעָט מַחֲזִיק מְרֻבֶּה. Why did HKBH instruct Moshe and Aharon to bring the Makkah about in this way? It does not seem that the Nes of מּוּעָט מַחֲזִיק מְרֻבֶּה was really needed—why were circumstances arranged so that it was?

Even the use of the concept of מּוּעָט מַחֲזִיק מְרֻבֶּה, in this case is questionable.

At the beginning of Parshas Beraishis , the Torah tells us that Hashem said יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מָקוֹם אֶחָד, instructing all the water on the earth to gather in one place. The Medrash Rabba there points out the difficulty in understanding these words: generally, if someone wants to empty out a pitcher of water, he does so into a vessel that is empty, not one that is full. In this case, however, כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ מַיִם בְּמַיִם, וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר אֶל מָקוֹם אֶחָד, the world was already covered in water, וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר אֶל מָקוֹם אֶחָד. How was this possible? The Medrash answers: מִכָּאן שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה, there is a concept of a space holding more than it should, and that applied here as well.

The Medrash continues, listing other examples of this phenomenon. For example, in Parshas Chukas the Torah tells us וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַקָּהָל אֶל־פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע, indicating that the entire Klal Yisroel stood in front of the סָּלַע. This was clearly impossible—the סָּלַע was not that large—but in this case הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה. Similarly, the Chatzer of the Mishkan was relatively small—only one-hundred Amos by fifty Amos—yet the Torah tells us that all of Klal Yisroel stood there. This, too, was only possible because הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה. Similarly, the Mikdash itself was not very large, and the Mishna tells us: עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים. This too, explains the Medrash was because of the rule that הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה.

To be sure, the Medrash there speaks about Makas Shechin as well, in fact adding details that are not mentioned in the Medrash in Parshas Va’era , but taken on the whole , it seems that there is a difference between the rule ofהֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה as applied here and elsewhere. In the other examples given by the Medrash, a space seems to have expanded to allow more people that it otherwise should have—the Mikdash was not large enough to allow everyone to be properly כּוֹרֵעַ, yet עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים. There is only one application of this idea as it pertains to a person, however, and that is Moshe Rabbeinu . The fact that הֶחֱזִיקוּ יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה מְלֹא חֹפֶן שֶׁלּוֹ וּמְלֹא חֹפֶן שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן seems to be a unique occurrence of הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה, and we must understand why.

Why now, as the Makka of Shechin was introduced, were matters arranged in a way that the reality of הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה was necessary? Why is this apparently exceptional application to this rule made here and now?

In answering these questions, another Medrash on Makkas Shechin seems relevant to the discussion.

The Tanchuma in this week’s Parsha tells us: הַמַּכּוֹת הָאֵלּוּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל יְדֵי אַהֲרֹן, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עַל יְדֵי הַקָּבָּ''ה. Three Maakos were brought about by Aharon, three by Moshe Rabbeinu , and three by HKBH. The Medrash enumerates these as follows: the first three Makkos were brought by Aharon; Barad, Arbeh and Choshech were brought by Moshe Rabbeinu and HKBH brought about Arov , Dever and Makkas Bechoros . Then the Medrash tells us: וּשְׁחִין עַל יְדֵי כֻּלָּן, there was only one Makka that had the participation, so to speak, of Moshe, Aharon and HKBH: Makkas Shechin .

How can we understand the Tanchuma in the context of the Medrash Rabba? It cannot be coincidental that the one Makka that was brought about by HKBH, Moshe and Aharon was also the Makka which brought with it a display of הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה. Why was this the case?

R’ Yonnasan Shteif , in a Drasha for Parshas Shelach, discusses concepts of Nissim and Teva in a way that may allow us to answer these questions.

The Passuk in Shir Hashirim describes HKBH as מַשְׁגִּיחַ מִן הַחַלֹּנוֹת מֵצִיץ מִן הַחֲרַכִּים, watching from a window and peering from a crack. R’ Shteif explains that these two descriptions reveal the two ways that the world works. Sometimes, we see the Yad Hashem clearly, through open Nissim as though looking through a window—this is the Hanhaga of מַשְׁגִּיחַ מִן הַחַלֹּנוֹת. At other times, however, though we know that there is Hashgachas Hahsem at play, it is hidden from our view and we only see Teva. This is the Hanhaga of מֵצִיץ מִן הַחֲרַכִּים.

. Although both of these Hanhagos are obviously dependent on the Hashgachas Hashem, there are times when each force takes precedence. For example, in the Midbar , the Hanhaga of Nissim was more common than in later times when Hashgacha was more relevant. There were, of course, Nissim that happened after we entered Eretz Yisroel, but not with the same frequency or magnitude as during the years of the Midbar .

As such, continues R’ Shteif , when we are living in a time of Teva, we are meant to lead our lives accordingly. We cannot rely on Nissim to sustain us, as the Monn did in the Midbar , but must work within the confines on Teva. In fact, R’ Shteif refers to one who tries to live outside this framework as חוֹטֵא נֶגֶד הַטֶּבַע and notes that Teva has no power to be Mochel one who does so. Such is the imperative to live within the Hanhaga of the times, and act in a way that reflects the constraints of Teva.

This, however, is limited to the world of Gashmi, our physical existence. One must understand his limitations, Al Pir Derech HaTeva , and cannot try to exceed them in any which way. When it comes to Devarim Shebekedusha , explains R’ Shteif , there is no such limitation. Because the Neshama is a Chelek Eloka M’Maal and represents Ruchnias , the forces of Teva are not in place. Therefore, when it comes to the pursuit of Kedusha, a person does not need to hold himself back—he can pursue a Madreigah that seems well out of his reach.

R’ Shteif continues, explaining that because Ruchnias takes precedence over Teva, the more a person is committed to living in the Olam HaRuchani , the less bearing Teva has one his life. He illustrates this idea based on a novel approach to a familiar story.

As we know, there was a time that the Machlokes between R’ Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel left Klal Yisroel without a leader, and the Chachamim asked R’ Elazar ben Azariah to assume the role. At the time, R’ Elazar was very young, and he felt that it would not be fitting for the role to be occupied by someone with a youthful appearance. The Gemara in Brachos tells us: אִתְרְחִישׁ לֵיהּ נִיסָּא וְאִהַדַּרוּ לֵיהּ תַּמְנֵי סְרֵי דָּרֵי חִיוָּרָתָא, he grew a white beard overnight. The Rambam, in Pirush HaMishnayos , however, tells us that R’ Elazar’s beard turned white because he toiled in Limud HaToah , exerting so much effort that he looked old beyond his years.

The Chasam Sofer, in Parshas Chayei Sarah, notes that the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara, which clearly says אִתְרְחִישׁ לֵיהּ נִיסָּא , and explains that in fact the two are aligned. Because R’ Elazar was so steeped in the Olam HaRuchani , he was not subject to Teva and therefore, his exertion did not take the toll on him that it should have. When it was necessary for him to take on an older appearance, however, a Nes occurred and Teva took its toll. The Nes, explains the Chasam Sofer, is that Teva was allowed to affect someone on the level of R’ Elazar.

This, explains R’ Shteif , is the reality of one who is Oved Hashem in a way that goes beyond Teva. If a person exerts himself in the pursuit of Torah and Avodah , removing natural limitations to his efforts, he can live in a world of Nissim, in which Teva has no role.

We can explain the Medrash based on these ideas.

The sixth Makkah, Shechin , represented a turning point in the way the Makkos were brought about. The first three Makkos were brought about by Aharon using the Matteh , and the next two Makkos— Arov and Dever—were brought by HKBH directly with no human intervention. This was the first time that Moshe Rabbeinu enacted a Nes, and he used his own physical body to do so, throwing the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן in the air.

This was therefore an opportunity to show Pharaoh, Bnei Yisroel, and all of us, the limitations of Teva.

It is understood that the Bais Hamikdash , the epicenter of Ruchnias and a place of constant Nissim, was not confined by Teva. It therefore follows that the rule of הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה applied, allowing a reality of עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים. The actions taken by Moshe and Aharon, at the direction of HKBH, to bring about Shechin , illustrated the extent to which this is true. By requiring Aharon to take his own handfuls of פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן and then having Moshe throw both his and Aharon’s handfuls in the air, it was clear that Teva did not apply to Moshe Rabbienu himself. Because of the commitment and efforts with which Moshe Rabbienu was Oved Hashem , his entire being was not subject to Teva—he discarded Teva in his pursuit of Ruchani , and was therefore able to enact a illustration of הֶחֱזִיק מוּעָט אֶת הַמְרֻבֶּה.

This is why Shechin was different from all the other Makkos, as the Tanchuma tells us וּשְׁחִין עַל יְדֵי כֻּלָּן, because it was necessary to have the handfuls of both Moshe and Aharon, and then a Nes from Hashem, to show the power of Kedusha over Teva.

This was the נֵס גָּדוֹל described by the Medrash. The fact that the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן spread throughout Mitzrayim was certainly a Nes, but it was of the same magnitude as other Nissim related to the Makkos, which exhibited the overall Hashgachas Hashem over Teva. The Nes illustrated by the Medrash with the words משֶׁה נָטַל מְלֹא יָדוֹ וּפִזְרוֹ עַל כָּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם was different because it showed the way that a person himself can rise above Teva through an unwavering pursuit of Ruchnias .

The lesson of the פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן resonates to this day: though we live in a world of Teva, it is limited to the world of Gashmi. When it comes to Ruchnias , we are in fact unbound by Teva and its forces, and can hope to achieve levels that might otherwise seem impossible.