Devarim - "How Can I Alone Carry Your Trouble, Your Burden, and Your Disputes?"

Parhas Devarim begins with the first of Moses' parting addresses to the Jewish people, in which he reviews their history and rebukes them - often in veiled terms - for their misdeeds. Early in the speech, Moses speaks of how he came to appoint judges over the people  (as told in Exodus 18). Here too, Moses engages in veiled rebuke. While Moses begins by stating that the reason who could not judge them alone was due to their numbers, and he blesses them that they should continue to increase, he then goes on to indicate that the need for additional judges was also due to less positive issues as well, stating (Deuteronomy 1:12):

איכה אשא לבדי טרחכם ומשאכם וריבכם:

"How can I alone carry your trouble, your burden, and your disputes?"

On a purely peshat (basic text) level, this verse could be interpreted as simply expanding on the idea that, as a numerous and growing nation, there was simply too many issues for one person, even Moses, to handle alone. However, asides from the fact that this would be repetitious, the terms used by the verse clearly carry a somewhat critical tone. In fact, Rashi, quoting the Sages (Sifri), understands these three terms to refer to veiled criticisms, and explains each in the context of Moses' role as a judge:

טרחכם. מלמד שהיו ישראל טרחנין, היה אחד מהם רואה את בעל דינו נוצח בדין, אומר יש לי עדים להביא, יש לי ראיות להביא, מוסיף אני עליכם דיינין:

ומשאכם. מלמד שהיו אפיקורסין, הקדים משה לצאת, אמרו מה ראה בן עמרם לצאת, שמא אינו שפוי בתוך ביתו, איחר לצאת, אמרו מה ראה בן עמרם שלא לצאת, מה אתם סבורים, יושב ויועץ עליכם עצות וחושב עליכם מחשבות:

וריבכם. מלמד שהיו רוגנים:

"Your trouble" - This teaches that [the children of] Israel were burdensome. If one would see that his opponent in court was winning, he would say, "I have witnesses to bring," "I have proofs to bring," "I am adding on judges to you." (See Ramban for a halachic  explanation of the latter.)

"Your burden" - This teaches that they were apikorsin (heretics). If Moses went out early [to judge cases] they would say, "Why did Ben Amram leave [home early]? Perhaps things are not going smoothly at home." If he would delay leaving [home] they would say, "What do you think? He is sitting and getting advice [from his wife (Sifri)] against you, and thinking thoughts against you."

"And your disputes" - This teaches that they were quarrelsome.

Each of these commentaries deserves extended discussion. On the most basic level, Moses was pointing out three problem areas among the Jewish people that made it particularly difficult to judge them.

The first problem was that judging cases between two Jews was exceptionally burdensome because each one was so determined to win that they would drag the case out far beyond reason and would take advantage of every possible technicality. It is important to note that Moses does not accuse them of actually engaging in any kind of dishonesty or violation of the rules but of an excessive drive to win which placed an undue burden on the judge. This behavior indicated that the litigants were motivated less by a desire for justice than by a desire to be victorious over their fellow.

The second problem was that the Jews would interpret any behavior of the judge, even outside of the court, as evidence that he was not judging their case properly. Thus, if he came early, "Uh oh! Must be problems at home! We better watch out!" And if he came late, "Uh oh! He must have been talking over the case with his wife! Who knows what she told him?"

It is significant that the Sages considered those who engaged in this behavior not simply as burdensome, but actually as apikorsim - a term usually translated as "heretics." This is because, contrary to what is commonly assumed, the category of apikoros -  "heretic" - does not refer only to one who does not accept the doctrines of Judaism, but also to one who shows disrespect for the Torah or its scholars. Maimonides writes (Commentary on the Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1):

ומלת אפיקורוס היא ארמית, ענינה מי שמפקיר ומבזה את התורה או לומדיה, ולפיכך קורין בזה השם כל שאינו מאמין ביסודי התורה או מי שמבזה החכמים או איזה תלמיד חכם שיהיה או המבזה רבו:

The word apikoros is Aramaic, and it refers to one who devalues or disparages the Torah or those who study it. The term is therefore used for anyone who does not believe in the fundamental principles of the Torah, or one who disparages the Sages or any other Torah scholar, or one who disparages his teacher.

To disparage a Torah scholar is to disparage the Torah itself, which is the entire foundation of Judaism. Thus, these Jews who spoke disparagingly of Moses were indeed apikorsim.

The third problem was that they were quarrelsome, i.e. they would engage in unnecessary and unproductive disputes. The Sages (Sifri) describe this as, "they would spend a selah (an ancient coin) to take two selaim, and they would spend two selaim to take three selaim." At first glance this would seem perfectly reasonable, after all, you need to spend money to make money. However, the repetition - one for two, two for three - indicates that what we are talking about here is that they would spend extra money in order to make their opponent pay extra money, even though they would walk away with the same amount of profit. (ראה עמק הנצי"ב) This, like the first problem, was rooted in an inappropriate desire to be victorious over their fellow, even when they didn't stand to gain anything.

The midrash (Eicha Raba 1:1) tells us that there were three prophets who prophesied using the term "eicha," Moses (in this verse), Isaiah (1:21, which we read in the haftara for Parshas Devarim), and Jeremiah (in Eicha - Lamentations). (We have discussed this midrash previously.) This would seem to indicate that there is some continuity between the themes discussed in these verses.

While this topic deserves a fuller exploration than I'm prepared to attempt at this time, the basic idea - that these problems are closely related to the sins that led to the destruction of the Second Temple and the exile of the Jewish from their land - is fairly straightforward.

The Talmud (Bava Metzia 30b) tells us:

דאמר רבי יוחנן: לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על ... שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה, ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין.

Rabbi Yochanan said, Jerusalem was not destroyed except because they decided their cases according to Torah law, and they did not go beyond the limits of the law.

The issue that Rabbi Yochanan is describing is precisely the issue that we described above as the first and third problem that Moses was describing. We can readily see how such problems are related to the more basic issue of sinas chinam (unjustified hatred) which, the Talmud (Yoma 9b) tells us, was the primary cause of the destruction of the Second Temple.

With regard to the second problem we discussed - i.e. the disrespect for Torah scholars we also find a directly parallel statement in the Talmud (Shabbos 119b):

אמר רבי יהודה: לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שביזו בה תלמידי חכמים

Rabbi Yehuda said, Jerusalem was not destroyed except because they disparaged Torah scholars.

We see here that disrespect for Torah scholars was one of the main contributing causes of the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people. This is closely connected to the famous Talmudic passage in Nedarim 81a that the reason the land was lost was "שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה" - "because they failed to recite the blessing on the Torah [before study]." As the commentaries (ר"ן בשם ר' יונה, ומשנה ברורה ס' מ"ז) explain that even though the Jewish people were studying Torah, they didn't properly appreciate the unique status of the Torah over and above all other wisdom. Torah that is studied without a proper appreciation of its significance is not truly Torah at all. Fundamentally, the failure to give the proper respect to Torah scholars is rooted in the failure to truly appreciate the Torah itself.

At this time of year, when we are in mourning over the destruction of our Holy Temples, it particularly appropriate for us to meditate upon the root causes of our exile, which is ultimately the root cause of all the tragedies and suffering of history. By carefully studying our own behavior and attitudes, and working to bring them in line with the teachings of the Torah, we will ultimately merit the coming of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. May it happen soon in our days!

---

From Av to Elul – From Tragedy to Repentance

We are currently in the Jewish month of Av, the month devoted to mourning the destruction of the Holy Temples in Jerusalem – which culminates in the fast of Tisha B’Av – and to our faith that God will eventually comfort us – as expressed in the seven haftaros read each Shabbos between Tisha B’Av and Rosh HaShana. The month of Av is followed by Elul, the month devoted to teshuva (repentance) in preparation for Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

What is the meaning of this sudden shift from the month of tragedy and mourning to the month of penitence and rapprochement between Man and God? To understand this we need to gain a deeper insight into the basic message of Av.

The Midrash (Eicha Raba 1:1) states:

Three [prophets] prophesied using the term “eicha”: Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Moses said, “How (Eicha) can I bear this people alone…” (Deut. 1:12). Isaiah said, “How (Eicha) has the faithful city become a harlot…” (Isaiah 1:21). Jeremiah said, “Alas! (Eicha) She sits in solitude…” (Lamentations 1:1).

R’ Levi said, “This is analogous to a noble-woman that had three servants, one saw her when she was in comfort, one saw her in her licentiousness, and one saw her in her disgrace. Similarly, Moses saw Israel in their honor and comfort and said, “How can I bear this people alone…”, Isaiah saw them in their licentiousness and said, “How has the faithful city become a harlot…”, and Jeremiah saw them in their disgrace and said, “Alas! She sits alone…”

These verses of Eicha are all read in the month of Av – the verses in Deuteronomy and Isaiah are read on the Shabbos before Tisha B’Av and the book of Lamentations is read on Tisha B’Av – and, taken together, they give us a key to the basic message of Av. The Elef HaMagen (Commentary on the Torah by Rav Eliezer Papo, d. 1824, author of the Pele Yo'etz) draws a connection between these three verses of Eicha and a passage in the Talmud (Yoma 35b):

A poor man, a wealthy man, and a wicked man are brought before [the heavenly court for] judgment. They say to the poor man, “Why didn't you study Torah?” If he responds that he was too poor and was preoccupied with his livelihood, they say to him, “Were you more impoverished than Hillel?” [Hillel the Elder, one of the greatest sages of the Talmud, was also an extremely poor man.] … 

They say to the wealthy man, “Why didn't you study Torah?” If he responds that he was wealthy and was preoccupied with his financial obligations, they say to him, “Were you more wealthy than Elazar ben Charsom?” [Rabbi Elazar ben Charsom was a prominent sage who was also extremely wealthy.]…

They say to the wicked man, “Why didn't you study Torah?” If he responds that he was very good-looking and was [therefore] preoccupied by his desires, they say to him, “Were you more beautiful than Joseph HaTzadik (the Righteous)?” [Joseph, the son of Jacob, was extremely beautiful and was severely challenged in this regard when he lived in the home of Potiphar in Egypt.]…

Thus we find that Hillel obligates the poor, Rabbi Elazar ben Charsom obligates the wealthy, and Joseph HaTzadik obligates the wicked.

The Talmud gives three categories of rationalizations – the excuses of poverty, wealth, and temptation – that people rely upon to deny their responsibility for their moral failures. Almost every excuse that we make for ourselves falls into one of these three categories. These three excuses are paralleled in the three verses of Eicha. Moses spoke of the Jewish people in their time of success, paralleling the challenge of wealth; Isaiah spoke of the Jewish people in their time of sin, paralleling the challenge of temptation; and Jeremiah spoke of the Jewish people in their time of suffering, paralleling the challenge of poverty.

Rav Avigdor Miller

The Midrash (Eicha Raba 1:1) points out the connection between the word Eicha and the word Ayeka (both words are spelled identically) in Genesis 3:8, when, after the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, God calls out to Man, “Ayeka?" - "Where are you?” What exactly was God asking? God certainly knew exactly where Adam and Eve were hiding! Rav Avigdor Miller explains:

Every sinner hides from Hashem… behind self-justifications and self-deceptions. ...all sinners are actually hiding from Him behind their barricades of self-deception and self-justification. ... Hashem calls to the Man: “Where are you?” meaning: Reveal yourself to Me, by removing the barricades of self-justification and false reasoning behind which you attempt to hide from Me.

The cry of Eicha – How can it be! – alludes to that original call of Ayeka – Where are you? – in which God calls us to stop deceiving ourselves and return to Him. The tragedies we mourn in the month of Av are repetitions of that call, intended to shake us out of our complacency and force us to accept responsibility for our actions. The message of Av is precisely this, that it was our failures – failures that we continue to repeat – that brought about these tragedies, and that we must recognize this and acknowledge our own power to change our behavior. We are not slaves to our circumstances; as human beings we are fundamentally free to control our actions, and we therefore bear the responsibility to do so.

Maimonides

Maimonides devotes two full chapters of his laws of repentance to the topic of free-will (Hil. Teshuva 5:1-3):

Free-will is given to every human being. If he wishes to turn himself to the good path and to be righteous, he has the ability to do so, and if he chooses to turn himself to the bad path, and be wicked, he has the power to do so....

Do not think... that God decrees upon a person at the beginning of his existence whether he will be righteous or wicked. It is not so! Rather, every single human being has the ability to be as righteous as Moses our Teacher, or as wicked as Jeroboam....

This concept is a major principle and the pillar of the Torah and the Commandment, as it says (Deuteronomy 30:15), "See, I have placed before you today life and good, and death and evil." And it is written (ibid. 11:26), "See, I have placed before you today blessing and curse."

Maimonides concludes his discussion of free-will stating (Hil. Teshuva 7:1):

Since, as we have explained, every human being has free-will, a man should strive to repent and to cleanse his hands of his sins, so that he should die as a penitent and merit to the life of the world to come.

The recognition of our free-will and responsibility is of fundamental importance as we enter the month of Elul – the month of teshuva (repentance). As long as we deceive ourselves into thinking that our actions are not within our control, teshuva is impossible. It is only after we accept responsibility for our deeds that we can begin the process of teshuva.

---

"Jerusalem has Sinned a Sin..." (Eicha 1:8)

In Megilas Eicha (the Book of Lamentations) we read (1:8):

חטא חטאה ירושלים על כן לנידה היתה וכו'

"Jerusalem has sinned a sin, therefore she has become a wanderer..."

(The translation of נידה as "wanderer" follows Rashi and Targum. Homiletically, it can also be understood as referring to a "niddah" - a menstruant woman, who is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes ritual purification.)

Many commentaries note the repetitious language of the opening words in the verse, "חטא חטאה ירושלים" - "Jerusalem has sinned a sin" - and a wide range of homiletic interpretations are given for this language.

The Chida

The Chida (Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai, d.1806), in his commentary Nachal Eshkol, gives nine interesting and illuminating explanations for the repetitious language of the verse. In most of these commentaries (the exceptions being the last two), the Chida interprets the double language either as indicating a "double sin", or as indicating that, despite some argument to minimize their guilt, nevertheless, their act was indeed a sin. It should be noted that some of explanations rely on rather obscure Kabbalistic concepts:

1. While, with regard to most sins, one is only held liable for the actual sinful act, with regard to the sin of idolatry one is held liable even for the thought of sin. Thus, when the Jewish people committed the sin of idolatry, they were held liable for a "double sin" - a sin of thought and a sin of deed.
2. The guilt of one who commits a crime in the palace of the king is far greater than that of one who commits a crime outside the immediate presence of the king. Jerusalem is the "palace of the king", and a sin committed within Jerusalem carries a double burden of guilt.
3. The Shechina (Divine Presence) rests in Jerusalem, and the land itself is holy. These factors should have a powerful influence on us to help us avoid sin and to serve God properly. To sin in such a environment therefore carries a double portion of guilt.
4. Rav Chaim Vital (d.1620) taught that saying that one does not wish to give tzedaka (charity) is considered a sinful act. Thus, the Jewish people indeed sinned by saying that they did not want to give tzedaka. (The Chida's intent here seems to be as follows. One of the sins that led to the churban (destruction) was the failure to give charity (Targum on Eicha 1:3). However, in of itself, the failure to give tzedaka is simply a failure to fulfill a positive obligation and should not be sufficient to bring about such a punishment. However, from Rav Chaim Vital we learn that if one explicitly states that he does not wish to give charity, this is considered a sinful act akin to idolatry. Thus, they indeed actively "sinned a sin.")
5. The Sages comment on this verse (Eicha Rabba 1:35):

   חטא חטאה ירושלים - אומות העולם אינן חוטאים? אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו 

   "Jerusalem has sinned a sin" - [And] the [other] nations of the word don't sin? Rather, even though they sin, it is insignificant, whereas [when the people of] Israel sin, they are punished.

   What is the justice in this? Why are the sins of the Jewish people considered so much worse than the sins of the nations? The answer is because God took us out of Egypt, gave us His Torah, performed great signs and wonders for us, and gave us the land of Israel, all for the purpose that we should obey His laws. Thus, the Jewish people are held to a higher standard and their sins, even those that would be of no significance with regard to the other nations, are indeed sins.
6. Alternatively, we can understand this medrash based upon a concept found in the work Chesed L'Avraham (a major Kabbalistic work written by the Chida's ancestor, Rav Avraham Azulai, d.1643) that, from the generation of the dispersal (resulting from the Tower of Babel), the sins of the non-Jewish nations only damage the "prince" (i.e. angel) assigned to that nation, whereas the sins of the Jewish people cause damage to the highest "attributes." Thus, the sins of Jewish people bear of double portion of guilt. At the same time, however, the fact that the sins of the Jewish people cause damage on such a high level also means that they can be rectified (the Chida does not explain exactly why this is so). Thus, "Jerusalem has sinned a sin" (i.e. the sins of the Jewish people are considered significant) "therefore she has become a niddah" - a menstruant woman - whose separation from her husband is temporary.
7. If a person sins unintentionally twice, it is no longer considered an unintentional sin. (The Chida states that we learn this from the second perek of Beitza, presumably referring to Beitza 16b, where we learn that one who twice forgets to make an eruv tavshilin is considered a poshea (negligent) and cannot rely on the eruv of the local rabbi.) Thus, the verse says that even if Jerusalem sinned unintentionally, because of repetition the unintentional sin bore the full weight of guilt of an intentional sin; it was indeed a sin.
8. The prophet Micah (4:6) said about the time of redemption:

   ביום ההוא נאום ה' אספה הצלעה והנדחה אקבצה ואשר הרעותי. 

   "On that day, says God, I will bring in the lame one, and the one who was driven away I shall gather, and the one I have harmed.

   On this verse the Sages comment (Shemos Rabba 46:4), מהו 'אשר הרעותי'? זה יצר הרע - "What is the meaning of, 'the one I have harmed'? [What harm does this refer to?] This refers to the yetzer hara - the evil inclination." God placed the yetzer hara within every human being to tempt him to sin. Thus, so to speak, on a certain level, God acknowledges that the sin of Jerusalem is His "fault". Thus, we can read the verse, "חטא" - "Sin," i.e. the yetzer hara (the term חטא can be understood to refer to the yetzer hara, as we see in Genesis 4:7), "חטאה ירושלים" - "caused Jerusalem to sin." This reduces their guilt,  "therefore she has become a niddah" and will be purified and return to her Husband.
9. The intentional sins of a צבור - community - are considered as unintentional. (כמ"ש הרב כתנות אור פרשת נצבים) Thus, the sins of Jerusalem are to be considered unintentional sins. (While the term  "חטא" is a generic term for sin, in some contexts - such as when used in combination with other terms for sin - it can have the specific connotation of unintentional sin. In this commentary, the Chida apparently interprets the double language to indicate an emphasis on the specific language of  "חטא" with its connotation of unintentional sin.) Thus the verse says, "Jerusalem has sinned an unintentional sin, therefore she has become a niddah" and will be purified and return to her Husband.

---