IT IS WHAT IS IN THE HEART THAT COUNTS

IT ALL BEGAN WITH IN-FIGHTING

Moshe Rabenu bemoans his difficulties in leading Klal Yisrael: "eicha esa levadi tarchachem umasaachem verivchem" "How can I alone carry your contentiousness, your burdens, and your quarrels" (Devarim 1:12)? Chazal teach us that three prophets prophesied with the word eicha. The first was Moshe Rabenu, whose words we have just cited. Then came Yeshayahu with his statement which is read in the haftarah for Parshat Devarim: "eicha hayta lezona" "how has she become a harlot" (Yeshayahu 1:21), followed by Yirmiyahu whose book of Eicha opens with: "eicha yashva badad" "alas she sits in solitude" (see Eicha Rabba). The Midrash Rabba compares these three prophecies: "Three prophesied with the expression eicha (alas, how): Moshe, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Moshe saw Israel in its glory and tranquility, Isaiah saw them in their impetuosity, Jeremiah saw them in their disgrace." We can derive from here that the troubles of the Jewish nation eventually leading to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash began with their quarreling among themselves.

REBUKE - FOR WHAT?

The pasuk of "eicha esa levadi" is preceded by Moshe Rabenu telling the Jewish people: "I cannot carry you alone, Hashem, your G-d, has multiplied you and behold! You are like the stars of heaven in abundance" and followed by "... provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are wise, understanding, and well-known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads" (Devarim 1:9-13). The latter psukim are a fulfillment of the advice that Yitro gave to Moshe Rabenu (see Parshat Yitro). Moshe Rabenu continues: "You answered me and said, 'the thing that you have proposed to do is good'" (ibid. 14). These things were said in the framework of the general rebuke that Moshe gave the Jewish nation prior to his death (see Rashi at the beginning of the parsha).

How is this rebuke? Moshe Rabenu suggests the appointment of officers and they accept his suggestion. What did they do wrong? In what way were they out of line? On the contrary, their actions appear very praiseworthy - they listened to Moshe Rabenu and accepted his advice. According to Rashi the Jewish people should not have heeded Moshe's advice: "you should have answered: 'Moshe our teacher, from whom is it more proper to learn, from you or from your students?'". It is true that the officers chosen were distinguished, wise, and understanding, yet their wisdom and their holiness cannot compare to that of Moshe Rabenu. Moshe emits an aura of wisdom and sanctity in what is being learned - ability these officers do not possess. Similarly, one cannot compare learning the Torah from the Rav to hearing from his student. Moshe Rabenu is a kli rishon, he received the Torah directly from the Omnipresent. Others are only a kli sheni - each in accordance with his level. Even regarding Yehoshua who served Moshe day and night for forty years about whom it is said "he would not depart from within the Tent" (Shmot 33:11), the Gemara remarks: "the countenance of Moshe was like that of the sun, the countenance of Yehoshua was like that of the moon" (Baba Batra 75a).

GETTING LOST IN THE TRANSLATION AND TRANSMISSION

When the Torah was translated into Greek during the days of Ptolemy, there was darkness in the world for three days (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 580:2). This darkness was not only a result of the loss of the sanctity emitted by the loshon hakodesh - the holy tongue. It was also because things "get lost in the translation", it is impossible to precisely translate the words with all the meanings and implications therein.

Similarly, a shiur being given by the Rav himself is not the same as one given by the student. Attempt as he may to transmit the words of the Rav in the precise manner in which he heard them, as we are taught "a person must speak in the language of his teacher" (Eduyot Perek 1, Mishna 3), he will be unable to duplicate them exactly. We already find in the Gemara expressions such as "two Tannaim according to R' Yishmael (Megilla 10b), or "a dispute of Amoraim according to R' Yochanan (Shabbat 112b), etc. These disciples heard directly from R' Yochanan, yet each of them understood the shiur differently. Even if they were to understand it the same way, they would each transmit it differently. Thus, the original message of the Rav may easily get lost. When listening to the Rav we can discern whether he was satisfied with an answer he gave to a question or whether he was not satisfied but forced to answer that way for lack of a better solution. When the student attempts to relay the words of the Rav, these impressions may be lost and the answer may appear to the listener as being satisfactory. One who learns from a sefer also does not have an appreciation of the level of difficulty of the question or of the level of satisfaction with the answer.

What we have just discussed also partially explains the claim against the tribes of Gad and Reuven. They chose to settle on the other side of the Jordan and not within the boundaries of the Land of Israel. Did they not realize that the center of Torah was destined to be at the site of the Beit Hamikdash? The Temple was certainly not going to be built on the East side of the Jordan, therefore, settling where they did meant being a great distance from the Torah center. This necessitated hearing the Torah from a kli sheni from students or even students of students. Being so far away meant they would be absolved from the obligation of offering the Korban Pesach. Even if they were to embark on the tri-annual pilgrimage to Yerushalayim for the festivals, the remainder of the year they would be a great distance from the Torah centers. Their learning could be on a much higher level if they were to choose to settle west of the Jordan - closer to the Mikdash. We see that not only did they choose to dwell in an area with less sanctity, but they sacrificed their learning as well.

According to this theory, the Jewish nation should have demanded that Moshe Rabenu himself teach them Torah and not his aides - this raises a difficult question: Did not Moshe Rabenu himself, tell them that he is incapable of doing so: "eicha esa levadi tarchachem umasaachem verivchem" "How can I alone carry your contentiousness, your burdens, and your quarrels" (Devarim 1:12)? In fact, Yitro warned Moshe: "You will surely become worn out - you as well as this people that is with you" (Shmot 18:18). Under these circumstances can we expect the people to dispute Moshe's suggestion? Perhaps had they quarreled less they could have eased Moshe's burden and he would have been able to handle it on his own. But this was not the case, and besides, there were many issues to be decided. There were areas of litigation that demanded a resolution, laws of inheritance, rentals, watchmen, damages, etc. that required a judge. Moshe could not accomplish this alone, what then is wrong with the nation accepting Moshe's suggestion?

THEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN DISAPPOINTED

The people should at the very least have been disappointed at the prospect of being taught by another, of not being able to hear the words of Hashem directly from Moshe Rabenu. Not only were the Jewish people not disappointed, they encouraged Moshe to quickly complete the appointment of the officers (see Rashi Devarim 1:14). The accusation was not leveled at their acceptance of Moshe's suggestion because in reality Moshe was unable to shoulder the burden alone without help. They should have been heart sore that the situation was such that they were unable to learn directly from Moshe. The accusation therefore was not regarding their action but in the intentions that accompanied their actions.

We often find in the Tanach that punishments are not directed at the wrongdoings per se, but for that which is in the heart. The frightening punishments detailed in the tochacha section of Parshat Ki Tavo did not only result from not having observed the mitzvoth, but "because you did not serve Hashem, your G-d, amid gladness and goodness of heart" (Devarim 28:47). The heart here plays a very important role. The actions are obviously also very important - if a person is very happy about the mitzvah of eating matzah on Pesach, but he does not actually eat it - he has not accomplished very much. However, eating the matzah without any enjoyment is also not good. The Torah requires both performing the mitzvah and doing it with gladness of heart: "Rachmana liba bai" "It is that which is in our hearts that the Torah demands".

The prophet Yeshayahu stated: "but you did not call out to Me, O Yaakov, for you grew weary of Me, O Israel" (Yeshayahu 43:22). Chazal tell us (Yalkut Shimoni Yeshayahu 557) that a person can toil all day long and not grow weary, yet when he appears before Hashem to daven, he is suddenly tired. One can stand and pass the time away in conversation about the news, the value of the dollar and the shekel, etc. and feel full of energy. Suddenly when he arrives in the Shul for Maariv or he has to open a page of Gemara he is tired, he has no more strength. Why? Because he has no desire for these things. Had he had the desire he would not have felt tired. There are, of course, times when a person is genuinely tired - even one with the greatest desire to learn gets tired. The difference is that the latter is not happy about the fact that he needs to sleep, but he does so for lack of choice. It is what is in the heart that matters - does he feel joy from observing mitzvoth or, G-d forbid, does he not?

The prophet Malachi told the Jewish people: "Your words have spoken harsh against Me, says Hashem, but you say, 'how have we spoken against You?' You have said, 'it is useless to serve Hashem'" (Malachi 3:13-14). If the Jewish people really said "it is useless to serve Hashem", what right do they have to wonder "how have we spoken against You?" The only way to explain this is that they did not say it in a clear and precise manner, nor was it so clear to them in their hearts. Externally they honored Hashem and thanked Him for being able to observe mitzvoth. Their hearts, however, were far from this - they did not sufficiently feel: "ki hem chayenu veorech yamenu" "For they are our life and the length of our days" - they did not have the feeling that it is impossible to live without the Torah and mitzvoth. In their hearts they felt to a certain extent that "it is useless to serve Hashem".

YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO KICK THE SUKKAH

Chazal tell us that in the future when Hashem will reward the Jewish nation for observing mitzvoth, the other nations will come and say that they also want to observe mitzvoth and receive a reward. Hashem will then say to them: "I have an easy mitzvah, its name is Sukkah, go and perform it ... they all immediately ran and built a Sukkah atop the roof of their house. Hashem proceeded to bring upon them the hot sun as it is in the summer, they each then kicked the Sukkah and left" (Avoda Zara 3a). The Gemara wonders what they did wrong, the unbearable heat would place even Jewish people in the category of: "mitztaer patur min hasukkah" "one who experiences stress is exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah" (ibid. 3b). In fact, one who dwells in the Sukkah under such circumstances is referred to as a hedyot - an ignoramus or layman. The Gemara answers this question: "they may be exempt but did they have to kick the Sukkah?" (ibid.). Yes, there are times when we must leave the Sukkah, but we should not kick at it out of joy at the prospect of returning to our houses. We must feel pain and sadness at not being able to fulfill this mitzvah (we should not feel too much sadness, for there is a mitzvah of vesamachta bechagecha "you shall rejoice in your festival" (Devarim 16:14) that applies even on Chol Hamoed). We must feel "as a slave who comes to pour wine for his master and he (the master) poured a pitcher of water on his face" (Sukkah 28b). (In this way, the master is telling the servant that he is not interested in what he has to offer). This accusation against the other nations is not for not dwelling in the Sukkah, for in these circumstances there is no obligation, the accusation is leveled at what is in their hearts. Where was their desire to fulfill the mitzvoth? We see that the "heart" in mitzvah observance is so essential that in the future this will be the main distinction between the Jewish people and the other nations on the day Hashem comes to reward us.

One who is overjoyed at being absolved from sitting in the Sukkah (e.g. due to rain), is declaring: "it is useless to serve Hashem". Would a recipient of a gift, whose present was taken from him, declare: "thank G-d I am now free of this gift"? On the contrary, he is very saddened. Only one relieved of a heavy burden would be happy at this. It is all a matter of perspective, if mitzvoth are a heavy unwanted burden that one will rejoice at being rid of, this is kicking the Sukkah. But if one feels "ki hem chayenu veorech yamenu" "For they are our life and the length of our days" he will not be happy to be exempt from the mitzvah. How much more so if our very lives depended on this gift? If one was given a pacemaker, he certainly would not agree to have this "burden" removed from him. He would protest at the prospect. One who realizes that Torah and mitzvoth are our pacemakers will not be happy to give them up.

PARTING IS DIFFICULT

It says in the Braita: "the early pious individuals would wait one hour, pray for one hour, and wait one hour" (Brachot 32b). We can understand the one hour wait prior to davening, after all we must prepare for our meeting with the King of kings. Why the need to remain an hour after concluding davening? We seem to mange this much quicker - at the conclusion of davening we run to eat or whatever it is we have to do. What took them so long? It appears that they felt such closeness to the King of kings that they did not wish to depart. When we love someone, it is hard for us to separate from them. A child who needs to take leave of his father, holds on to him with two hands - perhaps he will manage to prevent this separation. The first time a child is sent to nursery or to school, he cries - he cannot be without his mother or father. The above-mentioned individuals had great difficulty parting of their davening, for at that time they felt an incredible closeness to Hashem. Davening to them was not a burden, necessitating remaining in Shul until the conclusion of Alenu and then, thank G-d, being able to leave. What they felt was the opposite, disappointment that the davening is not still longer. What an honor and pleasure to have a private conversation with the King of kings! One who feels this will have a very difficult time parting. To return from such closeness to Hashem to the reality of the physical world was very difficult for them. For us, it is unfortunately quite easy.

IT IS HARD TO LEAVE THE BEIT MIDRASH

We must feel this way regarding our Torah study. When we leave the Beit Midrash at the conclusion of the Seder to take care of other matters, we must feel that we have no choice but to do so. We must feel that had it been possible, we would have a non-Jew sleep and eat for us and we would then be able to just sit and learn all day and night!

Unfortunately we cannot do this, Hashem created man with the need to eat and sleep, and this he can only do for himself. However, we need not feel that we would like to just eat and sleep, but seeing as the Yeshiva demands of us that we study a bit we are forced into learning some Torah in between meals!

We must understand that whoever does not experience joy in fulfillment of mitzvoth and learning Torah will be in a very unfortunate situation in the Next World. What will he occupy his time with? The only "entertainment" there is learning Torah. Hashem will teach the tzaddikim more and more and more. Where will such a person run to? On the other hand, one who arrives in the next world equipped with a love for Torah is very fortunate. His thirst for learning will be quenched to no end. He will be able to sit together with R' Shimon bar Yochai and Rabenu Tam and discuss words of Torah with them. He will hear a question posed by the Rambam that will be answered by the Ri"f. Amazing! One who does not possess a love for Torah will be very bored. We must prepare ourselves, develop a love of Torah and mitzvoth. If we do, we will merit davening with a whole heart and we will merit the days of the Moshiach and life in the Next World.

Parshat Devarim marks the third and final week of the period known as "tlata depuranuta", the three Shabbatot preceding Tisha B'Av in which the Haftarahs focus on the calamity surrounding the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. This Shabbat, immediately preceding Tisha B'Av is known as Shabbat Chazon, named for the opening word in the Haftarah and the book of Yeshayahu.

Had we had no previous knowledge on the subject and we were asked from which book of the prophets we would expect the Haftarah for the Shabbat immediately preceding Tisha B'Av to be drawn, we would answer "certainly from the book of Yirmiyahu!" Almost all of Yirmiyahu's prophecies relate to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. While discussing the ordering of the books of the prophets, Chazal describe the book of Yirmiyahu as being entirely about destruction while the book of Yeshayahu is described as focusing entirely on consolation (see Baba Batra 14b).

Would it not therefore have been more appropriate on this Shabbat which immediately precedes Tisha B'Av to read a Haftarah from the book of Yirmiyahu?

A further question: why does the book of Yeshayahu (whose name comes from the word yeshua meaning salvation) open with such harsh prophecy of destruction: "Woe O sinful nation, people weighed down by iniquity, offspring of evil, destructive children ... from the foot's sole to the head nothing is whole ... Your New Moons and your appointed festivals, My (Hashem's) soul hates, they have become a burden upon Me". Would we not have expected the opening chapter to encompass what the rest of the book will contain? This is not the case at all - in fact the opening prophecy appears to be in total opposition to the rest of the contents of the book of Yeshayahu.

We can pose the opposite question with regards to the book of Yirmiyahu. The book of Yirmiyahu, as we mentioned above, focuses on destruction. The first chapter opens with Yirmiyahu being chosen as a prophet even prior to his birth: "when you had not yet come forth from the womb, I sanctified you" (1:5). What is even more amazing is that the opening chapter of Yirmiyahu which was chosen as the first Haftarah for the three weeks of calamity contains an amazing demonstration of love between Hashem and the Jewish nation: "go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, 'thus said Hashem: 'I remember for your sake the kindness of your youth, the love of your bridal days, your following after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel is sacred unto Hashem, the first of His grain; all who devour him shall bear guilt, evil shall come upon them - the word of Hashem" (2:2, 3). As with Yeshayahu, the book of Yirmiyahu opens with a mood which does not reflect the book as a whole.

Each of these changes and distinctions appear to reflect the time period in which each of these prophets prophesied. As the opening pasuk states, Yeshayahu prophesied during the reigns of Uziyahu, Yotam, Achaz, and Chizkiyahu kings of Yehuda - more than one hundred years prior to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. This was not the time for harsh rebuke. On the contrary, Yeshayhau's prophecies are filled with consolation even prior to the destruction - "nachamu nachamu ami" "comfort, comfort My people" (Yeshayahu 40:1). The prophet did not fear that at this point in time perhaps the prophecies of consolation would weaken the resolve of the nation for spiritual growth - destruction was not in the immediate foreseeable future.

In case, however, people would be tempted to say: "I will walk as my heart sees fit" (Devarim 29:18) and "shalom alayich nafshi" "peace be unto you my soul" (Taanit 11a), Yeshayahu opens with Chazon Yeshayahu to cause the people to realize and be aware of the destruction that could possibly take place. Do not think for a moment, Yeshayahu is informing the people, that the prophecies of consolation which you are about to hear signify that you are immuned to destruction - on the contrary, spiritual decline will necessarily lead to destruction. Yeshayahu felt that only after making that clear could he pass on his prophecy of consolation without fear of it leading to spiritual decline.

Yirmiyahu does not have the same advantage as Yeshayahu for his term of prophecy immediately preceded the destruction. This was not the time for prophecies of consolation, the time had come to act and to improve people's behavior - to attack head-on all of the negative phenomena that could possibly lead to destruction.

The prophet Yirmiyahu feared that if he went on a non-stop barrage of attacks against the people, it could possibly leave the impression that he harbors hatred towards the Jewish people. Perhaps he enjoys putting people down. In order to combat this suspicion he opens with an incredible display of love towards the nation: "I remember for your sake the kindness of your youth, the love of your bridal days" - the love between Hashem and the nation is compared to the love between a bride and groom. This opening prophecy shows that all the mussar and rebuke stem from a deep love for the nation - a true desire to prevent any potential calamity.

Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu each show their abounding love for the Jewish people. The difference in prophecies was a result of each of them addressing the need of his own generation. As we mentioned, Yirmiyahu showed us that the rebuke and prophecies of destruction in no way detract from his love for the nation, by the same token Yeshayahu shows us that the fact that his prophecies are be filled with consolation does not detract from the possibility of impending destruction.

May it be the will of Hashem that we merit seeing the rebuilding of Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash, receive Hashem's consolation and merit the Total Redemption.