Haazinu: Can Man Stand in G-d’s Way?

The conclusion of this week’s Torah reading4 relates that “G‑d spoke to Moshe in the midst of this day,5 saying, ‘Go up this Mount Avarim, Mount Nevo6 … and die on the mountain.’ ”

Rashi cites the words, “G‑d spoke to Moshe in the midst of this day,” and comments, “In three places, [the Torah uses the phrase,] ‘in the midst of this day.’ ” He then proceeds to cite the first two places7 where the phrase is used: When G‑d brought Noach into the ark, as it is written,8 “In the midst of this day, Noach entered,…” and when the Jews left Egypt, as it is written in Parshas Bo,9 “In the midst of this day, G‑d brought out the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt.”

Rashi continues:

Regarding Noach, [the Torah] states, “In the midst of this day, Noach entered the ark.” [The phrase, “In the midst of this day,” means] in the full glare of daylight. Noach’s contemporaries said, “[We swear by] such and such that if we notice him [about to enter the ark], we will not allow him to enter! Not only that, we will take hatchets10 and axes and smash apart the ark!”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I will have [Noach] enter in the midst of this day. Let anyone who has the power to protest,11 come and protest!”

Regarding the Egyptians, [the Torah] states, “In the midst of this day, G‑d brought out the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt.” The Egyptians said, “[We swear] by such and such, that if we notice them [about to leave], we will not allow them! Not only that, but we will take swords and [other] weapons, and kill [some of] them!” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I will take them out [in the midst of this day], at midday. Let anyone who has the power to protest, come and protest!”

Here, also, regarding Moshe’s death, [the Torah] states, “in the midst of this day.” The Children of Israel said, “[We swear by] such and such, that if we notice him [preparing to ascend the mountain to die], we will not allow him! The man who brought us out of Egypt, split the sea for us, brought the manna down for us, caused quail to fly to us, brought well-water up for us, and gave us the Torah. We will not allow him!”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I will have him ascend in the midst of this day!”

The reason why Rashi feels it necessary to seek an interpretation of the words “in the midst of this day,” is straightforwardly understood: On the surface, these words are superfluous.12 At the beginning of this narrative, in Parshas VaYeilech, the Torah13 had already quoted Moshe as saying, “I am 120 years old today,” and it is known that he passed away this day. Thus, it is understood that everything that happened afterwards took place on this day, i.e., “in the midst of this day.” What then is the purpose of that phrase? Is there some specific point it communicates?

In anticipation of such questions, Rashi states that the verse is alluding to the fact that the Jews did not want to allow Moshe to pass away. In response, G‑d said, “I will have him ascend in the midst of this day!”

However, clarification is still necessary:

a) With regard to Noach’s contemporaries, it was possible for them to think that they had the potential to prevent Noach from entering the ark. Similarly, the Egyptians could have convinced themselves that they could have prevented the Jews from leaving Egypt. After all, they were the majority. However, how was it possible for the Jews to think that they could prevent Moshe’s passing, a matter that is entirely beyond the control of a mortal?14

b) Why, regarding the verse at hand, was it necessary for Rashi to explain that “in three places, [the Torah uses the phrase,] ‘in the midst of this day,’ ” and also to elaborate extensively regarding the other two places where this wording is used. He should have explained merely the straightforward meaning of the verse at hand – that the Jews did not want to allow the passing of Moshe, and cited G‑d’s response.

This is particularly true since when citing this phrase in Parshas Noach,⁵ Rashi explains in his commentary, “The verse teaches that [because of Noach’s] contemporaries…, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I will have him enter before the eyes of everyone!’ ”15 There, he does not bring support from another source that this is the meaning of the phrase, “in the midst of this day.”

Furthermore, if regarding Noach, which is the first time Rashi explains this phrase, he does not feel that another example or further support for his interpretation is necessary, how much more so would such support seem unnecessary the third time the Torah uses this phrase!

Moreover, in Parshas Bo, Rashi does not offer any interpretation for the verse,16 “In the midst of this day, G‑d took out….” Now, straightforwardly, the reason is that he relies on the interpretation he already gave in Parshas Noach. Why then, when commenting on the verse here, does he feel compelled to explain the meaning of the phrase, “in the midst of this day,” and, furthermore, to elaborate and cite examples and supports for his interpretation?

We are thus forced to say that this interpretation of our verse is not straightforward. It is only that the fact that these words are interpreted this way in other places which indicates that this is also the appropriate interpretation of our verse.17

Therefore, after citing the examples of Noach’s contemporaries and the Exodus from Egypt, Rashi chooses to say, “Here, also.” This differs from the wording in Sifri, Rashi’s source, which states, as it does regarding the Exodus from Egypt, “What prompted the verse to say…?” By using the phrase, “Here, also,” Rashi emphasizes that only after we find this interpretation regarding Noach and the Exodus from Egypt, are we compelled to say that “here, also,” this is the correct interpretation of the words “in the midst of this day.”

There are also certain nuances in Rashi’s wording that require clarification. Among them:

a) Regarding Noach’s contemporaries and the Exodus from Egypt, Rashi does not offer any reasons why they said, “We will not allow….” The reasons are self-evident. However, regarding Moshe’s passing, Rashi felt it necessary to explain the benefits that Moshe brought about for the Jewish people that caused them to say, “We will not allow him….” Why in this instance is it not also simply understood that the Jews did not desire Moshe to pass away?

b) Regarding Noach’s contemporaries and the Exodus from Egypt, Rashi does not suffice with quoting them as saying, “We will not allow…,” as in the present instance, but he adds further points: Regarding Noach’s contemporaries, he states, “Not only that, we will take axes and hatchets and smash apart the ark,” and regarding the Exodus from Egypt, he states, “Not only that, we will take swords and [other] weapons, and kill [some of] them.” In other words, not only would they not allow Noach to enter or the Jews to leave, they would also nullify the possibility of Noach entering or the Jews leaving, by smashing the ark or killing the Jews.

c) What is the reason why in that addition, “Not only that, we will take…,” Rashi mentions two particulars regarding both Noach’s contemporaries and the Exodus from Egypt? With regard to Noach’s contemporaries, he mentions “axes and hatchets” and with regard to the Exodus from Egypt, he mentions “swords and [other] weapons.”

d) In all three instances, the Sifri concludes, quoting G‑d, “Let anyone who has the power to protest, come and protest!” Rashi, by contrast, quotes the conclusion of G‑d’s statements, “Let anyone,….” regarding Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians. However, in the present instance, he states merely, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I will have him ascend in the midst of this day,’ ” and only adds the Hebrew term וכו', (“etc.”) as a reference to the conclusion of the Sifri, “Let anyone….”

Seemingly, since Rashi explicitly states the concluding phrase of the Sifri regarding the Egyptians instead of relying on what he stated previously regarding Noach, why does he merely hint at it here with the term וכו' and not state it explicitly? Seemingly, it would have been appropriate either to state וכו' in both instances or to explicitly include the full phrase both times.

e) When Rashi lists the various benefits that Moshe brought about for the Jewish people, why does he mention specifically the following benefits:18 “brought us out of Egypt, split the sea for us, brought the manna down for us, caused quail to fly to us, brought well-water up for us, and gave us the Torah”?19 Over the course of their 40 year sojourn in the desert, Moshe brought about many other benefits for the Jewish people; for example, he sweetened the bitter waters of Marah, and conquered the lands of Sichon and Og,20 etc.

f) Furthermore, the Sifri on this verse states that Moshe “brought about miracles and mighty acts on our behalf.” Why does Rashi omit this?21

To add a further point requiring explanation: One might question why focus is being placed on Rashi’s inclusion of these details. After all, Rashi’s commentary is taken from the Sifri. Nevertheless, since Rashi’s commentary presents the straightforward meaning of Scripture – and, in this particular instance, Rashi does not cite the Sifri as the source for his interpretation – it is necessary to say that all these details help clarify the straightforward meaning of the Scriptural narrative.

g) In his commentary, Rashi explains only the words, “in the midst of this day.” Why then as a heading for this entry does he cite also the introductory words, “G‑d spoke to Moshe”?

To explain the above: The simple difference between the instance described here and the examples of Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians is that the latter two were wicked people, who were prepared to act in opposition to G‑d’s will. Accordingly, it is understandable why – contrary to G‑d’s will – they did not want to allow Noach to enter the ark or the Jews to leave Egypt.

However, in the instance at hand, clarification is necessary: How is it possible to say that the Jews wanted to rebel against G‑d and act against of His will? After all, we are not speaking about the generation who sojourned in the desert and acted in opposition to G‑d’s will many times. Here, we are speaking about the generation who would enter Eretz Yisrael, people of whom it is said,22 “You, who are clinging to G‑d, your L‑rd.” It is difficult to say that they would take a stance against G‑d’s desire for Moshe to pass away.

Therefore, were it not for the proof that “in three places, [the Torah uses the phrase,] ‘in the midst of this day,’ ” we would not have interpreted G‑d’s words in our verse as an answer to the Jews saying, “We will not allow….” However, since “in three places, [the Torah uses the phrase…],” and, in the other two instances that same interpretation is understood from the words of the verse without any difficulty, that is proof that “Here, also, regarding Moshe’s death,” that interpretation is appropriate.

How could the Jews even think that they could prevent Moshe’s passing? Rashi clarifies this point through the words, “Here, also,” which he uses right after the extensive citation of the Sifri regarding Noach’s contemporaries and the Exodus from Egypt. With these words, he is emphasizing that the goal of the declaration, “We will not allow…,” was the same in all three instances.

Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians did not want to allow Noach or the Jews to go from one place to another; they tried to prevent Noach from entering the ark and the Jews from leaving Egypt. Similarly, the Jews wanted to prevent Moshe from going from one place to another, i.e., from ascending Mount Nevo. Since G‑d had told Moshe, “Die on the mountain,” they thought that by preventing Moshe from ascending the mountain, as a matter of course, they would have held back Moshe’s passing.23

On this basis, it is also understood why in the instance mentioned here, it was sufficient for Rashi merely to quote the Jews as saying, “We will not allow him…,” while in the other instances, he had to add, “Not only that, we will take….” Since Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians were wicked, they were not certain that G‑d’s commandment for Noach to enter the ark “in another seven days”24 and the Jews’ Exodus from Egypt, “at midnight,…”25 would necessarily be fulfilled exactly as G‑d said. Accordingly, in their minds, it was not sufficient for them to take action to prevent Noach and the Jews from carrying out G‑d’s commandment only on that one specific day. Instead, they would have had to keep a constant watch for days and weeks, by day and by night, that Noach would not enter the ark, nor would the Jews leave Egypt. To avoid having to keep such a watch, they felt that they would have to perform an act that would nullify the entire possibility of Noach entering the ark or the Jews leaving Egypt – they would “smash the ark” and “kill [some of] them.”

The instance at hand, by contrast, speaks about Jews who are righteous. They knew with simple faith that G‑d’s decree which caused Moshe to tell them,26 “Today, my years have been completed...” which they understood to mean, “On this day, I will die,”27 was a precise prophecy. They thought that if Moshe would not ascend the mountain on the day that it was decreed that he would die, the decree would be nullified. (This parallels a previous statement of Rashi,28 that after the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og, which would be included as part of Eretz Yisrael, Moshe thought that since he had entered that portion of the land, G‑d had abrogated His vow not to allow him to enter the land as a whole.)

Therefore, the Jews thought that if they would not allow Moshe to ascend the mountain on this day, it would be sufficient to cancel the decree regarding Moshe’s passing.

Why when speaking about Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians did Rashi cite two actions they would take to prevent G‑d’s desire from being fulfilled, “Not only that, we will take axes and hatchets” and “swords and weapons”?

Regarding Noach’s contemporaries: Because they saw that G‑d desired to save Noach from the Flood by bringing him into the ark, they thought that if they would break the ark, Noach’s place of refuge, G‑d would not be able bring the Flood, (i.e., rather than cause Noach to perish, G‑d would withhold the punishment from everyone).

Therefore, knowing that Noach would certainly try to prevent them from smashing the ark, they would have had to seek a means to smash the ark and yet not cause Noach to be killed while they did so. For were they to kill him, then there would be no reason that would prevent G‑d from bringing the Flood.29

For this reason, Rashi states that Noach’s contemporaries did not only bring “axes” to break the ark, but they also brought “hatchets.” Previously, in Parshas Shoftim,30 Rashi had stated that “the officers of the legions” had “iron hatchets in their hands, and if anybody attempted to retreat, they had the authority to strike his legs.” Hatchets are not weapons that necessarily kill. This is hinted at in the very word כשיל, k’shil (translated as “hatchets”), which contains the same root letters as כשלון, kishalon, “stumbling block,” a hindrance, but not something that kills.31

Similarly, in the instance at hand, Noach’s contemporaries took hatchets to keep Noach from preventing their smashing the ark.

A similar concept applies with regard to the Egyptians: They knew that as soon as they would begin to kill the Jews, the Jews would go to war against them. Therefore, they armed themselves not only with “swords,” murderous weapons, but also “weapons”32 in general, including defensive weapons.33

A question still remains: How was it nevertheless possible for the Jews to desire to do something to prevent Moshe’s passing? Ultimately, such an action would be the opposite of G‑d’s desire.

Rashialludes to an answer to that question by noting that the Jews said, “The man who brought us out of Egypt….”

In Parshas Ki Savo,34 we learned that when G‑d blesses a Jew with a field that yields fruit, he may not be ungrateful. He is obligated to bring his first fruits as an offering and give thanks to G‑d. Accordingly, the Jews claimed: Since Moshe brought them out of Egypt and granted them many benefits, they were obligated not to be ungrateful and, consequently, must do everything within their power not to allow his passing. This applies even if doing so would displace G‑d’s commandment35 to Moshe to ascend Mount Avarim, Mount Nevo.

For this reason, Rashi does not content himself with citing only one of the benefits Moshe brought about and just adding 'וכו (“etc.”). Instead, he mentions them in detail, for the greater the number of benefits the Jews received from Moshe, the greater and stronger was their obligation not to be ungrateful and the more justified their efforts to prevent the fulfillment of G‑d’s command, “Ascend to Mount….”

On this basis, we can understand why Rashi chose specifically the above-mentioned benefits that Moshe brought the Jews and not others. Moshe had brought the Jews many benefits over the course of all the previous years. Since the Jews were not ungrateful, they had certainly expressed their gratitude previously.

For this reason, Rashi highlights only those benefits that the Jews were experiencing also this day – the day that Moshe was to ascend the mountain. Thus, they had an immediate obligation not to be ungrateful.

True, Rashi also mentions Moshe’s taking the Jews out of Egypt, splitting the sea for them, and giving them the Torah.36 Although these are events that took place in the past and, furthermore, involved the previous generation who sojourned in the desert, this does not raise a question, because these benefits were of a continuous nature, (to borrow the parlance of Rabbinic discussion, they resemble a peulah nimsheches, “an ongoing activity”)37 that affects all Jews in every generation and at all times.

Regarding the Exodus from Egypt (and the splitting of the sea that was the conclusion of that Exodus),38 we already learned that it is relevant at all times, as the verse states,39 “When it will come to pass that your child will ask you machar” – and here, machar does not mean only “tomorrow,” but rather, as Rashi comments on that verse, “at some future time,” without putting any limits on that time – “and you shall tell your son…, [G‑d] took us out from [Egypt].” Similarly, the Giving of the Torah was also not limited to that generation that was there, but involves all Jews over the course of all the generations.40

For this reason, Rashi leaves out the phrase used by the Sifri, “He brought about miracles and mighty acts on our behalf.” Instead, as mentioned above, Rashi is listing factors from which the Jews derived benefit even on the day that Moshe ascended to Mount Nevo. He is not focusing on the “miracles and mighty acts” that had benefited them only in the past.

On the surface, this explanation is still not entirely satisfactory. After all, G‑d had given an explicit command, “Ascend to Mount Avarim, Mount Nevo.” How was it possible for the Jews to think that their obligation not to be ungrateful would permit them to prevent Moshe’s passing?

To answer that question, Rashi also cites the words from the verse beginning, “G‑d spoke to Moshe....” Implicit in that phrase is that the command, “Ascend to Mount Avarim, Mount Nevo” was issued only to Moshe and was binding on him, not on them.

Accordingly, since the command was not incumbent upon them,41 their efforts in preventing Moshe from ascending would not have involved a violation of G‑d’s word. Moreover, Moshe would be prevented from ascending due to forces beyond his control and, therefore, he would not have been held responsible. As reflected by the command regarding a woman who was raped,42 “to the maiden, do not do anything,” a person is not held liable when forced to act against his or her will. Thus, their acts to block Moshe from ascending the mountain would only serve as an indirect cause preventing him from fulfilling the commandment incumbent upon him. Accordingly, the Jews maintained that their own obligation not to be ungrateful supersedes the fact that they would be an indirect cause of Moshe not fulfilling G‑d’s command.43

On this basis, we can understand why Rashi does not specifically conclude his statement regarding the Jews endeavoring to prevent Moshe from ascending with the words, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said,… ‘Let anyone who has the power to protest, come and protest!’ ” as he did regarding Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians; instead, he merely alludes to it by writing וכו'. The Jews were not attempting to protest against G‑d, Heaven forbid, but rather to perform an act which they understood to be an obligation according to the Torah – not to be ungrateful. Therefore, had Rashi explicitly stated, “Let anyone who has the power to protest, come and protest!” his words could be interpreted as implying that the Jews’ actions would have been carried out with the same motivation as those of Noach’s contemporaries and the Egyptians – as an act of rebellion and protest against G‑d.44 Therefore, Rashi merely alluded to G‑d’s response by writing וכו'.

To add further clarification in answer to the question: Since, ultimately, there was a command from G‑d to Moshe to ascend to the mountain, how could the Jews have wanted to prevent him from carrying out G‑d’s command?

We find a previous instance where a mortal nullified a Divine decree. After the Sin of the Golden Calf, G‑d told Moshe,45 “Let Me be… so that I will annihilate them.” Rashi interprets G‑d’s words as meaning that G‑d “‘opened a door’ for [Moshe]and informed him that the matter depended upon him. If he would pray for them, [G‑d] would not destroy them.” Similarly, in the present instance, the Jews thought that the reason why “G‑d spoke to Moshe” individually and not to the people and also made his passing conditional – that it would take place after he ascended the mountain – was because G‑d “ ‘opened a door’ for [them] and informed [them] that the matter was dependent on [them].” Thus, they understood that G‑d was alluding to the fact that this decree could be nullified if the Jews prevented his ascent to the mountain. Not only was it possible that the decree that Moshe would pass away on that day be fulfilled against the people’s will, as was the conscription of the soldiers for the war against Midian,46 but, moreover, G‑d was hinting that, in this case, his passing could be prevented entirely. This is particularly true since Moshe would be blameless for failing to ascend the mountain because he would have been held back by forces beyond his control.

From an inner perspective, the following explanation can be given. Although it was already after G‑d had decreed that Moshe would pass away, since it is a matter that affected the Jewish community as a whole, it was possible that a communal response could nullify the decree, just as teshuvah carried out by the entire community can nullify a decree even after it was sealed.47

This also serves as a reason why Rashi does not include the concluding phrase, “Let anyone who has the power to protest, come and protest!” In truth, the Jews did possess the power to protest and to nullify the Divine decree. As we see, on three occasions48 the prayers of Moshe himself nullified a Divine decree. Just as Moshe’s prayers were effective in nullifying half of the Divine decree that resulted from G‑d’s being angry with Aharon,49 similarly, the prayers and the teshuvah carried out by the community could have nullified the Divine anger aroused against Moshe.50 We find such an example with regard to establishing Torah Law; G‑d allowed His ruling to be overturned by the Jewish court and declared, “My children have prevailed against Me; they have prevailed against Me.”51

If so, why indeed were the Jews unable to nullify the decree that Moshe would die? The verse alludes to an answer to this question with the phrase, be’etzem hayom hazeh, translated above as, “in the midst of this day.” Etzem also means “essence.” “This day,” i.e., the passing of Moshe on this day, affected be’etzem, the very essence of the existence of the Jewish people.

To explain: Our Sages teach52 that Moshe’s handiwork is eternal. Accordingly, were Moshe to have led the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, it would not have been possible for them to later be exiled from the land.53 Consequently, the punishment for the Jews’ sins would not have been carried out in a manner where “The Holy One, blessed be He, poured out His wrath on the wood and the stones,”54 destroying the land and the Beis HaMikdash instead of the Jews, Heaven forbid. For that reason, it was necessary that Moshe ascend to Mount Avarim, Mount Nevo.

The above contains a lesson for every Jew in his individual Divine service. Every Jew has a spark of Moshe within his soul, as the Alter Rebbe explains at length in Tanya.55 The question begs to be asked: Since G‑d desires that every Jew study Torah and fulfill its mitzvos, why did He cause the attribute of Moshe within a Jew’s soul to be hidden – and, at times, it appears that it is entirely hidden, while, on a revealed level, all that is felt is the animal soul?

The answer is that this is for a Jew’s benefit – that it is specifically through this concealment that he reaches be’etzem hayom hazeh. In other words, particularly when Divine service is required – i.e., when it is necessary for a Jew to labor to overcome the concealment of G‑dliness within his own being, around him, and in the world as a whole – that is when the essence of the Jew is expressed.56 After such service, we will be able to perceive that all the concealment of G‑dliness that originally existed was solely a preparation for the ascent that will come – the redemption to be brought about through the aspect of Moshe within his soul.

The personal redemption experienced by every individual will lead to the all-encompassing Redemption. At that time, it will be apparent that Moshe, the first redeemer, will be the ultimate redeemer,57 i.e., that the revelation of the attribute of Moshe in every Jew will bring about the Ultimate Redemption.

Adapted from sichos delivered on Shabbos Parshas Haazinu, 5727 (1966)