Parshas Shelach – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And God spoke to Moshe, saying: Send, for yourself, men and have them scout the Land of Cana’an, which I am giving to B’nei Yisrael; you shall send one man, one man each, from his father’s tribe, each a leader among them.”

~ BaMidbar 13:1-2

Send, for yourself. Why is the chapter of the spies adjacent to the chapter of Miriam (the episode of her gossip about Moshe and subsequent punishment, 12:1-16)? Because she was punished over the matter of her slanderous conversation about her brother and those wicked men (the spies) saw but did not take instruction from the matter.

~ Rashi on BaMidbar 13:2

Rashi points out to us that the men selected to spy out the Land of Cana’an could have learned from Miriam’s experience and been careful not to speak poorly of the land God selected which, ultimately, served as disrespect of God Himself. But they ignored the example.

This brings to my mind an occurrence from somewhat recent news. In September 2011 New Jersey newspapers reported that, in a private meeting with wealthy conservative donors in Colorado months earlier, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made fun of New Jersey Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (a Democrat) by stating that she needed his help to maintain her leadership post after she worked with him on legislation to decrease benefits to public workers. Oliver hotly denied the account and expressed bitter words about the governor.

The account may have amused the Governor’s partisan audience. But whether or not it was true it’s highly doubtful that this tidbit, which he shared with a group of people, enhanced his relationship with one of the legislative leaders he needs to advance other parts of his agenda.

This type of episode is repeated, in different forms, on both sides of the political aisle with reliable frequency. Influential people say things they shouldn’t and suffer consequences. I believe that nothing happens by coincidence, merely for our bemusement, or solely for partisan delight. So I ask myself, and any reader: When we see a very public episode of careless talk, such as the one I recounted with Governor Christie, are we wise enough to take the hint we’ve just been given, to be more careful ourselves? Or, like the spies, do we miss the signal and continue blithely on our merry way?

Parshas Beha’alosecha – a thought on the first Rashi

“And God said to Moshe, saying: Speak to Aharon and say to him: When you light the lamps toward the face of the Menorah, the seven lamps shall cast their light.”

~ BaMidbar 8:1-2

When you light. Why is the section about the Menorah adjacent to the section about the leaders (of the tribes, who each presented identical gifts at the dedication of the Mishkan)? Because when Aharon saw the leaders’ dedication offerings, he felt faint since he did not join them in the dedication, neither he nor his tribe. The Holy One, Blessed is He, said to him: “By your life, your’s is greater than theirs! For you will light and clean the lamps.”

~ Rashi on BaMidbar 8:2.

We are aware of some of Aharon’s more pronounced failings, such as listening to his sister Miriam speak critically of Moshe and yielding to the people’s desires at Sinai and building a golden calf. What does Rashi’s comment add here?

Rashi’s comment reveals to us that though God selected Aharon for leadership, Aharon was not immune to the all-too-human tendency to compare his circumstances with those of others and to feel anxious if he sensed that he’d been short-changed. How do we reconcile this attribution to Aharon with the verse in Pirke Avot (4:1): Who is rich? He who is happy with his lot (in life), which implies that jealousy or comparing yourself with others is inappropriate behavior?

It may be that Rashi was showing us that Aharon, one of our greatest leaders, also suffered, at times, from conflicted feelings – something to which we can all relate. This is a reminder that Aharon was not perfect but faced challenges similar to our own.

One thing that is distinctive in this case about Aharon, in Rashi’s account (based on Midrash Tanhuma, by the way), is that while Aharon may have grappled with conflicted feelings, he apparently did not voice them aloud or act on them in any way – even as he witnessed the princes bringing their gifts for twelve days. Aharon’s restraint of his emotions, and patience in seeing what God had planned next, is a powerful example for us to consider.

Parshas Naso - thoughts on the first Rashi

"And God spoke to Moshe saying; Take the count of the sons of Gershon as well, according to the house of their fathers according to their families."
~ BaMidbar 4:21-22

Take the count of the sons of Gershon as well. Just as I commanded you (see 4:2) concerning the sons of Kehos, to determine how many have reached the category of those able to work (in the sanctuary).
~ Rashi, on BaMidbar 4:2

What is the point of Rashi's comment? I offer a guess.

We learned earlier (BaMidbar 3:25-38) that when the camp of the children of Israel were prompted to travel, the mishkan (sanctuary) was to be deconstructed by the Levites, who were divided into three groups for the task. The sons of Kehos were to pack up and carry the sacred vessels, the sons of Merori handled all the beams, sockets, and pillars, and the sons of Gershon dealt with the curtains and coverings.

One could see that, in their own estimation, the sons of Gershon might have seen their appointed task as less prestigious than that of the sons of Kehos - handling the fabrics is all well and good, yes, but the holy vessels, that's the big time. As a corrective to this view God instructed that the children of Gershon be counted, just like the sons of Kehos were. The message seems to be that the work of the children of Gershon, and the families themselves, counted just as much.

Something to keep in mind when you are asked to help out with an apparently mundane task in the shul or community. These tasks count just as much in the grand plan.

Parshas BaMidbar - thoughts on the first Rashi

"And God spoke Moshe in the Sinai desert, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first (day) of the second month, in the second year of their exodus from the land of Egypt, saying: Take a head count of the entire congregation of Bnei Yisroel according to their families to the house of their fathers, counting the names of all males individually."
BaMidbar 1:1-2

Rashi comments on the first verse that because the Jewish people are precious to Him, He counts them all the time. Rabbi Avrohom Davis notes that two of the times God counted the Jewish people were only a month apart - on the day the Mishkon (sanctuary) was set up, the first of Nissan, and then again on the first of Iyar. He cites the Gur Aryeh who says that after the Divine Presence had resided among the Jewish people for a month, it was considered a permanent resident so God saw it fit to count the people again.

This Rashi, with its elucidation, brings to mind the moments I will reflect, at the conclusion of Succot, and search myself to assess what impact the chaggim had on me. The high holiday season is only about a month long but if I was focused and fortunate, those four weeks had a distinct impact.

The challenge, I think, is to identify other occasions throughout the year that prompt me to pine for God's presence in my life. And when those occasions conclude, I must take an internal accounting and see if I made good use of these periods.

Parshas Behar-Behukosai: Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And God spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai, saying: Speak to Bnei Yisrael and say to them, when you come to the land which I give you, the land shall be at rest – a Shabbos for God.”

~ VaYikra, 25:1-2.

On Mount Sinai. What has the matter of the Sabbatical year to do with Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments stated at Sinai? Rather, this comes to teach that just as shemittah (the Sabbatical years), its general rules, details, and specifications were said at Sinai, so too all the mitzvos including their general rules and specifics.

~ Rashi, on VaYikra, 25:1

Rabbi Avrohom Davis explains, in his footnotes on this Rashi, that it refers to a dispute in the Gemara (Chagigah 6a). Rabbi Yishmoel asserts that only general rules were given at Sinai and the details were presented in the Tent of Meeting. Rabbi Akiva asserts that both the general rules and the specifics were given at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and reiterated on the Plains of Moab. Rashi’s comment shows that he agrees with Rabbi Akiva.

This Talmudic dispute raises a pressing, related question for us: How much detail should a leader present to his/her followers when advancing new policies or actions? There's one school of thought that states that it’s more realistic to let people first absorb new concepts as broad ideas and then follow up with details later, as needed. A contrary approach, however, states that providing new concepts and sufficient (but not overwhelming) detail will help dispel anxiety and uncertainty, allowing for more expeditious actions by the people implementing the new policies.

To be sure, whichever view someone adopts will reflect the nature of the audience, the era, and the policies to be implemented. But it also will reflect heavily on the character of the leader who is weighing both options. And in our parsha at least, the ultimate leader – God – decided clearly that when it came to the mitzvah of letting the land rest for Sabbatical years, the Jewish people needed both principles and details upfront.