Good News

This week, as the Shabbos immediately following Tisha B’Av, is known as Shabbos Nachamu because the Haftorah we read begins with the words “Nachamu Nachamu Ami.” The words of the Navi Yeshaya are a soothing balm to the pain of the Churban, and the Hafotoros of the next six weeks continue in this vein. But as much as the date on the calendar makes this week Shabbos Nachamu, it seems that the Parshas HaShavuah does as well: there is no version of our calendar in which Parshas Veschanan is not Leined on Shabbos Nachamu, tying the Parsha and the Nechama together. This being the case, as we learn the Parsha we can certainly find multiple connections between the Pessukim, the Haftorah, and the theme of Nechama. One such instance can be found at the very beginning of the Sedra.

The first part of the Parsha discusses the Tefilos that Moshe Rabbeinu offered in an attempt to enter Eretz Yisroel along with Klal Yisroel. Chazal tell us that Moshe was so determined to be allowed into Aretzeinu HaKedosha that he said five hundered and fifteen Teffilos, equal in number to the Gematria of the word V’Eschanan. Nonetheless, the Torah tells us that he Bakashos were no accepted, and in his own narrative Moshe describes the moment in which he was informed of this: “Vayisaber Hashem Bi Lemanchem V’Lo Shama Elai.” Moshe says that Hashem became angry with him, and did not listen to his Teffilos but instead told him “Rav Lach Al Tosif Daber Elai Od BaDavar HaZeh.”

There are two parts of this Passuk that require explanation. First, in describing the anger that Hashem reacted with, Moshe uses the word “Lemanchem”, which means “for you” or “on behalf of you.” This word would seem to indicate that Klal Yisroel, to whom Moshe was speaking at the time, was somehow tied to the anger of Hashem. Indeed Rashi notes that Moshe was telling Bnei Yisroel that they were the cause of Hashem’s anger: because the complained after Miriam passed away, and Moshe was forced to hit the rock, he was not allowed into Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, the nation was indirectly responsible for Moshe’s punishment, and it was this reality that he refers to by using the word “Lemanchem”.

While this is the simplest Pshat in the Passuk, there are a few questions that may lead us to explore a different approach. First, Moshe, the Anav Mikol Adam, would certainly be the last person to place blame for his own shortcomings on others. We would assume that he would take responsibility for his actions at the Mei Meriva and their consequences. Why would he go out of his way to remind Bnei Yisroel that they had an indirect hand in his inability to enter the land? In addition, the word “Lemanchem” seems out of place. If Moshe’s intention was to remind Bnei Yisroel of their role, a word such as “Ba’adchem” or “Bishvilchem”, which indicates a causal relationship should be used. In that case, the Passuk would mean “And Hashem became angry at me because of you.” The word Lemanchem usually means “on behalf of you,” and it has an almost beneficial connotation. How can we understand this meaning in the context of the Passuk.

Also, in telling Moshe to cease his remonstrations, Hashem says “Rav Lach”, you have much, but the Passuk does not explain what this refers to, and why it was a reason for Moshe to stop Davening. there are differing opinions in the Meforshim with regard to these words as well. Some assume that they are the conclusion of the Divrei Tochacha of Hashem to Moshe, in keeping with the first half of the Passuk. Rashi himself offers two Pshatim, the first is in line with that approach, but the second seems a bit more positive. In this rendering, the words “Rav Lach” refer to the Schar of Moshe Rabbeinu, as Rashi quotes the Sifri: “Harbeh Mizeh Shamur Lach, more than this awaits you.” While this understanding of the words “Rav Lach” is certainly sunnier, and puts a positive spin on the final words of Hashem, with this explanation the Passuk seems almost disjointed. How does the anger described at the beginning of the Passuk, “Vayisaber Hashem Bi” relate to these final words portending the Schar that awaited Moshe Rabbeinu? Certainly these words require a bit more explanation to be fully understood.

Indeed there is a Gemarah in Sotah which discusses the words “Rav Lach”, but it may serve only to confound us within the context of this discussion. The Gemarah there is discussing the Misah and Kevurah of Moshe Rabbeinu, and brings a Drasha related to these words: “B’Rav Biser Ubirav Bisruhu” The literal translation of the words does little to help our understanding: “He gave them news with the word ‘Rav and so he was given news with the word ‘Rav.’ The Gemarah refers to the words “Rav Lachem” used by Moshe when speaking to Korach and the words “Rav Lach” used by Hashem in speaking to Moshe in our Parsha, but the intent is somewhat vague. The simplest meaning, offered by Rash, is that Moshe used the words “Rav Lachem” in speaking to Korach, and there was therefore an element of Midah K’Neged Midah in that he was told that he would not be entering Eretz Yisroel using the words “Rav Lach.”

This understanding of the Gemarah is predicated on the acceptance of two assumptions: First, that Moshe had to be punished for using the words “Rav Lachem” when speaking to Korach, and second, that the words “Rav Lach” used in our Passuk have a negative connotation. As to the first assumption, we would have to understand why this is the case—the Torah Temimah notes that it is difficult to imagine that Moshe Rabbeinu was in any way wrong in any part of that Machlokes, even on his lofty level. as far as the second assumption, we have already seen that the words “Rav Lach” are open to interpretation, and indeed according to the Sifri cited by Rashi on Chumash were somewhat positive. If the words “Rav Lach” spoke of the Schar that awaited Moshe, how could they be the result of his interactions with Korach?

There is an additional question on this Gemarah, stemming from the use of the word “Biser”. This term is usually understood as “informing” or giving someone a piece of news. But in the case of Korach, what did Moshe tell him? The words “Rav LAchem Bnei Levi” are not news, but a response to the aspersions of Korach and his fellows, specifically that Moshe took the Kehuna for his own brother. How is the response of “Rav Lachem” a Besurah, such that Moshe was later informed using these words?

With these questions in mind, it would seem that an alternate understanding of the Gemarah is necessary, and in order to develop an approach, perhaps we should better understand the concept of a Besurah.

There is another Gemarah, earlier in Meseches Sotah, that mirrors the one we are discussing, and can perhaps add some insight. There the Gemrah discusses Yehuda, and tells us “B’Haker Biser L’Aviv, Ubihaker Bisruhu” and explains that Yehuda used the words “Haker Nah” when showing his father the blood-soaked Kesones Pasim, and so a similar term was used during the when he was told to examine the items he had left with Tamar. The Middah Kneged Middah in this case is a little more understandable—Yehuda caused his father pain in asking him to examine the Kesones and he likely experienced a similar emotion when he realized his own error—but usage the term Biser in both cases is noteworthy as well. In neither case was actual news delivered, rather evidence was produced that changed the perception of the one asked to examine them. Yehuda didn’t tell Yaakov what happened to Yosef, he asked him to examine the Kesones and draw his own conclusions. Similarly, when presented with the items left behind with Tamar, the ones showing them to Yehuda did not even understand their significance to him personally, but when he saw them Yehuda understood exactly what had transpired.

It seems then that the definition of a Besurah is not merely relating news, but introducing a new reality, one that is contrary to the listener’s prior assumptions. When a person realizes that everything he believed, or the reality he lived in, is no longer true, he has received a Besurah.

With this in mind, let us turn back to the Gemarah in Sota, and ask ourselves what Besurah Moshe gave Korach, and what Besurah he received Midah Kneged Middah.

As we noted, Korach complained that Moshe “took” the Kehuna for Aron and his sons, with the assumption that this was a more beneficial position and Moshe responded by saying “Rav Lachem Bnei Levi.” The Yalkut Shimoni explains that Moshe pointed out that Korach’s assumption was mistaken: whereas the Kohanim take only a small portion of a limited type of produce as Terumah, Leviim take a full tenth of all grain. In this way, Moshe was showing Korach that his original notion, that the Kehuna was “better”, was in fact mistaken. In doing so he delivered a Besurah, introducing a new reality to Korach’s world, with the words “Rav Lachem.”

What then of the words “Rav Lach” used by Hakadosh Baruch Hu in our Passuk?

Chazal tell us that there was no other reason for Moshe’s drive to enter Eretz Yisroel other than the fact that there were Mitzvos that he could only perform there. There are of course Mitzvos HaTeluyos B’Aretz that can only be done with the land and products or Eretz Yisroel, and there were also Mitzvos that were only applicable once Bnei Yisreol conquered and settled the land. Moshe wished to each Mitzvah, and as such had a strong desire to enter Aretzenu HaKedosha. The Shl”a Hakadosh, in the name of his father, explains that Hakadosh Baruch Hu pointed out a flaw in Moshe’s thinking: there are many Mitzvos that you could not fulfil even if you did enter Eretz Yisroel, such as Mitzvos reserved for Kohanim, or Mitzvos that are circumstantial, such as Yibum. Rather, explained Hashem, “Rav Lach” you have the Schar as if you had already done the Mitzvos as a result of your having submersed yourself in the Torah. Because Moshe was so closely connected to each Mitzvah, having devoted the time and energy to understanding them, it was as if he had already performed them.

This was the Besurah that Moshe received with the words Rav Lach: he was under the assumption that he would have to enter Eretz Yisroel and perform the Mitzvos in order to obtain the Schar for them, but Hashem told him that this was not the case, but that the Schar awaited him: “Rav Lach”. If we think about it this is closely tied to Moshe’s use of the words “Rav Lachem” in his conversation with Korach, making the Middah K’neged Middah easily understood.

Perhaps this is the meaning of the word “Lemanchem” as well: by telling Moshe that he would get Schar for the Mitzvos he learned about even if he could not do them, we, Klal Yisroel learn an important lesson: we too can earn Schar for Mitzvos by connecting to them even when we cannot perform them. In this way even this most painful moment for Moshe, when he realized that his hopes would not be realized, was to our benefit.

The concept of Besurah is one that is closely related to Shabbos Nachamu as well.

The Passuk in the Haftorah speaks of the time when we will hear the news for which we yearn: “Al Har Gavoah Ali Lach Mevaseres Zion, Harimu Bakoach Koleich Mevaseres Yesrushalayim.” Here too, the terms Besurah is employed, telling us that on that day, the one for which we wait impatiently, a new reality will be introduced the world over. In fact, the Zohar says that the “Har Gavoah” mentioned in the Passuk is Har HaIvriim, the spot of Moshe Rabbeinu’s Kever—perhaps a reference to the Besurah of “Rav Lach”. On that day, we will truly realize the meaning of these words, as we witness how our connection to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, even as we are strangers in strange lands, pays dividends. The prior assumptions of all mankind will indeed be shaken to their core when this Besurah arrives.

As we wait for that day, then, let us strengthen our own commitment to the promise of “Rav Lach”, connecting to the Mitzvos through action or learning, and in this way we will indeed be Zoche to the ultimate Nechama and the Mevaseres Zion V’Yerushalayim.