The Traveling Aron

 Why is the parsha of ויהי בנסוע the parsha to separate between the events of פורעניות?  

The Baal HaTurim (Terumah 25:10) says ארון אותיות אורן שיש בה אורן של ישראל ואותיות נורא כי הוא אש אוכלה.  The Aron represents the fire of Torah and the middah of נורא.   

The Gemarah Yoma (69b) says the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah reinstituted saying in Shemone Esrai הנורא even after the golut since הן נוראותיו שאלמלא מוראו של הקב"ה היאך אומה אחת יכולה להתקיים בין האומות.  In other words, the fact that Klal Yisrael can survive through the golut is a fulfillment of the middah of נורא.  What ensures this kium through the golus?  The אור of the Torah.  It is the fact that the Torah is carried with us through all the stages of the golus, that will ensure there will be a וינוחו, that we will ultimately come to a final stop.  The Gemarah says that there are 85 words in the parsha of ויהי בנסוע which tells us that is the minimal amount of words to define a sefer Torah.  85 is פה, it is the Torah of the פה, the Torah שבעל פה that allows for this continuum. 

What Is The Desire

There are a lot of different events in Behaloscha.  A common denominator that runs through many of them is that one's desire defines the activity.  On the positive side we have Aharon feeling bad about missing out on the chanukah of the Mishkan and the tamei people missing out on korban pesach.  That desire does not go unnoticed and Aharon receives the lighting of the menorah and the tamei people bring about the parsha of pesach sheni.  

On the flip side, the Ramban identifies the פרעניות before the parsha of ויהי בנסוע as the possuk of ויסעו מהר ה and he quotes Chazal say כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר.  The Ballei Mussar point out that the issue is not the Klal Yisrael left to early, they only traveled based upon the command of Hashem, the issue is the attitude Klal Yisrael had to rush away from Sinai to not possibly receive more mitzvot.  The Ramban says it may be due to this, Klal Yisrael did not immediately enter into Eretz Yisrael.    

ויהי העם כמתאוננים Rashi says אֵין מִתְאוֹנְנִים אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן עֲלִילָה — מְבַקְּשִׁים עֲלִילָה הֵיאַךְ לִפְרֹשׁ מֵאַחֲרֵי הַמָּקוֹם, they were looking for a way how to turn away from Hashem.  Rashi says a similar idea 4 pessukim later on the words, וַיָּשֻׁ֣בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗וּ גַּ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י יַֽאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ בָּשָֽׂר, says Rashi, וְכִי לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם בָּשָׂר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר "וְגַם עֵרֶב רַב עָלָה אִתָּם וְצֹאן וּבָקָר" וְגוֹ' (שמות י"ב), וְאִם תֹּאמַר אֲכָלוּם, וַהֲלֹא בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמַר "וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן" וְגוֹ' (במדבר ל"ב)? אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּבַקְשִׁים עֲלִילָה.  Rav Yerucham says Rashi is telling us that what inspired these complaints was really that there desire was to go against Hashem.  The complaints were not legitimate, they were just a coverup to comply with their desire to rebel against Hashem.

The Inner Animal

 The Chasam Sofer cites the Tanya, the handwritten edition was sold

To Forgive Or Not To Forgive

Moshe Rabbenu is always ready to stand up to bat for Klal Yisroel and defend them no matter how egregious their sins may be be.  However, in Parshas Behaloscha, when they ask for meat at that point Moshe Rabbenu throws in the toil and tells Hashem he can't bear the burden of the people himself.  Why did Moshe find the request of meat to be too much to be forgiven?  Rav Dovid Cohen explains that Moshe Rabbenu was willing to stand up for Klal Yisroel if they were making an ideological error.  Whether, it be not wanting to go into Eretz Yisroel, the sin of the egel, etc. However, a mistake which is sparked by a physical desire he could find no recall for.  Klal Yisroel was expected to be above having such base desires and Moshe Rabbenu saw no redeeming merit for such a sin.  Similarly, says Rav Hirsch, that is why Korach and his entourage had to be wiped out.  The sin of Korach, although he claimed it to be due to righteous reasons, was really a sin due to Korach's desire to be appointed Kohan Gadol.  It was a sin caused by desire which Moshe Rabbenu could not overlook.  A sin of a mistaken thought can be forgiven but a mistake because one is strayed by their desires must be rooted out.  

Charting A New Path

 Why is the parsha of ויהי בנסוע flanked by inverted נ's?  Why is the parsha of the travels of the camps put in this week's aprsha when it would seem to fit more in Massey?  The events after the parsha of ויהי בנסוע are parshiot which are not the shining moments of Klal Yisroel, the complaints at the end of our parsha, the lashan harah, the mereglim, Korach etc.  This derailed the joyous march of Klal Yisroel into Eretz Yisroel and they were stuck in the desert for 40 years.  

The Gemarah in Berachot (4b) says that there is no possuk that starts with נ in אשרי because that would start for the נפילה of Klal Yisrael.  The Maharal (Netzach Ch. 13) explains that when the מנצפ"ך letters are added to the aleph bet, the נ is the letter that is dead middle, meaning it has no support from either side, hence it falls down and that is why the ן is bent downward.  The next possuk in אשרי is סומך ה' לכל הנופלים  meaning that Klal Yisroel has only Hashem to pull them out from falling into the abyss.  Just as in kedusha, we don't count the 50th day of the Omer, we need Hashem's pull to bring us up to the 50th level, so too it is Hashem that stops one who is נופל.  The נ's on the the parsha of ויהי בנסוע represent that Hashem remains connected to us to pull us out of our mishaps.  The method of Klal Yisroel traveling is recorded as a message that throughout travels, through the long golut, with all the modern-day versions of the setbacks Klal Yisroel suffered, there is the aron brit Hashem traveling with us, ensuring we will reach the final destination.  Even though a new, longer path has to be taken, we will eventually reach the destination.  

That is why the parsha initiates with the parshiot of Aharon kindling the menorah and Pesach sheni.  Rashi at the beginning of the parsha says Aharon was upset that he didn't participate in the chanukat hamikdash and therefore Hashem gave him the mitzvah of menorah which is greater than the offerings of the nesieim.  How was it greater?  The Ramban explains that the menorah is greater for it is eternal because we still light candles on Chanukah.  Rav Shneur Kotler explains that Aharon merited to have a greater avodah because of the fact that he felt bad on missing out on the offerings of the nesieim.  By missing out, Aharon actually gained.  Those that were tamei and missed out on offering the Pesach merited to introduce a new mitzvah of Pesach sheni.  Here also, a perceived miss turned into a gain.  These parshiot serve as the intro. to the parshiot which tell us about Klal Yisroel's missed opportunity to enter Eretz Yisroel that even though a longer route must now be charted, there will be nothing lost due to the errors. 

Springboard For All Greatness

Harav Hagaon Yosef Elefant Shlita

In this week’s parashah, which discusses the machlokes of Korach va’adaso with Moshe Rabbeinu, there’s a side incident that seems a bit trivial but is actually very telling. We know that of Korach’s whole assembly, his own sons did teshuvah at the end. Chazal describe that the bnei Korach were already in the pit, and at the last second they had a hirhur teshuvah and they were saved.

What prompted them to do teshuvah? The Midrash, in this week’s parashah, explains that after Dasan and Aviram said לֹא נַעֲלֶה — we’re not going to Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe Rabbeinu lowered himself and came to see them. Upon seeing this, the bnei Korach said to themselves, “Our father is busy saying that Moshe Rabbeinu is a baal gaavah, and all he wants is power and control, but we see that he’s mevater on his kavod and he’s prepared to come down to try to placate Dasan and Aviram.” This spurred them to say, “Wait a minute — something’s wrong with our father’s whole narrative. Moshe Rabbeinu is a true anav!”  That is what prompted their teshuvah.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s humility in lowering himself to go to Dasan and Aviram to placate them and not being makpid is not a side point about him, but a central point.

At the end of Parashas Behaaloscha, in middle of the Torah’s account of the tragic incident with Miriam and Aharon, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells Aharon that Moshe is the greatest anav: וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם. There’s something very interesting about the placement of this passuk, as we will explain.

The sefarim explain that Moshe Rabbeinu was mevatel himself by attributing everything to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and that is what anavah is. Anavah is not something bein adam l’chaveiro, but is, rather, bein adam laMakom, as the Gemara (Sotah 5b) teaches regarding a baal gaavah: אין אני והוא יכולים לדור בעולם.

A baal gaavah attributes all his maalos to himself, whereas an anav recognizes that he has maalos and kochos, but he attributes them all to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

The Meshech Chochmah, in Parashas Shemos, says that Moshe Rabbeinu’s supreme anavah was a sign of his constant dveikus in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, because the moment a person’s mind wanders away from awareness of Hashem, he automatically sinks into himself. The fact that Moshe Rabbeinu was the anav mikol Adam indicated that he was the most davuk in Hakadosh Baruch Hu of any human being, and his mind never wandered away from Hashem. That’s what kept him in his state of anavah.

Accordingly, say the sefarim, Moshe Rabbeinu’s zechus to receive the Torah, and his unsurpassed level of nevuah, were all the result of his anavah and total, constant hisbatlus to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That explains why all the other nevi’im prophesied with unclear vision — באספלריא שאינה מאירה — while Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophetic vision was absolutely clear, like looking through a clear glass, because there was no “zich” in the way. Nothing was his own; he knew that everything he had was from Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

R' Chaim Volozhiner, in Ruach Chaim at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, says that Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah was the cause of his being the one to receive the Torah — so much so, that if someone else in history would achieve as much anavah as Moshe Rabbeinu, that person would be mekabel Torah b’shleimus.

 If Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah made him a suitable vehicle for receiving the Torah, then why would the Torah mention the critically important fact that he was the anav mikol adam — the only description in the Torah of this maalah — specifically in middle of the story of Aharon and Miriam denigrating him? Why not mention it in the context of Moshe Rabbeinu bringing down the Torah?

The answer can be found in the Rambam, at the end of Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas. The Rambam discusses the sin of Miriam, who spoke badly of Moshe, and he notes that her offense was relatively minimal, considering that she was his older sister, who was moser nefesh for him, and her intention was for his benefit. Her only mistake was to equate him with other nevi’im. The Rambam adds that in any case, Moshe Rabbeinu was not makpid about what she said, as the Torah states that he was anav mikol adam.

The Rambam is telling us something fascinating: that Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah was the reason he wasn’t makpid. Presumably, the Rambam derives this from the Gemara (Shabbos 35) that states that a person should always be an anav like Hillel and not a kapdan like Shammai, which implies that anavah and kapdanus as polar opposites. In what way are these two attributes opposites?

Kapdanus means that a person is concerned with his own kavod (or perceived lack thereof), or their own opinion, or their own “zich,” while anavah means that a person has nothing of his own, so he has nothing to be makpid about. There’s no “me,” no “I think” or “I say.”

Unfortunately, many people walk around with k’peidos. Some people go as far as to declare that they are makpid in this world and in the next. I always wonder whether they really think that in the next world, when they’re basking in the radiance of the Shechinah, if they’re going to carry their k’peidos with them. In any event, the Rambam is teaching us a remarkable thing: that the reason the Torah stresses Moshe’s anavah in the middle of the story of Aharon and Miriam is to explain that although Miriam spoke negatively about Moshe, he bore no resentment toward her because of his anavah. Since he didn’t feel that he owned anything, there was nothing for him to be makpid about.

Miriam’s only mistake, says the Rambam, was to equate Moshe Rabbeinu to all other nevi’im. When a person hears that someone else considers him just a regular person, and not as great as he thinks he is, then he is typically filled with indignation: “What do you mean? How can you say that?” But because Moshe was such an anav, not owning any of his gadlus and not attributing it to himself, it made no difference to him if Miriam was mistaken about his true level. By mentioning that Moshe was the anav mikol adam in the context of this incident, the Torah is stressing that his anavah was the reason he was not makpid.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah and total hisbatlus to Hakadosh Baruch Hu enabled him to receive the Torah, brought him to the level of פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ, and earned him אספקלריא המאירה — yet the Torah left us to figure that all out. If not for the Maharal, the Sfas Emes, R' Yerucham, and R' Chaim Volozhiner, we wouldn’t know that this is what earned him those levels. But Moshe Rabbeinu’s ability not to be makpid on his own kavod due to his anavah is expressed openly in the Torah. This teaches us just how critical it is not to live with kpeidos and not to be busy with “zich.”

We find a similar idea reflected in last week’s parashah, when Eldad and Meidad were prophesying. Yehoshua’s response was: אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם, to which Moshe answered: וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל עַם ה' נְבִיאִים — “Let everyone be a navi! What does it bother me that there’s competition, so to speak? I don’t own the nevuah!”

R' Chaim Volozhiner makes an incredible statement in Ruach Chaim, at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, based on the Gemara’s teaching (Bava Basra 75) that Moshe Rabbeinu is compared to the sun, while Yehoshua is compared to the moon. The moon, says R' Chaim, was the one that argued, during Brias Ha’olam, that the sun and moon could not be the same size, because אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד. That’s why the moon’s size was reduced. In this sense, Yehoshua was similar to the moon, because he was opposed to Eldad and Meidad having their independent nevuah: אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד. Moshe Rabbeinu, however, was not bothered by their having nevuah — just like the sun, which was not bothered by the moon being the same size. Due to his incredible anavah, he was not makpid when someone else also had the ability to prophesy.

Coming back to this week’s parashah, of all the mega-events of the parashah — Korach va’adaso, the ground swallowing them up, the 250 machtos — there’s a little incident that shook the world and changed history. Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t say, “What a chutzpah of Dasan and Aviram that I called them and they don’t come.” Instead, he went to them!

In today’s treifeh world, when a person is mevater and swallows his kavod, that is viewed as weakness. But Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t weak; he was an anav. And an anav is not makpid, because he doesn’t consider anything to be his own. So Moshe Rabbeinu had no problem going down and trying to placate Dasan and Aviram. And that incredible incident, which on the surface seems trivial, shook the bnei Korach to the core. Upon seeing the true dargah of Moshe Rabbeinu, and recognizing that he was anav mikol adam, they understood why he was Moshe Rabbeinu: because his anavah enabled him to swallow the slight to his kavod and not be makpid on anything. He wasn’t makpid on Eldad and Meidad, he wasn’t makpid during the incident with Miriam, he wasn’t makpid on Dasan and Aviram. The bnei Korach understood that this was Moshe Rabbeinu’s essence, and that prompted their teshuvah: לַמְנַצֵּחַ לִבְנֵי קֹרַח מִזְמוֹר.

Two Paths

Rashi (10:31) says that Yisro elected not to stay and enter Eretz Yisroel because he was told that converts do not get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  Would Yisro, who gave up so much turn back just over a piece of land?  And what was Moshe's request והיית לנו לעינים?  And why is the name חובב used to describe Yisro here? 

Rav Hirsch explains the usage of חובב for Yisro השורש ״חבב״, השכיח בלשון חכמים במובן של אהבה והערכה, נמצא בתנ״ך רק פעם אחת: ״אף חובב עמים על קדשיו בידך״ (דברים לג, ג). נראה ש״חבב״ קרוב ל״חוב״, שאף הוא שכיח בלשון חכמים ונמצא בתנ״ך רק פעם אחת: ״חֲבֹלָתוֹ חוֹב יָשִׁיב״ (יחזקאל יח, ז). לפי זה ״חבב״ יורה על אהבה מחייבת ועל אהבה הנובעת מתחושת חובה. לפי זה, ״חוֹבָב״ (השווה הצורות ״שׁוֹבָב״, ״שׁוֹלָל״, ״עוֹלָל״, שכולם באים בלשון בלתי־פעילה) הוא אדם שאהבת ה׳ מחייבת אותו, אדם שחש שהוא מחוייב לה׳ על ידי אהבה זו.  This short few pessukim are describing a debate Yisro was having in which was better to serve and demonstrate his love for Hashem.  The Sifsay Kohan interprets והיית לנו לעינים that people would see Yisro came and joined the Jews and they would be encouraged to join as well.  Moshe was encouraging Yisro to join with Klal Yisroel so that people would see that it is possible and correct to leave all of one's stature and greatness behind and join those following Hashem.  However, Yisro understood that if he is not given a portion of land that means that is not his mission.  It is not his job to sit and let others see but he must go beck to the land of the heathens and encourage them to join his ways. There are those meant to live in Eretz Yisroel but there are those that must tread another path sharing their journey with the world around them. 

Want To Be Elevated

Why did Klal Yisroel complain about the issur arayot only after the man fell? 

Moshe Rabbenu says מאין לי בשר לתת לכל העם הזה כי יבכו עלי לאמר תנה לנו בשר ונאכלה.  What was he questioning, he knew Hashem could give them meat?  The Imrei Chayim explains that the tzaddik can only ask for the nation if he feels on some level some of the same need.  Moshe Rabbenu was so pure he did not find any iota of desire in him to ask this request from Hashem.  

The Malbim says here that the man was a spiritual food that only came down in a gashmi form because it is placed in this world.  However, one that wanted a gashmi pleasure would not be satiated by man.  That is why the people cried out for meat, they were missing the gashmi connection.  At this point when they realized that there were expected to grow into a role of total ruchniut they cried about the ariyot as well.  They wanted no part of such a life style.  Once there desires for gashmiut were opened, the floodgates opened.  Moshe Rabbenu could not connect to them on this level for he has far surpassed this not even eating on his journey to Sinai and separating from his wife. (See Mayan Beis Hashoavah.)  When a person strives toward ruchiut then then they can have a connection to Moshe and can be elevated slowly and surely but when one refuses and is afraid to be elevated, there is no hope. 

Traveling By Cloud

An idea from Rav Yeruchem, who's yertzheit was this past week, 18 Sivan from the Mir parsha sheet.

Three Takes On A Tale

One who has become tamai via a sheretz etc. other than a dead corpse may bring a korban.  The Pesach offering is unique since it is offered to eat from it, even other types of tumah will prohibit one who is in a state of tumah from offering the korban (Rambam Beas Mikdash 2:12).  The Gemorah in Pesachim (90b) derives from the story of the people that were tamah that asked about pesach sheni that even a tamah sheretz can't offer the korban for since they were  at the last day of their tumah, to be tamah at night, they were akin to a tamah sheretz that is tamah for only one day and were still prohibited from offering the Pesach.  Rav is of the opinion that if the individual already went to the mikvah to rinse off his tumah and is merely waiting for nightfall to be transformed to tahor (טבול יום,) then the tamai sheretz can offer the Pesach.  Presumably, the same law would apply to the tamai meis.  Tosfos asks so in the story of the parsha why did Moshe tell the tamai masim to wait to bring the second Pesach, he should have merely told them to immerse in a mikvah and then they could offer the Pesach?  Tosfos says that in truth Moshe did tell that that and he told them the law of Pesach Shemi only if for some reason they were not able to immerse that day.

The same principle is held by the Raavad Laws of the Pesach Offering (6:1) but he explains the story differently.  He understands that they already slaughtered the Pesach and only after the time for offering the korban the men approached Moshe to ascertain the halacha.  Since it was to late to offer another korban, Moshe taught them the law of Pesach Shemi.

The Rambam understands that will learn from this story that it is only the טבול יום of a sheretz that can offer the Pesach offering but not the טבול יום of a meis.  The Raavad asks why how can the Rambam  differentiate between the two if the whole source of sheretz is from meis?

As noted before, there are two halachos that prohibit the tamai meis from offering the Pesach.  One halacha is the general rule of all korbanot that they may not be offered in a state of tamai meis.  There is a second law, derived from our parsha, specific to Pesach that it may be offered in tumah and that includes the tumah of meis.  Rav Chayim proposes that the law specific to Pesach does not apply to the טבול יום as we in the case of tamai sheretz.  It is the general law of tumas meis, applicable to any korban that does not allow the Pesach offering to be offered as a טבול יום.  Sheretz is learnt from the law of tumas meis of the Pesach that would allow offering of a טבול יום, but it is prohibited because of the law of all korbanot.  It still needs to be explained how can we learn from the tamei meis law of Pesach, at the end of the day it also isn't offered by a טבול יום, so the law of sheretz derived from there should follow?  And how do we know the law of Pesach wouldn't prohibit the offering of a טבול יום?

From here Rav Chayim takes us to the next halacha in the Rambam (that the Raavad argues on as well.)  The Rambam clarifies that the only טבול יום that can't offer the Pesach is one who became defiled by tumas meis that will destroy the count of a nazir is he became defiled by it, if its a tumah that doesn't destroy the count of a nazir, he can offer the korban as a טבול יום.  Such a distinction if found regarding the obligation of entering the mikdash, but what is the source for it here?  Rav Chayim explains that source is from Nazir (53a) that this distinction applies to korbanot but not to the korban Pesach.  He says the Rambam will understand the Gemorah means that it is only in the law of korbanot offered in tumah that such a distinction applies but not regarding the law specific to Pesach.  Hence, the law of Pesach that applies to all those that are tamei is not inclusive of a טבול יום and those that are tamei from a tumah that doesn't destroy the count of a nzair, prohibited only by the law of Pesach aren't included and can offer the Pesach.  Only those prohibited because of the general rule of korbanot, a טבול יום of tumah that destroys the count of a nazir, can't offer the korban.  It is in this real that we see the Pesach tumah law doesn't extend to a טבול יום.  

Since the possuk in the Pesach law that extends to the tamai sheretz includes those a טבול יום that the doesn't destroy the count of the neritut when they may offer the Pesach, it from there that the טבול יום of sheretz is derived. 

Many that come after Rav Chayim, including those that would consider themselves his disciple such as Rav Issur Zalmen Melter and Rav Shimon Shkap disagree with Rav Chayim and take a different approach to understanding the Rambam, but I leave that for those with further interest in the topic to peruse on their own. 

Stop And Go

The Chidushay Harim:

Rav Hirsch:
אולם עיון מעמיק יותר בניסיונות אלה, בהם ביקש ה׳ להרגיל ולחנך את עמו לכל הדורות, מגלה, שלא המאמץ של המסעות הארוכים, אלא בעיקר ההמתנה הסבלנית בחניות הממושכות, היא המודגשת כאן כמבחן לעם. לא נאמר דבר על אורך הזמן של המסעות, אך ההמתנה הממושכת מוזכרת כמה פעמים. כבר בפסוק יז נאמר: ״ואחרי כן יסעו״ וגו׳; הם נסעו רק אחרי שעלה הענן ולא קודם לכן. ובפסוק יח – לאחר שכבר נאמר ״על פי ה׳ יסעו וגו׳ ועל פי ה׳ יחנו״ – חוזר הכתוב ואומר: ״כל ימי אשר ישכן הענן וגו׳ יחנו״. ולבסוף, בפסוק יט, המצב ש״לא יסעו״ אפילו כאשר ישכון שם הענן ימים רבים, הוא הנקרא ״שמירת משמרת ה׳⁠ ⁠״, והוא הראיה ששמעו בקולו.
ברור אפוא, שהכתוב שם דגש מיוחד על כוח העמידה והסבלנות של ישראל. דבר זה יובן עוד יותר, אם ניקח בחשבון שהמדבר הוא מקום שקשה מאוד לשבת בו, ובייחוד אם נתבונן בכך שהאנשים – אשר טרם נגזר עליהם לנדוד ארבעים שנה במדבר – ידעו היטב שמחוז חפצם אינו במדבר אלא מעבר לו, ושכל עצירה שהם עושים במדבר רק מונעת אותם מלהגיע אל המקום שהובטח להם.
It is is not only moving closer to Eretz Yisroel that is 'עפ"י ה, but the stops as well.  The stops along the way; when one appears to not be approaching the goal is in fact the only way to reach the goal.
That is the message of the הפסקות הפרשיות of ויהי בנסוע הארון; a fall may just be a way of giving one the ability to elevate further.
From Toras Menachem 5751:

Loshan Harah

Rav Reuvan Grozovsky on lashon harah from the sefer zikaron Even Tzion.

Face The Middle

Rashi in the beginning of Behaloscha says יאירו שבעת הנרות – שעל ששת הקנים, שלשה מזרחיים (ה)פונים למול האמצע הפתילות שבהן, וכן שלשה מערביים ראשי הפתילות למול האמצעי. ולמה? כדי שלא יאמרו לאורה הוא צריך.  Rashi is saying that the din of אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is said on the wicks, not on the menorah itself.  This means that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת isn't a din in the form and making of the מנורה, rather its a din in the lighting of the menorah (Briskor Rav.)  Rashi in this week's parsha (25:37) on the possuk וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ says והעלה את נרותיה והאיר אל עבר פניה – עשה פי ששת הנרות שבראשי הקנים היוצאין מצידיה מסובין כלפי האמצעי, כדי שיהו הנרות כשתדליקם מאירים על עבר פניה – מוסב אורם אל צד פני הקנה האמצעי שהוא גוף המנורה.  This Rashi sounds that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is a din that the nerot themselves should be facing the middle.  At face value it would seem that this Rashi contradicts the Rashi in Behaloshca is it a din in the wicks or a din in the nerot? It would seem that Rashi holds there are two dinim in this din.  One is a din in the lighting of the menorah, that is Behalosacha, and another is a din in the form of the menorah itself and that is parshas Terumah (see Bear Miriyam.)  [It is noteworthy that the Daas Zekanim does have a different way of learning the pessukim, as he sees in Terumah פי׳ והאירה המנורה אל השלחן שכנגד פניה של מנורה כדכתיב בפרשת ותכל וישם המנורה באהל מועד נכח השלחן מכלל דלהאיר על השלחן היתה המנורה וכן כתיב בפרשת בהעלותך אל מול פני המנורה דהיינו שלחן יאירו שבעת הנרות.]

The Rambam (Beis Habechirah 3:8) says שֵׁשֶׁת הַנֵּרוֹת הַקְּבוּעִים בְּשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיּוֹצְאִים מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה כֻּלָּן פְּנֵיהֶם לַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁעַל קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה וְזֶה הַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נֵר מַעֲרָבִי:  The Rambam is saying like Rashi in Terumah and note that the Rambam isn't writing in Laws of temmidim U'mussofim, rather in the Laws of Beis Habechirah.  One would infer from this that the Rambam holds that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is a din in the fashioning of the menorah.  The Briskor Rav finds this to be impossible for the possuk says דַּבֵּר֙ אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֔ן וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֵלָ֑יו בְּהַעֲלֹֽתְךָ֙ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹ֔ת אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת, there is a command to Aharon.  If its a din in fashioning the menorah, what does it have to do with Aharon, he's the lighter, not the craftsman making the menorah?  We see it must be a din in lighting the menorah.  Therefore, he says that yes, the Rambam holds its a din that's applied to the nerot themselves, but that's merely the application, however, the yesod hadin is in the lighting of the menorah.  Hence, he concludes the nerot must only be tilting toward the middle when the menorah is lit, however,during the time its not lit, the menorah will still be a menorah even if the nerot aren't facing toward the middle.

However, in light of the Rashi in Terumah we do have a source for the simple reading of the Rambam that the din of the nerot facing the middle is a din in the fashioning of the menorah; the pssuk in Terumah.  The Rambam may derive from here the din that the menorah must have the nerot fashioned facing the middle.  Then we get to Behaloscha, when we encounter that its a din in lighting the menorah, Rashi holds it tells us something else, the wicks themselves must face inward.  The Rambam on the other hand, held it tells us that the din of facing the menorah is also a din in lighting the menorah (see Torah Or on Briskor Rav.)  What difference does it make that its also a din in lighting the menorah?  The difference will be if they aren't using the menorah of gold, rather of other metals, where it doesn't have the dinim that exist in forming the menorah (see Rambam ibid Law 4,) there still will be an obligation that when the menorah is lit, the nerot will have to be facing the middle.

Conquering vs. Settling

We read in the haftorah on Shabbos in Zecharyeh Ch. 4 verses the following (translation from https://www.chabad.org) :

(verses 1-7)

And the angel who spoke with me returned, and he awakened me as a man who wakes up from his sleep.

And he said to me, "What do you see?" And I said, "I saw, and behold [there was] a candelabrum all of gold, with its oil-bowl on top of it, and its seven lamps thereon; seven tubes each to the lamps that were on top of it.

And [there were] two olive trees near it; one on the right of the bowl, and one on its left.

So I answered and spoke to the angel who talked with me, saying, "What are these, my lord?"

And the angel who spoke with me answered, and he said to me, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord."

And he answered and spoke to me, saying, "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying: 'Not by military force and not by physical strength, but by My spirit,' says the Lord of Hosts.

(skip to verse 11 – 14.)

And I raised my voice and said to him, "What are these two olive trees on the right of the candelabrum and on its left?"

And I raised my voice a second time and said to him, "What are the two olive branches beside the two golden vats that empty out the gold[en oil] from themselves?"

And he spoke to me, saying, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord."

And he said, "These are the two anointed ones who stand before the Lord of all the earth."

As is quite evident this seems to be a broken conversation, what is Zecharyeh asking what are they and what is the response?  Rav Solevetchik explains the two olives represent the kehunah gedolah and the king from malchus Dovid that were both anointed with oil (from Rashi end of Ch. there.)  The oil was oozing out by itself (verse 11) to indicate the service in the second Temple would be so great its as if it happened by itself.  That is what Zecharyeh didn’t understand for the service in the second Temple palled in comparison to that of the first Temple.  The malach responded that it’s a prophesy about the third Temple which is merely an extension of the second Temple.  Why and how?  That is what the malach responded in verse 7 that the kedusha of the second Beis Hamikdash came about via the רוח of Hashem.  What does this mean? 

The Rambam in the end of Ch. 6 of Beis Habechirah:

ולמה אני אומר במקדש וירושלים קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבוא ובקדושת שאר א"י לענין שביעית ומעשרות וכיוצא בהן לא קדשה לעתיד לבוא לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים מפני השכינה ושכינה אינה בטלה והרי הוא אומר והשמותי את מקדשיכם ואמרו חכמים אע"פ ששמומין בקדושתן הן עומדים אבל חיוב הארץ בשביעית ובמעשרות אינו אלא מפני שהוא כבוש רבים וכיון שנלקחה הארץ מידיהם בטל הכבוש ונפטרה מן התורה ממעשרות ומשביעית שהרי אינה מן ארץ ישראל וכיון שעלה עזרא וקדשה לא קדשה בכיבוש אלא בחזקה שהחזיקו בה ולפיכך כל מקום שהחזיקו בה עולי בבל ונתקדש בקדושת עזרא השנייה הוא מקודש היום ואף על פי שנלקח הארץ ממנו וחייב בשביעית ובמעשרות על הדרך שביארנו בהלכות תרומה

The Kesef Mishne says he doesn’t understand how is חזקה any better than כיבוש, why should it not be nullified as well?  Reb Chaim said (see בריסקר רב על תנ"ך סטנסל) that this was the response of the malach.  The first kedusha was accomplished via an act of conquering the entire land and that can be nullified.  In the second kedusha there was no conquest, Klal Yisroel went back with the permission of the gentiles and not all of the land was settled.  The kedusha of the land was an extension of the kedushas hamikdash, of the presence of the Shechinah and that can never be nullified (from Pnenie Harav pg. 76.)

Rav Shechter shtelz tzu another idea of Rav Solevitchik that is along the same lines.  The Mishna in the beginning of Kelim (1:6)  lists 10 kedushot and one of them is Eretz Yisroel for one may bring the omer and shtei halechem only from grain that grew there.  Why does the Mishna not mention that only in Eretz Yisroel there is an obligation of terumot, challah etc.?  Rav Solevetchik explained that the Mishna only is listing the kedusha that is an extension of the mikdash, not the laws that are relevant because of the kedusha of the land itself.  One can bring omer and shtei halechem from Eretz Yisroel because its an extension of the Mikdash.  The other dinim are because of the kedusha of the land itself, not as an extension of the Mikdash.  See more about this by my father shlita here, here (and the links there) if bikkurim is in the Mishna  here.  The entire kedusha of the second Temple comes about because of an extension of the kedushat hamikdash, not because of kedusha in the land.   

At the end of Soleveitchik On Repentance he extends this idea to teshuvah.  The verse in Nitzavim (30:3) says: וְשָׁ֨ב י״י֧ אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ֖ וְרִחֲמֶ֑ךָ וְשָׁ֗ב וְקִבֶּצְךָ֙ מִכׇּל־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֧ר הֱפִֽיצְךָ֛ י״י֥ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ שָֽׁמָּה.  The verse is repetitive, it says ושב twice?  Of couse the verse is referring to the ingathering of the exile of the nation but it also referring to the ingathering of the personal soul from its exile.  He explains the first one is וְשָׁ֨ב י״י֧ אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ֖, it’s a quick arousing from Hashem.  The person just has to take that awakening and move forward with it, wherever the person goes, the Shechinah comes along with him.  It is a relatively easy process of teshuvah sparked by a jumpstart from Hashem.  It is a conquest of the soul that comes about via the presence of the Shechinah.  This is patterened after the kedusha of Ezra in the second Temple.  The second half of the verse וְשָׁ֗ב וְקִבֶּצְךָ֙ וכו is referring to the slow arduous process of conquering one’s own soul.  There requires a slow process of gathering ones scattered fragments of the soul that have become absorbed and lost in exile.  This is akin to the conquest of Yehoshua which took time and military prowess to be able to conquer the land.    

Don't Talk

                                           From the Daas Torah of Rav Yeruchem.

I don't understand how is this practical, how do you know when the leader is above questioning and when one is allowed to have a legal, halachik debate?  Or can one question only if there in the same league but Moshe was in a league by himself, head and shoulders above any one else and therefore no one could question?

How To Get Up

מה הקשר בין הענינים בריש הפרשה מענין הדלקת הנרות לפסח שני ונסיעות של המחנה?  רש"י אומר שפרשת פסח שני נכתב שלא עפ"י סדר זמני וצריכין להבין למה באמת נכתב שלא בסדר הזמני?  עוד למה דוקא אות נ' הפוכה נבחר להיות סימן של פרשה חדשה?  ולמה בא דוקא פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון להפסיק בין הפרעניות (עיין שבת קטז)?

בלקו"ת אדמו"ר הזקן מסביר הפמיניות של הדלקת שבעת קני המנורה ע"י אהרן הכהן הוא שאהרן ידליק כל הנשמות (שנקראין נר.)  המספר שבעה מסמל כל מיני הנשמות שיש, ששבעה הוא תכלית כל המדות.

אדמו"ר הזקן כותב כמה פעמים (עיין לקו"ת ריש נשא, מסעי ועוד מקומות) שענין במסעות במדבר היה כדי להכניע כחות הקליפה שיש אפי' במדבר שאינו מגדל כלום בגלל כח הישות וקליפה שלו.  בתחילת הפרשה לומדין איך להעיר הלב וממשיך הפרשה בענין המסעות שמבאר הכח שיש להעיר העולם.  וכל הכח הזה בא ע"י התורה ויש רמז לדבר שמדבר שהלכו בו ישראל הוא אותיות מדבר, לדבר דברי תורה.  

וכ"ז הוא אם דברים הולכין כפי סדרם אבל לפעמים יש נפילה, יש פרעניות, איך קמים מזה?  לכן ניתן לנו פסח שני שמלמד שלעולם יש הזדמנות שניה לתקן מה שעבר.  הפרשה נכתב שלא עפ"י סדר לרמז שתשובה עולה מעל גבי סדר הרגיל.  מי שעושה תשובה יכול לעלות במדרגות שלא לפי הסדר.  זהו הנ' הפוך.  כמו שביארנו במק"א, נ' זה דרגה למעלה מהשגת בני אדם.  והתורה בא לרמז שאפי' אחרי נפילה אתה יכול להופכו ע"י תשובה  שמגעת עד שער נ'. (וי"ל שמרומז בההפיכה שהנ' שמסמל מפלתן של ישראל (עיין ברכות ד:,) יכול להופכו ע"י תשובה להיפוף ממש שיהיה בזה עילוי גדול. עיין מהרש"א במס' שבת.  ובאמת זה אותו יסוד שבגלל שהוא גבוה כל כך ישנו זו מקום פתח לנפילה אבל מי שמגיע בו בהכנה כראוי יכול לעלות למדרגה הכי גדולה ולהפוף חושך לאור.)  (עפ"י תורת מנחם תשמ"ט, רץ כצבי על חדשים חודש חשון.)

Trumpets

        A few points on the trumpets.

 1.    In chapter 10 verses 9-10 the Torah tells us two-timeframes when we are commanded to blow trumpets.  One time is when it is a time of distress, and the other time is when the community offers a korban. The Ramban in Sefer Hamitzvot mitzvah #59 counts these two events as one mitzvah.  The Magid Mishna at the beginning of the Laws of Taanis wonders why it’s not counted as two separate mitzvot if they are two different times and two separate pessukim for it?  Possibly we can suggest that this fits in the pattern of how the Rambam defines mitzvot.  If there is one object, then it will be counted as one mitzvah even if there are different aspects to it.  We see the Rambam counts the mitzvah of krias shma or tzitzits and techales as one mitzvah.  However, tefillin of the hand and the head are two mitzvot.  Rav Sheinberg (Mishmeres Chaim) explains the principle is that krias shma is one parsha, the tzitzits strings become part of one garment and therefore are counted as one mitzvah.  Tefillin have two objects and therefore are two mitzvot.  So too here there is one trumpet and therefore it is counted as one mitzvah despite having many rolls.  However, if this is correct why does the Rambam count the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana and Yovel as two distinct mitzvot? (See Minchas Chinuch) and Parashas Derachim.)  However, if one looks carefully at the Rambam he will see why those are two mitzvot.  The Rambam distinguishes between Rosh Hashana where the mitzvah is to hear the shofar and yovel where the mitzvah is to blow.  Therefore, its two mitzvot for the commandment on Rosh Hashana is to hear the shofar but on yovel its to blow, so on Rosh Hashana the mitzvah is on the ears as opposed to yovel where its on the shofer horn itself.  (See also the Taz 575:2.) 

2.       We can say על פי דרוש that there is a רמז  in that the  two kinds of blowing are one mitzvah.  Even though externally they appear to be complete opposites, one a call of distress, another a call of happiness, in essence they are one.  Both cries stem from the same source, it is the neshama crying out; sometimes the cry is brought out via pressure and sometimes through joy.  However, ultimately, they are the mitzvah, it is the same צוותא and connection to Hashem.  The Maggid (Torah Or) says that the two trumpets represent Hashem and us.  There is a dual closeness, when we come desire, כסף from the language of כיסופים, to close to Hashem, He comes close to us.  Hashem may send us a wakeup call that causes distress but it is to a means of coming to the call of the trumpets of simcha.   

3.        The Gemorah in Arachin 11b questions if a נדבת עולת ציבור requires shirah or its only an obligation for korbanot that are obligatory.  Does the possuk (10:10) when it says עולותיכם in the plural mean to refer to bothעולות  that are obligatory and those that are a נדבה or does it mean עולות ציבור but only korbanot that are obligatory?  This possuk is referring to the obligation of blowing the trumpets at the time of offering a korban, not the obligation of song, yet the Gemorah wants to derive the din of singing from this verse.  How?  Rashi explains that blowing the trumpets is shirah.  We see from here that the mitzvah of blowing the trumpets becomes part of the shira.

Humble Prophets

At the end of the parsha, the Torah tells us that Moshe was the greatest ענו as an introduction to describing how Moshe was the greatest navi.  It sounds from the juxtaposition that this is why Moshe was the greatest navi.  How is humbleness connected to nevuah?  In Mishlai (31:26) it says תורת חסד על לשונה.  What is תורת חסד?  The Gemorah Sukkah 47b (according to one interpretation) says it means who learns תורה לשמה.  Why is learning Torah leshmah considered doing a chesed? 

Accepting prophesy is to leave one one’s state of being and tap into a higher realm of existence.  This ability to be able to lift one’s self out of the physical boundaries of the body to be able to connect with God requires one to be able to be completely given over to the will of God. It is impossible to receive nevuah in a state of self-concern.  It is only through complete humbleness, where there is no feeling of self that there is a possibility of accepting nevuah.  Therefore, since Moshe was completely nullified before Hashem without any feelings of self, he was able to accept nevuah at all times. 

Learning Torah leshmah is a means of connecting to the Wisdom of God.  One surrenders their own mind, their own human logic, and attempts to tap into His Infinite Wisdom.  This is akin to an act of chesed where one gives over themselves to help out someone else.  That is why learning Torah leshmah is considered a kindness for one gives himself over to Hashem (Mictav M’Eliyahu volume 4.)

The Magan Avrohom siman 60 says that during certain words in ahavah rabba/ahavas olam one should remember the six remembrances.  The words to remember the story of Miriam are the words להודות לך to remember that the mouth is created to praise Hashem and not to speak evil of others.  How are the words להודות לך supposed to remind someone of the episode of Miriam, how does a lack of praise equal lashon harah?  The explanation is that if one doesn’t feel that he is deserving of the that s/he has, then s/he won’t speak loshon harah.  Loshon Harah comes from a lack of thanking, a feeling of self-entitlement, and therefore there is an ability to judge others.  If one feels content with themselves then there is no need to complain about others.  With the feeling of hodayah then one feels a sense of humility and will not fall into the trap of loshan harah.

Turn On The Light

Here we mentioned the chiddush of the Briskor Rav that the avodah of the ketores is different from that of the korbanot tzibbur.  When it comes to korbanot, the mitzvah is to achieve kapparah.  However, regarding the ketores the mitzvah is merely to do the act of offering the ketores.  He supports this from the terminology of the Rambam is the Sefer Hamitzvot who says the mitzvah of the korbanot is one the tzibbur and fulfilled by the kohanim.  Regarding the ketores, he says the mitzvah is one the kohanim to offer the ketores.  The need for communal atonement is not an integral part of the mitzvah.  The Achronim point out that regarding the mitzvah of lighting the menorah the Rambam also says the mitzvah is on the kohanim to light it (asseh #25.)

The Daas Zekanim in Terumah (25:6) says that the Torah mentions the שמן למאור within the parsha of the building of the mishkan because it’s also part of the building of the mishkan because a house without light isn’t a house.  Based upon this it could shed light on the aforementioned Rambam.  The need for a menorah isn’t for atonement, its to complete the building of the mishkan. 

Now we understand why Aharon is comforted with the lighting of the menorah and not with another one of the mikdash activities (see Rashi, Ramban.)  In order to inaugurate the mishkan, it had to be an avodah that would consecrate the mikdash and that is accomplished through lighting the menorah.

Want To Want

At the beginning of the parsha, Rashi says Aharon felt bad that he didn’t offer a korban in the inauguration ceremony of the mishkan.  Therefore, Hashem appeased him by saying he has a greater offering than the heads of the tribe because he lights the menorah.  Why did Hashem have to wait until Aharon felt bad to give him the command to light the menorah, why didn’t just He tell him immediately?  Similarly, why did Hashem wait until the people that were tameh complained why should they lose out on the korban pesach before giving the mitzvah of pesach sheni? The possuk (11:4) says הִתְאַוּ֖וּ תַּאֲוָ֑ה.  What is the meaning of this repetition? According to the Ramban, one of the bad things that ויהי בנסוע comes to split up was that the people left Mount Sinai in a hurry like a child running from school.  Why is this considered wrong, they only traveled when the clouds moved acknowledging Hashem’s desire for them to leave, as the Torah itself describes in this very parsha?

We see from here that there must be a desire to serve Hashem.  Precisely because the impure people and Aharon felt that they were lacking something were they worthy of getting a special mitzvah.  If a person truly desires to fulfill the mitzvot and doesn’t view them as a yoke that one must bear, then Hashem helps him fulfill the mitzvot. 

The repetition of the verse explains the Chofetz Chaim, is tell us the reason that the people had a desire for meat was because they desired to have a desiring.  They were thinking about physical pleasures instead focusing their heads to only desire what Hashem wants. That is what was wrong when the people left Mount Sinai, it wasn’t about the timing, it was about their lack of longing to remain to here Torah from Hashem.  They didn’t show a desire that they want to be able to hear more Torah.  That is what was lacking.