Devarim. Symptoms of a Flawed Relationship

My brother Akiva told me a precious vort from the Shem Mishmuel.

אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּעֵ֖בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן בַּמִּדְבָּ֡ר בָּֽעֲרָבָה֩ מ֨וֹל ס֜וּף בֵּֽין־פָּארָ֧ן וּבֵֽין־תֹּ֛פֶל וְלָבָ֥ן וַחֲצֵרֹ֖ת וְדִ֥י זָהָֽב׃

Rashi:

בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חָזַרְנוּ עַל כָּל הַמִּקְרָא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ תֹּפֶל וְלָבָן, אֶלָּא הוֹכִיחָן עַל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁתָּפְלוּ עַל הַמָּן, שֶׁהוּא לָבָן, שֶׁאָמְרוּ (במדבר כ"א) "וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל", וְעַל מַה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ בְמִדְבַּר פָּארָן עַל יְדֵי הַמְרַגְּלִים:

As my brother explained the Shem Mishmuel, this is the limud: The sin of the Mon was lechem haklokeil, that it is too spiritual, and we need teva. The sin of the meraglim was that leaving the Midbar and entering Eretz Yisrael would entail a change from hanhaga nissis to a somewhat diminished level of nissim, and they did not want to give up that lemaala miderech hateva.

So their two sins were opposite. We need more teva. We need less teva. Why? Because the complaints were not the problem, they were symptoms of the problem. The problem was a flawed relationship with the Ribono shel Olam. על כל פשעים תכסה אהבה, and the opposite is just as true. That discomfort expressed itself in constant complaining, in finding chesronos in whatever happened.



Devorim end of  תרע"ה Chapter 3. Easy to find on Sefaria.

ולפי האמור יש לפרש בין פארן ובין תופל ולבן שפירש"י פארן חטא המרגלים, ואיתא בספרה"ק שהם באשר היו דור דיעה הי' גרעון ופחיתות אצלם ללכת לארץ ישראל לעסוק בחרישה וזריעה שהם ענינים גשמים, ובחרו לשבת במדבר על התורה ועבודה השכלית ולאכול מן המפקח את השכל ולשתות מי באר של מרים שהוא סיוע להשגות רזי תורה וכידוע מהריז"ל שהשקה להרח"ו כוס מבאר של מרים טרם מסר לו הסודות, והנה שהם בחרו בעבודה בבחי' השכל ולא רצו שתהי' העבודה שלהם בחי' לב [דהיינו עבודה במעשה עסק בדברים גשמים הוא בחי' לב כנודע] ואף שכוונתם היתה לטובה מ"מ. הוא חטא דבהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך. דבאשר כך הוא רצון ה' בודאי כך ראוי וכך יפה, והנה הוא מעין חטא שתפלו על המן, אבל בהיפוך שאלו בחרו בעבודה שבחי' לב ואלו בעבודה שבחי' השכל דוקא, ובין זה ובין זה היו חטאים בסגנון אחד דבהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך, וא"כ שפיר הזכיר בלשון זה בין פארן בין תופל ולבן ששניהם היו מעין חטא אחד, והוא כעין לשון הש"ס בין שאמרו להדליק בין שאמרו שלא להדליק

The way I am presenting it, it is the same idea as the Beis HaLevi in the beginning of Vayigash. When you contradict yourself, this proves that everything you are doing is really in the service of some hidden agenda. One can think of it as שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם - an ostensible contradiction is evidence of an unrevealed rationale.


Rav Avraham Bukspan says this both from the Beis HaLevi and from one R Chuna Halberstam, as follows:

Rav Chuna Halberstam of Koloshitz (Divrei Chuna, Kuntrus Divrei Torah p.5) explains that Moshe`s criticism of these two events was not occurring in a vacuum. In fact, the motivations and actions in one created an indictment of the other.  When Klal Yisrael complained about the manna, they argued, “This food will explode in our stomachs. How can it be that there is no waste?” (See Yoma 75b.)  Their complaint was that they were living a supernatural existence, eating the food of angels (Tehillim 78:25). Yet they wanted to serve Hashem by elevating the gashmiyus into ruchniyus. They felt this was only possible by eating a diet of natural food, which is digested and excreted.  Whatever merit this argument held had already been contradicted by the Spies and the nation’s response after their return. The Shelah explains that the Meraglim did an aveirah lishmah, a sin for the sake of Heaven. They thought it was better to remain in the Desert, where they were able to live a spiritual and angelic life. Why enter Eretz Yisrael and be forced to till the soil, plow the ground, tend to the vines and trees, and become involved in the physical pleasures? It would be better to serve Hashem in the Desert in a spiritually pure way, to reside under the wings of the Shechinah and eat the food of angels. Moshe rebuked them, “You are contradicting yourselves.  At first, you asked to remain in the Desert, with its supernatural way of life. Now you’re critical of the manna and desire a more natural life, one in which you are able to elevate the physical. One sin cancels out the possibly noble motivation of the other one.” The words “Bein Paran u’vein Tophel ve’Lavan— Between Paran and Tophel and Lavan” are pointing out that between the two of them, one cannot be justified. You cannot have it both ways and hope to defend all your actions. “Bein Paran” — Between Paran and the Sin of the Spies, “u’vein Tophel ve’Lavan” — and the sin of those decrying the manna… one must have been incorrect.   This is akin to the Beis HaLevi (Parashas Vayigash), who explains the nature of the irrefutable tochachah that Yosef gave his brothers. “If you are truly concerned about how your elderly father will deal with the loss of his youngest son, Binyamin, why were you not equally concerned when you sold me, his favorite son, into slavery?”   We all have calculated stratagems to account for our behavior; excuses and rationalization come very easily.  Moshe, like Yosef before him, was heading off any excuses at the pass. By contrasting one behavior or motivation with another, all excuses are shown to be just that, mere excuses but not wholly sufficient reasons. Such rebuke is irrefutable, as, by his own conduct, the individual has already supplied the response. For example, if a person had no trouble getting up in the morning to go on a pleasurable trip, then he can’t say it’s too difficult for him to get up in time to go to shul. We must always remember that we are judged by a simple standard: the standard we ourselves set!