Family First

This week we read about the request of the tribes of Gad and Reuven to settle on the      eastern bank of the Jordan and to not enter the Promised Land. The tribes of Gad and Reuven camped and traveled together on the same side of the Mishkan. These two tribes were also both firstborn sons to their respective mothers (ie Zilpah and Leah). According to the Midrash, both gad and Reuven were among the wealthiest tribes. They had many flocks of sheep and cattle, which explains why they were interested in remaining in the grasslands and pastures on the eastern bank of the Jordan.

The Midrash suggests, by way of criticism that it was because they were focused on their wealth that these two tribes chose to not enter Israel. We find in the text of the story itself this notion that the tribes of Gad and Reuven had an unhealthy fixation on wealth which lead to warped priorities. When the two tribes approached Moshe with their proposal to not enter Israel they said (Bamidbar 32:16): “We will build fenced-in enclosures for our cattle and cities for our young children.” They prioritize their cattle before their children. Moshe is then forced to correct them in an attempt to get them to prioritize correctly (Bamidbar 32:24): “Build cities for your young children (first) and fenced-in enclosures for your cattle.”

The question we must ask is: how could have Gad and Reuven had such mixed up priorities? The question is strengthened in light of another tradition related to the tribes of Gad and Reuven. The Talmud (Makot 10) notes that Hashem commanded Moshe to set aside six cities of refuge. Cities of refuge were used by accidental murderers. The same number of cities were set aside for the tribes of Gad and Reuven (and half of Menashe) as they were for the rest of the tribes. The Talmud notes this discrepancy and explains that there was a disproportionate amount of bloodshed in the territory of Gad and Reuven. We can suggest two contributing factors that may explain the breakdown in morals among the tribes of Gad and Reuven. First, the tribal leaders had a warped sense of priorities, as is on display when they prioritize their cattle over their children. A second  contributing factor may have been the lack of fathers present among these two tribes. The leaders of Gad and Reuven  promised to fight for the conquering and settling of Eretz Yisrael. This means that a generation of Reuvenite and Gadite  children grew up with fathers who were more absent than  present. While mothers are traditionally viewed as the predominant biological child-care provider, studies consistently show that children who don’t have a relationship with their father are more likely to be at risk for negative outcomes, including severe negative outcomes such as higher rates of incarceration.

This attitude towards children is already on display by the patriarch of the Reuven Tribe. In Parshat Mikeitz, the brothers of  Joseph are trying to convince Yaakov to allow Binyamin to travel to Egypt as per the demand of the viceroy. First Reuven approached his father and said (Bereishit 42: 37): “You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you.” Reuven does not seem to have placed a very high value on the lives of his children. We therefore should not be all that surprised when Reuven’s descendants prioritize possessions over children.

While the mistaken priorities of Reuven (the man and the tribe) may seem obvious, it can be hard to always live our lives according to our professed priority for our family and our children. How many parents sacrifice time with their children for time they spend in the hopes of getting ahead professionally? How many of us interrupt time with our children to take a work call or respond to an email that’s not an emergency? As we read about Gad and Reuven let’s remember to have the right priorities. And just important as it is to have proper priorities is to make sure that we live according to those priorities.

 

Yes, We Can Learn from Everyone

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes, a wise man from the mistakes of others.”

I must disagree with the first half of this quote from Otto von Bismarck. It is not foolish to learn from one’s own mistakes. It is prudent. Learning from our mistakes transforms failures into growth opportunities. One might argue that to make mistakes in the first place is what is foolish. I disagree. It requires great strength and confidence to take the risks that can sometimes lead to mistakes and failures. As any entrepreneur will tell you one can learn more from mistakes than from successes. This is the thesis of the book Brilliant Mistakes, in which author Paul Schoemaker argues that 99% of successes emerge from failures. This leads to 3 recommendations that Schoemaker addresses to business leaders, but are applicable each of us:

1. Mistakes should be expected and planned for

2. Once made, mistakes should be thoroughly explored and viewed as a resource going forward. As

Schoemaker puts it, “you’ve already paid the tuition so why not get the learning?”

3. Making mistakes that emerge from risk taking (and not just laziness) should be encouraged.

We can all agree on the second half of Bismarck’s saying: A wise person learns from the mistakes of others.

We often think about how we can learn from role models, from people who possess qualities to which we aspire, from people who act in ways that we consider noble and good. But we are limiting ourselves if we only learn from role models and heroes. There is something to learn from everyone. This is stated explicitly in Chapter Four of Pirkei Avot: “Eizehu Chacham? Who is wise? Halomed Mikol Adam: One who learns from everyone.”

EVERYONE?! Are we sure that everyone has something to teach us? The answer is yes. We can learn from everyone. From some people we learn how to act. And from others we learn what not to do. It’s actually more complicated than that. In a world where people are not caricatures of good or evil, but rather complex, it is more likely that we encounter people in our lives that we are inspired to emulate them in some ways while looking to contrast our behavior with how they act at other times.

The closer the relationship, the more likely we are to engage in both learning from comparisons and learning from contrasts. Take parents as an example. In an ideal situation children learn many positive lessons from their parents. But parents are not perfect, and children also witness parental mistakes and inconsistencies. One of the ways children grow and develop is by learning in both ways from their parents: ie what to do and also what not to do.

The story of the Daughters of Tzelafchad contain an example of such modeling. The Rabbis in Masechet Shabbat dispute what Tzelafchad’s sin was. Rabbi Akiva says that he was the “M’koshesh Eitzim,” the person who gathered wood on Shabbat and was stoned for this transgression. Rabbi Shimon says that Tzelafchad was a member of the Ma’apilim, the group that in response to the sin of the spies decided to travel to Israel against God’s advice and with fatal results.

Tzelafchad’s daughters were able to learn from their father’s mistake. Not only that, but they were able to emulate the positive motivations that may have influenced Tzelafchad.

If Tzelafchad was a member of the Ma’apilim, then we see his daughters demonstrating their father’s Chibat Tzion, a love and zeal for Eretz Yisrael that they were able to channel in an appropriate fashion.

And if Tzelafchad was the Mekoshesh Eitzim, the wood-gatherer, then his daughters found the teachable lesson from that sin too. According to some, the wood-gatherer desecrated Shabbat “L’shem Shamayim”. He martyred himself to warn the people of the severity of Sabbath desecration and the veracity of the Torah’s justice system.

This desire to serve as a case study for Bnei Yisrael and to show the validity of the Torah was harnessed by Tzelafchad’s daughters and utilized appropriately. The daughters of Tzelafchad were able to redeem their father’s place in history, by learning from him both what to do and what NOT to do. Their story is a powerful example of the lesson from Pirkei Avot: To be wise means to learn from everyone: what to abandon and what to embrace.

 

Poor Vision Can be Compensated by Great Perception

Wesley Walker played for the NY Jets from 1977-1989 and is considered one of Jets all-time great receivers. He averaged 19 yards per reception over the course of his career and was named twice to the Pro Bowl. And Wesley is legally blind in one eye.

At the time, Walker was considered a medical miracle. How could he catch a football on the run so well without the use of both eyes? In a 1983 newspaper article, a doctor from the Institute of Sports Medicine put it this way: “The most intriguing thing for me, is what this means for young people who have handicaps. The brain has ways to overcome them that are as yet inexplicable” I am sure that the ophthalmologists in our shul can do a better job explaining the miracle of sight. But what I learned from Wesley Walker is that sight and perception are two different things, similar to hearing and listening. Wesley Walker was able to compensate his handicapped vision through the power of perception.

In this morning’s Parsha, Bilam refers to himself as “Shetum Ha’ayin” (24:3). Rashi explains that since the phrase only refers to one eye, we learn from here that Bilam only had one working eye. As we saw by Wesley Walker blindness in one eye need not be a debilitating handicap, so long as one works to sharpen his perception. But this is woefully lacking from Bilam’s bio and can be understood as the root of his downfall.

In the very next Pasuk Bilam claims to be “one who sees the vision of G-d” and yet the Torah describes time and again a lack of perception on the part of Bilam. This is most clearly illustrated when we read how Bilam’s donkey was able to perceive The Angel of G-d while Bilam was not. But there are other examples of Bilam’s lack of perception. For example at the very end of the narrative, after Balak and Bilam’s plan has been thwarted, the Torah says (24:25): “And Bilam got up and went and returned to his place.” Bilam just witnessed G-d’s salvation of the Jewish People, transforming his intended curses into blessings. He just witnessed the supernatural miracle of a donkey talking (remember this was before the series of Shrek movies). And what is his response? Nothing. He may have seen these things but it did not affect his perception of G-d, the world or his role in life. Wesley Walker proves that one can compensate vision deficits by working hard on perception. Bilaam is a cautionary tale of all that we can miss when we merely give a casual glance at the world around us instead of perceiving what is really in front of our eyes.

We look forward to the day that we pray for every morning right before Shema: Or Chadash Al Tzion Tair” May Hashem shine a new light on us to, a light of both vision and perception onto us and all of humanity. “V’Nizkeh Chulanu Meheira l’Oro” and may our efforts at perception positively transform ourselves and the world around us.

  

What Really Happened at Mei Meriva?

It is one of the most mysterious and enigmatic stories in the Torah. We know the outcome: Moshe is barred from entering the Land of Israel. We know the technical chronology of events: The people are thirsty. Hashem tells Moshe to bring forth water from a rock by speaking to it. Instead, Moshe hits the rock and water flows forth. Then Hashem tells Moshe (and Aharon) that they missed an opportunity to sanctify God’s Name, and therefore they would not be allowed to enter the Land of Israel. But the question on everyone’s mind is: How could this happen? And why did this happen? There are hundreds (if not more) answers to this question and a similar number of approaches to this episode. Rashi suggests that while bringing forth water by hitting a rock is also a big miracle, Hashem wanted the miracle to occur specifically through speech to teach Bnei Yisrael the lesson that if even a rock listens to Hashem and His messengers, how much more so should each of us similarly listen to Hashem and Moshe. While it may seem like a minor deviation from the Divine plan, it was considered to be a major infraction for righteous individuals such as Moshe and Aharon. When I was a child this idea was explained to me by way of a parable about dirty shirts. If you’re wearing a red shirt and get a ketchup stain on it you may be able to continue your day without going home to change, because the stain can blend in with the color of the shirt. This is not the case if your white short gets stained. While for most people hitting the rock would be like getting ketchup on our red shirt, for Moshe and Aharon it was more severe: like getting a stain on a white shirt.

Another approach to the Mei Meriva episode is offered by the Netziv, Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1816-1893), the last head of the Volozhin Yeshiva. The Netziv begins by noting that this episode took place after the Jews had been in the Midbar already for 39 years. During their time in the desert, Bnei Yisrael lived a life supported by overt miracles: protective clouds, a pillar of fire GPS system, manna from heaven, and a miraculous well that accompanied their journey in the merit of Miriam. Upon entry to Israel, the Jews would have to learn how to survive without these obvious miracles. Israel does not have a river upon which to rely for water, like Egypt has the Nile. If you need water in Israel you have to hope for rain; or more precisely, you have to pray for rain. In order to help wean the people off of overt miracles, Hashem told Moshe to speak to the rock, but what He really wanted Moshe to teach the people was the importance of speaking to The Rock ie praying to Hashem for our needs. For whatever reason Moshe felt that the people were not ready to appreciate the power of prayer to bring about hidden miracles. So when the moment arrived, Moshe utilized his staff to bring forth water. As we know from Sefer Shemot, Moshe’s staff was the vehicle through which big, supernatural miracles happen. In so doing, Moshe missed out on an opportunity to teach the people an important lesson about prayer, a lesson that remains important for us today. The power of prayer is part of the natural order. Prayer is not something that we should consider miraculous. Rather, we should view tefilah as one of the ways in which we put in our effort, our hishtadlut, with the hopes that these efforts, both physical and spiritual, will be blessed by Hashem and met with success. 

Arguing for the Sake of Heaven

The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (5:17) taught that a dispute that is “LeShem Shamayim” will have lasting results, while any dispute “Shelo LeSham Shamayim” will not have lasting results. The Mishnah goes on to give examples of both types of disputes: “Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korach and all his congregation.” Many commentators are confused by the example given of a machloket shelo leshem shamayim. The Mishnah only mentions one side of the dispute! Shouldn’t the Mishnah refer to the dispute as “Korach and Moshe”, thereby referencing both sides of the dispute? Rabbi Shimon Schwab explains that the hallmark of a dispute for the sake of Heaven is that the overarching interest is to arrive at the truth. Therefore each side is interested in hearing the arguments of the other side. However concerning a dispute that is Shelo L’Shem Shamayim the overarching interest is to be victorious and to be proven right. Arriving at the truth is much less important than winning the argument. In such a dispute, there is no interest in arriving at the truth, and therefore there is no interest in hearing a different perspective. A dispute not for the sake of Heaven doesn’t really have two sides. That’s why the example given of a machloket shelo leshem shamayim only references Korach and Korach’s followers; all of whom had the same perspective and the same opinion. There is no need to mention Moshe and Aharon because Korach and his followers were not interested in their position being challenged.

The Talmud (Brachot 58a) taught: “Just as people’s faces are different so too are their perspectives different.” Rabbi Shlomo Eiger explains that just as no one is bothered by the fact that people look different, so too we should not be bothered by the fact that people have different opinions. Just as each human being (with the occasional exception of identical twins) is unique in appearance, so too we should appreciate that people have different perspectives, opinions and ways of thinking. These differences should not be viewed as an unfortunate outcome but rather a reflection of Hashem’s will and the way He intends the world to operate.

It feels like just yesterday that we were in the throes of the 2020 presidential election. That election was one of the most divisive elections in the history of American politics. While we can point to legitimate differences of opinion between candidates and political parties, I believe that much of the rhetoric surrounding that election was a manifestation of disputes that were not for the sake of Heaven. Here we are again in the midst of the 2024 presidential election. We must become informed and educated on the issues and on the candidates. And we should remember to vote whenever we have the chance to do so- even in the primaries! But let us learn from the mistakes of Korach and his followers and avoid the impulse to argue merely to win. Let us be careful that our disputes are, in fact, for the sake of Heaven.