פרשת כי תשא/פרשת פרהOne of the striking verses that we read in the events surrounding Eigel Hazahav reads (Sh’mos Perek 33/Posuk 7):

ומשה יקח את האהל ונטה לו מחוץ למחנה הרחק מן המחנה וקרא לו אהל מועד:והיה כל מבקש ה' יצא אל אהל מועד אשר מחוץ למחנה

Moshe took1 the tent and he pitched2 it outside the encampment, far from the encampment, and he called it Ohel Moed and if a person sought G-d, he went out to the Ohel Moed that was outside of the encampment.

There is much to investigate in this verse. The primary question is which tent is under discussion and why Moshe Rabbenu moved it.

Additionally, the verse practically demands of us to understand the repeated implications of distance. This Ohel Moed was outside the camp, far from the

1 The word in the verse is יקח meaning ‘he will take’. We translated it at this point as ‘he took’, to be in consonance with a simple meaning of the words.

Rashi writes: יקח את האהל - לשון הווה הוא, לוקח אהלו ונוטהו מחוץ למחנה...

Will take the tent-[The word יקח] is an expression of present tense. He takes his tent and pitches it outside of the encampment. However, this explanation does not help sufficiently. It would seem that he took the tent one time and placed it in its new location. ‘Taking’ the tent implies repetitive action. The explanation is still missing. Ibn Ezra had said the same explanation and gives references where we find similar uses of the language.

Rashbam writes: יקח - לקח. He will take- [means] he took. However, even if it is easier to translate the verse according to Rashbam, we still need to know why the Torah did not write לקח which means he took and wrote instead יקח which means he will take. 2 This is the word that is used throughout Tanach meaning to erect a tent. We find it first used in Parshas Lech Lecha (B’reishis Perek 12/Posuk 8): ויעתק משם ההרה מקדם לבית אל ויט אהלה בית אל מים והעי מקדם ויבן שם מזבח לה' ויקרא

:בשם ה'Avram moved from there to the mountains, east of Beit El and he pitched his tent; Beit El from the west and the Ai from the east and he built their an altar for Hashem and he called in the name of Hashem.

camp and outside the camp. We may venture a preliminary opinion as to why Moshe Rabbenu wished to distance himself-in reaction to it חטא העגל would seem-but why the repeated ‘outside’s?

Rashi shares two opinions with us. The first is what he considers to be the P’shat and the second is the Midrash which he brings in a very concise manner.

What was the reason Moshe Rabbenu separated himself from the encampment of Israel? It was true that Israel sinned, but why should there be this division?

Rashi writes: אמר מנודה לרב, מנודה לתלמיד . Moshe said, [the Halachah is that] in the master excommunicates someone, the students must follow suit3.

3 Excommunication-נדוי was a means of censuring an individual. (There is a harsher level of excommunication called (.חרם Sometimes this is a punishment levied against an individual as a censor for his sins. Thus, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Dean Siman 334/S’if 1) writes: העובר על דבר איסור לאלתר אותו .מנדין An individual [who deliberately] violated a Halachic prohibition is excommunicated [by Beis Din] immediately.

What is the nature of that excommunication? Shulchan Aruch writes further (s’if 2):

המנודה אין יושבין בד' אמותיו חוץ מאשתו ובניו... ואין אוכלין ושותין עמו. ואין מזמנין עליו. ואין כוללין אותו לכל דבר שצריך עשרה...ואסור בתכבוסת ובתספורת ובנעילת הסנדל, כאבל. ומותר

בדברי תורה. שונה, ושונין לו. נשכר, ונשכרין לו...The one who is excommunicated – one may not sit within 4 amos of him, with the exception of his wife and children…People do not eat or drink with him. He cannot be part of a zimmun for Birchas Hamozon. He is not included in a minyan…He may not wash his clothes or take a haircut or wear leather shoes, as is the case by a mourner (during shiva). He is allowed to learn Torah, he can teach and others can teach him. He can be hired for work and others can be hired to work for him.

In addition to this ‘institutional’ excommunication, there is personal excommunication as well.

In s’if 17, we learn that, among others, a Rav can excommunicate an individual who has demonstrated impudence to him. For such effrontery, the Rav can excommunicate that individual. In S’if 15, Shulchan Aruch writes:

מנודה לרב, מנודה לתלמיד.One who is excommunicated by the Rav is ipso facto excommunicated from the disciple of the Rav.

Excommunication is meted out because of sins and brazenness. The sin of Eigel Hazahav was a combination of both to the maximum.

G-d said to Israel (Posuk 3):אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש כי לא אעלה בקרבך כי עם to a Land flowing with milk and [You will be led] .קשה ערף אתה פן אכלך בדרךhoney, but I [Hashem] will not go up in your midst because you are a stubborn people, lest I destroy you on the way. The fact that He would not be with them is a symbol of that Divine excommunication. In consonance with the Halachah, Moshe Rabbenu removed himself from their presence as well.

Thus, the explanation that the tent in question was Moshe’s personal domicile follows quite logically. Rashi writes: לוקח אהלו ונוטהו מחוץ למחנה. He took his4 tent and pitched outside of the encampment.

Now, if this would be the conclusion of this semi-episode in the middle of the subject of Eigel Hazahav, I would understand that Moshe demonstrated his revulsion to that terrible sin, in conformity to that which he saw from Hashem.

4 I originally thought that perhaps Targum Onklos disagreed with this idea of Rashi and held that, in fact, it was the Mishkan that was moved, an idea that has many implications for understanding this section-as will be seen later on in the text.The reason that I thought that is because Onklos writes:

ומשה נסיב ית משכנא ופרסיה ליה מברא למשריתא...

Moshe took the tent and pitched it outside the encampment…

In note 2 above, when we discussed the usage of the word נטה, we had the phrase ויט אהלה-Avram pitched his tent. There Onklos writes: ופרסיה למשכניה. He pitched his tent. It would seem that there is a striking difference which could lead us to assume that it was not his tent that Moshe Rabbenu moved here, but it was the tent-the Mishkan. The fact that this tent is called Ohel Moed, just like the Mishkan, would support that premise.

However, the supra-commentary on Targum Onklos called Nefesh HaGer demonstrates that such a conclusion is uncalled for. When the Posuk refers to the Mishkan as Ohel Moed we find that Onklos renders it משכן זמנא, faithful to the word meaning ‘time’, just like ,מועד means time. See Sh’mos זמנא Perek 27/Posuk 21 for the first of dozens of examples.

However, the Torah has much more to tell us about this tent-moving.

We read (P’sukim 8-11):

והיה כצאת משה אל האהל יקומו כל העם ונצבו איש פתח אהלו והביטו אחרי משה עד באו האהלה: והיה כבא משה האהלה ירד עמוד הענן ועמד פתח האהל ודבר עם משה: וראה כל העם את עמוד הענן עמד פתח האהל וקם כל העם והשתחוו איש פתח אהלו: ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו ושב אל

המחנה ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל:

When Moshe left the tent the people would arise and stand erect, each person at the opening of his tent and they would look at Moshe until he came to the tent. When Moshe came to the tent, the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the opening of the tent and He spoke with Moshe. The people would see the pillar of cloud standing at the opening of the tent and the people would arise and each one would bow at the opening of his tent. Hashem spoke with Moshe, face to face, as a person speaks with his friend and Moshe returned to the encampment and his aide, Yehoshua bin Nun a lad, did not depart from the midst of the tent.

The fact that Hashem spoke with Moshe at the tent seems to most appropriate in the context. It was necessary for Moshe to speak with Hashem. Hashem, evidently would not speak with Moshe in the midst of the camp because of the excommunication that He imposed upon them.

G-d’s unique relationship with Moshe Rabbenu would not override the nidduy that was imposed upon them because, as G-d’s student, Moshe was required to observe the rules of the excommunication as well.

Thus, in order to speak with Hashem, Moshe was forced to move his tent. When he did so, G-d spoke to him. The Torah tells us here, as it mentions in other places5, the unparalleled way in which G-d spoke with Moshe so that we 5 See for example B’midbar Perek 12/Posuk 8:

:פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה ולא בחידת ותמנת ה' יביט ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר בעבדי במשהMouth to mouth I Hashem will speak in him [Moshe] with vision and not hidden; he will see the picture of Hashem; why are you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moshe?

See also at the very end of the Torah (D’vorim Perek 34/Posuk 10):

understand that His relationship with Moshe Rabbenu was not lessened because the sin of Israel6 or because of Moshe’s powerful defense of them.

I do not understand, however, what was the going back and forth of Moshe that the verses imply. The verses talk about Moshe coming to the tent and returning to the encampment. What was the purpose of this coming and going?

An answer to this question is apparent from the Shulchan Aruch. We read in Yoreh Deah (Siman 334/s’if 2): One who is .ומותר בדברי תורה. שונה, ושונין לו excommunicated is permitted to learn Torah. He can learn with others and others can learn with him.

That is, though the one who is excommunicated is shunned, that lack of communication does not apply to the study of Torah.

:ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אשר ידעו ה' פנים אל פניםNo prophet again will arise in Israel like Moshe whom G-d knew face to face. 6 Although this is not our topic, we cannot leave this point ignored. When Hashem apprised Moshe about the Eigel, we read as follows (Perek 32/Posuk 7): וידבר ה' אל משה לך רד כי שחת עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים. Hashem spoke to Moshe, ‘Go, go down because your people whom you brought up from the Land of Egypt have corrupted.

Rashi writes::וידבר - לשון קושי הוא, כמו )בראשית מב/ז( וידבר אתם קשות

Hashem spoke-This is an expression of harshness [in keeping with the verse regarding the initial conversation Yosef with his brothers] he spoke with them harshly.

לך רד - מגדולתך, לא נתתי לך גדולה אלא בשבילם. באותה שעה נתנדה משה מפי בית דין של:מעלה

Go, go down-from your greatness. I Hashem only gave you greatness because of them. At that moment Moshe was excommunicated by the heavenly Beis Din.

It would seem that once Moshe was successful in deterring the total destruction of Israel, his greatness was restored because Israel still needed him.

Thus, Rashi writes: Moshe .היה משה שב אל המחנה ומלמד לזקנים מה שלמד would return to the encampment [from his Ohel Moed] and teach the elders that which he learned7.

Thus, Moshe’s behavior was in complete conformity to the Halachos of niduy.

What is less evident is the moving description of how the people reacted to Moshe Rabbenu’s comings and goings and to the presence of the Shechinah at Moshe’s personal Ohel Moed.

I think that the answer to that question may be found in the explanation with which Rashi provides us in presenting us with a time frame for this event of the moving of the tent of Moshe.

Rashi writes:

7 There was fixed order of instruction after Mattan Torah. We read in Masseches Eiruvin (54 b):

תנו רבנן, כיצד סדר משנה? משה למד מפי הגבורה, נכנס אהרן ושנה לו משה פירקו. נסתלק אהרן וישב לשמאל משה. נכנסו בניו ושנה להן משה פירקן, נסתלקו בניו, אלעזר ישב לימין משה ואיתמר לשמאל אהרן... נכנסו זקנים ושנה להן משה פירקן, נסתלקו זקנים, נכנסו כל העם ושנה להן משה פירקן. נמצאו ביד אהרן ארבעה, ביד בניו שלשה, וביד הזקנים שנים, וביד כל העם אחד. נסתלק משה, ושנה להן אהרן פירקו. נסתלק אהרן שנו להן בניו פירקן. נסתלקו בניו, שנו להן זקנים פירקן. נמצא ביד הכל ארבעה. מכאן אמר רבי אליעזר: חייב אדם לשנות לתלמידו ארבעה פעמים. וקל וחומר, ומה אהרן שלמד מפי משה, ומשה מפי הגבורה - כך, הדיוט מפי

.הדיוט - על אחת כמה וכמהThe Braisa taught: What was the procedure of instruction? Moshe learned from Hashem. Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his section. Aharon went up and sat at Moshe’s left. Aharon’s sons entered and Moshe taught them their section. The sons went up, Elazar sat to the right of Moshe and Itamar sat to Aharon’s left. The elders entered and Moshe taught them their section. The elders went up and the entire people entered. Moshe taught them their section. The result is that [the section] was learned by Aharon four times, by his sons, three times, by the elders twice and by the people, once. Moshe left and Aharon taught [to all] their section. Aharon left and his sons taught to all their section. The sons left and the elders taught to all their section. The result was that everyone was taught four times. From this, Rabi Eliezer said: a person should teach his student [his section] four times. This is a kal vachomer. If Aharon who learned from Moshe and Moshe learned from G-d, how much more so [should this be the way that a] commoner who learns from a commoner should learn.

והדבר הזה נהג משה מיום הכפורים עד שהוקם המשכן ולא יותר, שהרי בשבעהודן את החוטאים, עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, ובשמונה עשר שרף את העגל ובתשעה עשר עלה...עשה שם ארבעים יום ובקש רחמים...ובראש חדש אלול נאמרועשה שם לוחות האחרונות, סיני, לקבל ועלית בבקר אל הר לד/ב( )שמות לו ובלב לישראל בשמחה הוא ברוך הקדוש נתרצה יום...בעשרה בתשרי ארבעים והתחיל וירד אחרונות. לוחות לו ומסר כדברך, סלחתי למשה לו ואמר שלם, לצוותם על מלאכת המשכן ועשאוהו עד אחד בניסן, ומשהוקם לא נדבר עמו עוד

אלא מאהל מועד:

Moshe had this practice form Yom Kippur until the Mishkan was erected, and no longer. On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets of the Ten Commandments were broken. On the eighteenth he burned the Eigel and convicted the sinners. On the nineteenth he ascended {Mt. Sinai]… and was there for forty days and sought mercy [for Israel]…On Rosh Chodesh Elul Moshe was told, ‘You will ascend in the morning to Har Sinai’ to receive the second Ten Commandments. He was there for forty days…On the tenth of Tishrei (Yom Kippur) Hashem accepted the appeasement of Israel with happiness and a full heart and He Yisborach said to Moshe, “I forgive, in accordance with your word.’ Hashem gave Moshe the second tablets. Moshe descended and began to command the people regarding the building of the Mishkan and they made it until the first of Nissan. When the Mishkan was erected, Hashem only spoke to Moshe then on from the Ohel Moed (=Mishkan).

Now Rashi presents us with a seeming paradox. He just told us that that the moving of Moshe’s tent occurred from Yom HaKippurim. Earlier, Rashi taught that the reason for moving the tent was because Moshe had to follow the lead of his Rebbe-Hashem and relate to Israel as excommunicates, just like Hashem related to them. However, here Rashi writes that Hashem was completely pleased with Israel from Yom Kippur. Thus there would be no need for Moshe to move his personal tent!8

Perhaps we can understand this event as follows.

8 Ramban already deals with some of this issue. See Mizrachi’s analysis and commentary on this issue.

The period between Yom HaKippurim of that second year following the Exodus and Rosh Chodesh Nissan when the Mishkan would be dedicated was fraught with danger.

There could be no more illusions regarding relying upon Israel to lead a life of consistent behavior. If the unmatched sanctity of Mattan Torah could be contaminated by the Eigel, then there is no question that splendor of G-d’s forgiveness could be violated easily.

Thus, Moshe Rabbenu chose this delicate period between Yom HaKippurim and the first of Nissan to provide protection from Israel so that they should not sin. It was his hope that when the Mishkan would be built and the Shechinah would find a permanent presence among Israel the draw of sin and idolatry would be minimized.

How could Moshe navigate this delicate period so that the people would not slip once again?

Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuva (Perek 2/Halachah2):

אי זו היא תשובה גמורה, זה שבא לידו דבר שעבר בו ואפשר בידו לעשותו ופירש ולא עשה מפני התשובה, לא מיראה ולא מכשלון כח, כיצד הרי שבא על אשה בעבירה ולאחר זמן נתייחד עמה והוא עומד באהבתו בה ובכח גופו ובמדינה שעבר בה ופירש ולא עבר זהו בעל תשובה גמורה...ואם לא שב אלא בימי זקנותו ובעת שאי אפשר לו לעשות מה שהיה עושה אף על פי שאינה תשובה מעולה מועלת היא

לו ובעל תשובה הוא...

What is complete Teshuva? That is when a person has an opportunity to sin and separates himself from the sin in order to repent, not because of fear or because of failure to commit the sin. For example, if a man lived with a woman illicitly and another time he was secluded with her and he still loves her and is physically able to be with her and is in the same environment in which he sinned-but he separates himself and does not sin, he is a complete Baal Teshuva…If he only repented in his old age at a time where he could not commit the sin, even though it is not the best Teshuva, it is significant and he is a Baal Teshuva....

Moshe Rabbenu wished to reconstruct a situation which would replicate, somewhat at least, the events at Sinai but inculcate within them a strength that would let them withstand sin.

How was that done?

First, Moshe Rabbenu had to remind them of how distraught they were when they felt the loss of G-d’s presence. That is conveyed in the verses adjacent to our episode.

There we read (P’sukim 2-4):

ושלחתי לפניך מלאך וגרשתי את הכנעני האמרי והחתי והפרזי החוי והיבוסי: אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש כי לא אעלה בקרבך כי עם קשה ערף אתה פן אכלך בדרך:

וישמע העם את הדבר הרע הזה ויתאבלו ולא שתו איש עדיו עליו:

I Hashem will sent My angel before you and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Emorites, the Chittites, the Prazi, the Chi’vi and the Jebusites. To the land flowing with milk and honey, because I will not ascend in your midst because you are a stubborn people, lest I Hashem destroy you on the way. The people heard this bad thing and they mourned and no one donned his adornments.

How could Moshe remind that of such a feeling? He acted with them as if they were still excommunicates. He put his tent far from the People.

‘Far’ is a distance of 2000 amoh, as Rashi explains:

וביניו ביניכם יהיה רחוק אך ג/ד( )יהושע שנאמר כענין אמה, אלפים - הרחק כאלפים אמה במדה

Far- Two Thousand Amoh, as it says in regard to the distance the Israelites had to maintain between themselves and the Aron Kodesh when they crossed the Jordan River-‘However there should be a distance between you and it, of a measured 2000 amoh’.9

9 Were it not for the fact that Rashi cited this Posuk in Sefer Yehoshua, I would have thought to suggest another reason for the choice of 2000 amoh to be the distance between Moshe and Israel, especially in the context of excommunication, something irrelevant to crossing the Jordan.

By replicating the situation of niduy, the people could be reminded of the sense of distraught that overcame them.

How would the presence of Hashem be replicated? It would be impossible to duplicate the events at Sinai. The Shechinah was palpable. Everyone heard the Aseres HaDibros as a unit and the first two Dibros ‘spoken’ individually10. That event cannot be repeated.

In Masseches Eiruvin, the measure of Techum Shabbos is discussed. What is the distance that one is allowed to walk on Shabbos past the inhabited area? Everyone agrees that there is a Rabbinic prohibition of distancing oneself 2000 amoh from the end of the inhabited area.Chazal said that this is the implication of the verse in B’shalach (Perek 16/Posuk 29) in connection with Mon- ראו כי ה' נתן לכם השבת על כן הוא נתן לכם ביום הששי לחם יומים שבו איש תחתיו אל יצא איש

:ממקמו ביום השביעיSee that G-d gave you Shabbos, thus he gave you on Friday bread for two days; everyone should sit under himself, no one should go from his place on the seventh day.What is the מקום-place from which a person is prohibited from departing on Shabbos?

The Yerushalmi Eiruvin (Perek 4) writes: ומניין לאלפיים אמה אל יצא איש ממקומו ביום השביעי...מקום מקום נאמר כאן מקום ונא' להלן ]שם כא/יג[ ושמתי לך מקום מה מקום שנאמר להלן אלפיים אמה אף מקום שנאמר כאן אלפיים

אמה.

How do we know that 2000 amoh is the measure [of Techum Shabbos]? ‘A person should not go from his place on the seventh day’. [We learn by means of a G’zeira Shavah] ‘place’ from ‘place’. It says ‘I Hashem will give you a place’. Just like there the place is 2000 amoh, here too, it is 2000 amoh.

What is the ‘place’ under discussion in the other citation? It refers to the city of refuge which is on the outskirts of a city, 2000 amoh from the populated area.

Thus, 2000 amoh is the distance the Torah wished to keep between the law-abiding citizens and the sinners. 10 The Torah writes in its introduction to the Aseres HaDibros (Sh’mos Perek 20/Posuk 1): וידבר א...ל'קים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר. G-d spoke all of these

Thus, Moshe attempted to make a situation where the presence of G-d could be felt and sensed in a most real way, even though by definition it had to be qualitatively, as well as quantitatively, less than at Mattan Torah.

The goal of Moshe Rabbenu was that this time, the People’s dedication to G-d would not dissipate and they would have unwavering loyalty to Him in this interim period between Yom HaKippurim and Rosh Chodesh Nissan.

words saying. The phrase “All of these words” seems to be superfluous.

Thus Rashi explains: את כל הדברים האלה - מלמד שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא עשרת הדברות בדבור אחד, מה שאי אפשר לאדם לומר כן. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר עוד אנכי ולא יהיה לך, שחזר ופירש על כל דבור

:ודבור בפני עצמוAll of these words-This teaches that Hashem said the entire Aseres HaDibros in one word, that which man is incapable of doing. If so, what are we taught [by the individual statements of] Onochi Hashem and Lo yi’h’yeh l’cho? Hashem repeated each statement individually.

This implies that in addition to hearing the entirety of Aseres HaDibros as one utterance, all of Israel heard each Dibra individually. However, that statement seems to be contradicted by the teaching of Chazal at the end of Masseches Makkos (23 b). we read there: דרש רבי שמלאי: שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה, שלש מאות וששים וחמש לאוין כמנין ימות החמה, ומאתים וארבעים ושמונה עשה כנגד איבריו של אדם. אמר רב המנונא: מאי קרא? )דברים לג/ד( תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה )קהילת יעקב(, תורה בגימטריא שית מאה וחד

.סרי הוי, אנכי ולא יהיה לך מפי הגבורה שמענוםRabi Simlai interpreted: 613 Mitzvos were said to Moshe, 365 prohibitions, as the number of the days of the solar year; 248 positive commands, as the number of the limbs of the body. Rav Hamnuna said, ‘What is the verse [upon which Rabi Simlai based his words]? Moshe commanded us Torah as an inheritance. Torah in gematria is 611. Onochi and Lo yi’h’yeh l’cho they heard directly from the Almighty.Thus, we see that only two Dibros were heard explicitly. How do we understand this apparent contradiction? In Parshas Yisro, in connection with Mattan Torah, we read (Perek 20/Posuk 16) what Israel said to Moshe Rabbenu as the Torah was being presented to them.

ויאמרו אל משה דבר אתה עמנו ונשמעה ואל ידבר עמנו א...ל'קים פן נמות:They said to Moshe, “You speak with us and we will hear; let G-d not speak with us, lest we will die.

The Torah tells us of the success of Moshe Rabbenu. The people were in awe of the Shechinah and they were moved by the greatness of Moshe Rabbenu.

We read that when Moshe went from his Ohel and returned to it that the people arose in his honor and they stared after him. What was the purpose of that staring? Rashi writes:

יקומו כל העם - עומדים מפניו ואין יושבין עד שנתכסה מהם:

All the people arose-they stood before Moshe and would not sit down until he was no longer visible to them.

והביטו אחרי משה - לשבח, אשרי ילוד אשה שכך מובטח, שהשכינה תכנס אחריולפתח אהלו:

They stared after Moshe-This is a praise [to Moshe]. How fortunate is a this one born of woman to know with surety that the Shechinah will enter after him into the opening of his tent.

The purpose of Mattan Torah was not only to give Mitzvos. Its goal was to establish the uncontested authority of Moshe Rabbenu as G-d’s emissary11 and thus to begin the line of authority that would extend throughout history12.

11 Thus Rambam writes at the beginning of the eighth Perek of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah:

סיני בו במעמד הר ובמה האמינו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה... בו משה רבינו לא האמינו שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר...והקול מדבר אליו ואנו שומעים משה משה לך אמור להן כך וכך...ומנין שמעמד הר סיני לבדו היא הראיה לנבואתו שהיא אמת שאין בו דופי שנאמריאמינו בך וגם ישמע העם בדברי עמך אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור הנה יט/ט( )שמות

.לעולם..Israel did not believe in Moshe Rabbenu because of the miracles that he performed. Why did they believe in him? Because of Har Sinai where our eyes saw, no one else’s; our ears heard, not another. The voice [of G-d] would speak to him and we would hear ‘Moshe, Moshe, go tell them such and such.’ How do we know that it was Maamad Har Sinai alone that is the proof of [the truth of] Moshe’s prophecy and that it cannot be doubted? It is as it says, I Hashem am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud in order that the people will hear when I Hashem speak with you and also in you they will believe forever.

We this was accomplished on a daily basis, apparently many times a day.

Moshe Rabbenu did not wish to impose a punishment on Israel. The contrary is true. He continued his role as their protector and their defender13.

Perhaps, before the sin of the Eigel Moshe could not have contemplated the rapid downfall of the people. However, after he witnessed that downfall, he was dedicated to prevent its reoccurrence.

12 That authoritative chain is expressed in the opening Mishnah of Masseches Ovos:

משה קבל תורה מסיני ומסורה...Moshe received the [authority] of Torah from Sinai and transferred it.

As a support for our approach here, the fact that the Torah mentions the complete dedication of Yehoshua in this context is now explicable.

Why would the Torah find it necessary to write here:שמות פרק לג

ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו ושב אל המחנה ומשרתו יהושע בן נוןנער לא ימיש מתוך האהל:

Hashem spoke to Moshe face to face as a person speaks to his friend and Moshe returned to the encampment and his aide Yehoshua bin Nun the lad did not depart from the tent.

Yehoshua would not appear to be significant here for the purpose of telling of the episode. If, however, this episode is to engender the authority of Moshe Rabbenu and that of his successors, the placed of Yehoshua here is essential.

13 It was noted earlier that Rashi has a p’shat commentary, which is the thrust of his explanation of this section as well as a Midrash commentary that he mentions briefly, at the very end of this section, but does not expand upon.The Midrash commentary says that Hashem berated Moshe for separating himself from Israel. Rashi writes:

:ומדרשו ודבר ה' אל משה שישוב אל המחנה, אמר לו אני בכעס ואתה בכעס, אם כן מי יקרבםThe Midrash writes-Hashem spoke to Moshe that he, Moshe, should return to the encampment. Hashem said to him-I am angry at them and you are angry at them. If so, who is there to bring them near [to Me]?

Moshe Rabbenu instituted in a means of protection, a defense of such a reoccurrence. He brought the people to a state that approximated the salient aspects of Mattan Torah, the presence of G-d and the uncompromising belief that Moshe spoke the word of G-d. He allowed that the loving forgiveness of G-d on that Yom HaKippurim would be transformed and empowered to a complete repentance on the part of Israel when they did not fall into sin as they did with the Eigel.

*******************

This week is the third of the Arba’ Parshios, the four special readings that we have at the time of Purim and Pesach.

Parshas Poroh tells us of the laws of impurity and purity and how one who became impure by the highest level of impurity14 can become pure again. This Parsha is read in the weeks before Pesach in order that everyone would be reminded and know the Halachos of become טהור in order to bring the Korban Pesach.

What brought about impurity and why was a heifer-cow designated as the means by which that impurity would be removed?

Impurity was brought to the world by the serpent in the events of Gan Eden. It was removed from Israel at the time of Mattan Torah but returned, at least partially with the sin of the Eigel (See Masseches Shabbos 145 b-146 a).

However, impurity disqualifies a person from any contact with Kodesh, not just with the Korban Pesach. Why is this offering singled out?

14 Rashi writes (B’midbar Perek 19/Posuk 22) in Parshas Chukkas, the reading of Parshas Poroh-מכאן למדנו שהמת אבי אבות הטומאה. From here we learn that the impurity given by a dead body is the supreme level of tum’a.

Korban Pesach is a unique act of approaching G-d15, of being numbered among Israel. Exclusion from its service is somewhat akin to exclusion from Israel. What would be the remedy to allow the Korban Pesach to be brought-an act of purification?16

The ‘Red Heifer- once was a calf, itself. It once was the very type of beast that was used for the terrible national sin of the Eigel. It was the very type of animal that sullied our souls to such a degree that impurity was able to overtake us.

The Torah allows us to take the grown Eigel and use it as a means of purification. That with which we sinned becomes the means of our redemption.

As Rashi writes in Parshas Chukkas17:

- משל לבן שפחה שטינף פלטין של מלך. אמרו תבא אמו ותקנח פרה אדמה הצואה, כך תבא פרה ותכפר על העגל:

15 Thus, in connection with Pesach Sheni, we read (B’midbar Perek 9/Posuk 7) the complaint of those who were ineligible to bring the Korbon Pesach because they were impure. ויאמרו האנשים ההמה אליו אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם למה נגרע לבלתי הקריב את קרבן ה'

:במעדו בתוך בני ישראלThose men said to Moshe, “We are impure because of contact with the dead. Why should we be lessened without bringing the Korban of G-d in its proper time among B’nei Yisroel?16 It should be clear that tum’a denies access to any Kodesh service. That denial is in regard to many, many Halachos that require purity for their fulfillment. Thus, the instructions of Parshas Poroh are valid year - around.Despite that fact, Chazal deliberately instituted that Parshas Poroh should be read prior to Pesach, thus giving special emphasis to this national-individual offering. 17 Following his Halachic commentary to the laws of Poroh Aduma as written in Parshas Chukkas, Rashi brings us ומדרש אגדה העתקתי מיסודו של ר' משה הדרשן . “The interpretation that I copied from the foundation of Rabi Moshe the Darshan.”

Rashi brings this after his initial commentary through Posuk 22. In many editions of Rashi the commentary per verse is renumbered beginning with Posuk 1. Sometimes this renumbering confuses the reader.

A red cow-This is symbolic of the maid’s child who dirtied the king’s palace. They said, Let the mother come and clean the refuse. So, the cow comes and atones for the calf.

Is this not the ultimate repentance as well? Rather than bringing in a ‘foreign’ substance to achieve purity and restoration to the original pristine state, the very essence of that which brought about impurity is used to restore the original state that allows one to achieve holiness.

Moshe Rabbenu was following the dictates of the Torah when he envisioned and executed this plan of guarding Israel from sin until the Mishkan would be erected and thorough it ושכנתי בתוכם-I Hashem will dwell among Israel-was achieved.

If this is the pattern of the most extreme situations-the devastating national sin of the Golden Calf and the remoteness from G-dliness that impurity brings to the individual, how inspired we must be by the care and the love shown by Hashem and His messengers to us.

That inspiration can lead us to aspire to the purity and closeness to G-d of Mishkan/Mikdosh and the Korbon Pesach about which we pray that we should once again merit drawing near to G-d with its offering in a few weeks’ time.

Shabbat Shalom

Rabbi Pollock