Parashat Devarim

It’s interesting to note how Chodesh Av progresses in a sort of backwards nature to it, for the crux of the month lies in the tragedy stricken nine days, the first days of the month. Instead of mourning over the Churban HaBayis after the Beis HaMikdash was burnt down and the nation entered Galus, we choose to sit Aveilus in anticipation of the looming doom. I believe it is safe to say that the Aveilus we sit for these nine days does not commemorate the loss of our Beis HaMikdash, but rather the cause for this loss, the events that preceded the ultimate destruction. But why this is so remains to be seen.

Chazal say that the cause of Churban Bayis Sheni, the event that spurred us into our current exile is none other than Sinas Chinam, the baseless hatred of one Jew against another.

Lo Sisna Es Achicha BiLvavecha. Hochai’ach Tochee’ach Es Amisecha ViLo Sisa Alav Cheit

Do not hate your brother in your heart. Reprove your nation, and do not accept upon them iniquity. (by Onkelos’s translation, Rashi takes a slightly different approach)

VaYikra 19:17

At first glance, it seems a stretch to suggest that this hatred is what brings the foundations of our world to crumble, but, as the Kli Yakar so sagaciously suggests, the connection of this pasuk’s two Mitzvos bears a strong message about the dire crime that is Sinas Chinam.

And since the pasuk states “and do not accept upon him iniquity,” it is apparent that if one who does not reprove his friend will carry the sins of that supposed friend. This is because “Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh LaZeh,” all Jews are cosigners for one another, so that if one [Jew] cannot fully pay for his sins, [Hashem] can take the remainder payment from his cosigners, [the Jewish nation]. Jews are made each other’s cosigners at the time when one has the ability to protest [another’s] sin and does not; he then takes full responsibility for the other’s ultimate outcome…

And it is juxtaposed to the Mitzvah of “Lo Sisna Es Achicha BiLvavecha,” for when love spreads over Yisrael, each wants what’s best for his friend and therefore rebukes him, so that his friend does not stumble over [an Aveirah]. But when Jews hate one another, nobody rebukes, for each man is content with his friend’s downfall.

This Midah [of hatred] has been the predominant trait of our nation since the destruction of Bayis Sheni. To this day, it has not budged, and the Nega will fester and spread until Hashem cannot stand it any longer and will remove the stony hearts from our midst.

Kli Yakar, VaYikra 19:17

BiMiheirah BiYameinu. These are some of the most powerful and pertinent words one can find in a Mikra’os Gedolos, and they turn our very concept of Sinas Chinam upside down. By the Kli Yakar’s claim, the hate Jews express towards one another stems from widespread acceptance of one another, from a lack of protest. It is the individual who rebukes and chastises his nation who is considered the loving and caring one! The Beis HaMikdash is not destroyed because of Sinas Chinam alone, but rather because of all our Aveiros. However, none of these other Aveiros are avoided because our Sinas Chinam prevents us from aiding one another to Teshuva.

It therefore comes as no surprise that Parashat Devarim, which we invariably read on Shabbat Chazon, opens with this very message of Tochacha. From the very first pasuk, Rashi notes how every word is disguised as a geographic location, but is in truth a reference to a sin of Klal Yisrael’s. We mention the Midbar because they complained for meat in the Midbar. We mention Arvos Moav since that’s where they worshiped Ba’al Pe’or. Mol Suf references their two sins at the Yam. Paran was the location of Cheit HaMiraglim, Tofel ViLavan references the Man they whined about. Chatzeiros is where Korach rebelled, and lastly, Di Zahav alludes to the gold used in Cheit HaEigel.

The rebuke only gets more explicit from there. There is, however, one small caveat to Moshe’s Hochacha; it comes right before his death. Rashi, quoting the Sifri, says we learn from here to only give Hochacha from one’s deathbed. The Sifri gives four reasons: so as not to accidentally rebuke the individual twice for the same thing; so that the two not meet again, and cause the rebuked individual embarrassment; so that the two can depart on peaceful terms; and so that the one rebuked does not bear a grudge – it’s much harder to hate a person on his deathbed.

At first glance, it seems virtually impossible to resolve this Rashi with the comments of the Kli Yakar. How could one possibly be held responsible for chastising his brethren if he can only do so from his deathbed? The Kli Yakar obviously requires one to rebuke while in good health, whereas the Sifri warns against such an approach.

The Sifri is troubling on numerous fronts. Bear in mind that this is not the first time Moshe Rabbeinu admonished the nation. For instance – one of many many examples – there was that time just a week or two ago, in Parashat Mattos, where Moshe accused the Bnei Reuvein ViGad of being Tarbus Anashim Risha’im. So how could the Sifri claim Moshe waited until his death to reprove the nation?

Rashi himself advocates the Kli Yakar’s approach and only ten pasukim after quoting this Sifri!

VaAsimeim, and I will place [judges as leaders over the nation]. [The term VaAsimeim bears a striking similarity to Asham, guilt, suggesting that] the guilt of Yisrael hangs on the heads of its judges, for [these judges] had the ability to protest and redirect [the nation] onto the right path.

Rashi, Devarim 1:13

So the judges are required to correct the wrongdoers, and not only Karov LiMisa! The question really speaks for itself. How can we resolve the clear and present contradiction between Rashi’s two Ha’arahs?

It seems to me that there is really no contradiction at all, but we must first differentiate between the resolution of interpersonal relationships, and the resolution of one’s relationship with G-d. The role these judges play within the protest of their nation’s sins is one based off a hierarchy. The judges are appointed because of their superior Torah knowledge; therefore, the rebuke they offer is grounded in their greater knowledge of what Hashem desires.

However, the Hochacha one gives from his deathbed bears no such established hierarchy, no such stern “I’m right and you’re wrong” approach. Instead, it becomes an emotional plea for resolution and reconstitution. If we look closely at Moshe’s words in our parasha, we find a striking difference between the admonishment of old, and these closing remarks:

And Hashem heard the voice of your words, and angered, and swore, “None of the men of this generation will see the land I promised to their forefathers!...” And Hashem became incensed with he, on account of you, saying, “You too shall not come [to Eretz Yisrael]!”

Devarim 1:35-37

Moshe actually blames Klal Yisrael for Hashem’s refusal to let him into Eretz Yisrael! Surely Moshe is frustrated, but this accusation can’t just be dismissed as an exaggeration. His words must hold some truth. If we want to identify the source of this accusation, we must trace our steps back to the source of this very dissent, where Moshe first inserts himself into his Hochacha:

How can I alone carry all your trouble, burdens, and quarrels?

Devarim 1:12

Burdens. This teaches that the nation disdained their scholars, for if Moshe left court early, they would say “Why did Ben Amram leave early? Maybe he is having marital issues.” And if Moshe left late, they would say, “Why hasn’t Ben Amram left yet? He must be busy plotting against us.”

Rashi, Devarim 1:12

Of course, this is the pasuk that begins with the word “How,” Eicha, and we read it to the tune of Megilas Eicha. But this pasuk is more than just one complaint out of a dozen others. Here Moshe rebukes the people for not letting him rebuke them! They become judgmental of him, thus impeding his ability to set them straight. It is here that Moshe loses the ability to reprove at any stage of his life, for the reasons listed in the Sifri, and so this becomes the opening remark of his Tochacha. And this becomes the pasuk associated with Eicha and Churban, for our inabilities to rebuke and correct are what inevitably – albeit passively – bring about our nation’s corruption. Not the Cheit HaEigel, and not the Cheit HaMiraglim.

When one man sins to [you], do not hate him and hold back… rather, it is a Mitzvah to acknowledge and say to him “Why have you done this to me, why have to sinned to me in this way?” As the pasuk says, “Hochai’ach Tochee’ach Es Amisecha.”

One who sees another sin or head in a wrong path must return him to good and let him know that he has sinned against himself. One who rebukes his brother, whether over a sin between man and fellow, or a sin between man and G-d, must rebuke him between man and himself.

Rambam, Misha Torah, Hilchos Dayos 6:6-7

At the heart of true Hochacha lies the interpersonal relationship between two caring individuals. One says to the other, “it pains me to see you act in such a way, and I wish it would pain you too.” Obviously the goal of this rebuke is to return the sinner to the proper path, but the method of rebuke, in a sense, is as important as this goal. Hashem does not respond to every Aveirah with a lightning bolt, for part Teshuva’s value is to accomplish Ge’ula as a nation.

This interpersonal process begins with Moshe’s words in our parasha, but the parasha also references this process’s first major setback, the appointment of judges, the men who could only protest on the basis of hierarchy. The arduous road to Ge’ula is marred with persecution and pogroms, inquisition and exile, but our most daunting obstacle is each other. And until we can learn to deal with our differences, and to care for one another in a meaningful and constructive fashion, we will continue to mourn over the Sinas Chinam that preceded Churban HaBayis for the nine days that precede Tisha B’Av.