This Shabbat, referred to as Shabbat Chazon, we will read Parshat Devarim. The Parsha opens with words of rebuke from Moshe Rabbeinu:
Moshe presents a list of locations – on the other side of the Jordan, in the wilderness, in the plain opposite Suf, between Paran and Tofel, and Lavan and Chatzeirot and Di Zahav – leading Rashi to note that since these are words of rebuke, he enumerates all the places where Bnei Yisrael angered Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Moshe concealed the actual stories and sins, and mentioned them only through hints, out of respect for the people.
Why did Moshe need to rebuke them through hints? It's like a thief who enters a house to steal, and suddenly the guard dog jumps on him and bites his leg, sending him to the hospital for a week and then rehab for close to a year. Chazal say, if the homeowner later meets the thief in the street, it's enough to say, "Regards from the dog!" The homeowner doesn't need to remind him that he came to steal; it's enough to mention the dog, and he will remember his sin and the aftermath all on his own. Similarly, Moshe Rabbeinu didn't need to detail their sins; it was enough to mention the place's name in a hint, and they understood full well on their own.
The Be'er Moshe of Ozharov asks why the Torah begins with אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים – why does it say אֵלֶּה rather than וְאֵלֶּה (which indicates a continuation of the previous sefer and subject)? Furthermore, why did he speak to all of Bnei Yisrael and not to each one individually, or at least to each group that sinned in those locations – as not everyone sinned with the manna, not everyone sinned with the calf, not everyone sinned with the spies, etc.?
The answer given by the commentators is that there is a concept of mutual responsibility – if they sinned and you did not protest, you are caught in their sin; therefore, Moshe spoke to all of Bnei Yisrael. The Chida brings the words of the Gemara (Bava Batra 164b):
There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day: Having sinful thoughts, committing sins concerning kavanah in prayer, and uttering malicious speech – lashon hara. The Gemara then asks how it can be that a person cannot go through the day without uttering lashon hara, and it answers: The statement is referring not to actual lashon hara, but rather to avak lashon hara – literally the dust of lashon hara, but figuratively, a hint, or words with a trace of lashon hara in them. Rav Yehuda then adds: The majority of people succumb to the sin of theft, and a minority of people succumb to the sin of illicit sexual relations, but everyone succumbs to sin of lashon hara. Once again, the Gemara clarifies that this refers to avak lashon hara – uttering a hint of malicious speech.
Similarly, one must know that the sin of theft is a broad concept. It doesn’t have to be physically stealing someone else’s money or property, but can also be the theft of time, theft of sleep, etc. A person might stop at a traffic light and talk to a friend he hasn't seen for years, and meanwhile, the light changes to green and people are stuck behind him. As a result, someone might miss their flight, and someone else might miss a business meeting and incur financial loss as a result. Someone might decide to fulfill the words of Chazal and build their Sukkah immediately after Yom Kippur; but only after first having a cup of coffee and piece of cake, then showering, then relaxing a bit, and then eating a nice meal. By the time he gets to building the Sukkah, it's already 1:00am, but regardless, he starts hammering away on his boards – is it the neighbor’s fault that you had to warm up for several hours before starting?! Similarly, a person enters a nut store to buy 200 grams of sunflower seeds, and along the way, he does some tasting and consumes 400 grams of cashews and pecans in order to merit those around him through saying Amen! With regards to avak – lesser forms or offshoots, Chazal say:
There are four types of dust (offshoots): The dust of interest; the dust of idolatry; the dust of improper dealings with authority, and the dust of lashon hara.
What does dust of lashon hara mean? The Chafetz Chaim explains: For example, two people are talking:
"Did you hear that Yaakov became a Rosh Yeshiva?"
"Really? I can’t believe it!"
"Why can’t you believe it?"
"Better not to ask!"
This itself is lashon hara! The Chida says, the opening words of Moshe in Sefer Devarim are אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים because אל"ה stands for אב"ק לש"ון ה"רע. While only most are guilty of theft, and a minority are suspected of immorality, the matter on which Moshe Rabbeinu could rebuke all of Bnei Yisrael is that of lashon hara. Therefore, he spoke to כׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל – everyone. Everyone stumbles in the dust of lashon hara.
The Be’er Moshe adds that this is not merely a tangential hint, but a significant yesod particularly relevant to the beginning of Sefer Devarim, because the book is a rebuke to Bnei Yisrael. He then explains the reason why avak lashon hara is brought particularly here. Since the galut and geula – exile and redemption, are written about in this sefer, the exile of Edom corresponds to lashon hara. The Megaleh Amukot writes that had we not sinned at Cheit Ha’Eigel, all four kingdoms and exiles would have been included within the original exile of Egypt. The secret of this matter is: אֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – These are the journeys of Bnei Yisrael; the initials of which are א'דום מ'די ב'בל י'ון – Edom, Madai, Bavel, Yavan. This all points to the declaration made at the sin of the golden calf: אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל, which caused מַסְעֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵלֶּה.
Supporting his words, we turn to the words of the Midrash on the Pasuk נָחָשׁ שָׂרָף וְעַקְרָב וְצִמָּאוֹן אֲשֶׁר אֵין מָיִם – A snake, a fiery serpent, and a scorpion, and thirst where there is no water. The snake is Bavel, the fiery serpent is Madai, the scorpion is Yavan, and the thirst where there is no water is Edom. The snake has a companion, the fiery serpent has a companion, the scorpion has a companion, but thirst where there is no water has no companion, just as this wickedness of the kingdom of Edom has no companion. Thus, the exile of Edom is the worst of all exiles, and behold, the three exiles of Bavel, Madai and Yavan correspond to the three sins: idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed. However, the exile of Edom corresponds to lashon hara, which is why it is worse than all of them, for lashon hara is more severe than the three cardinal sins (Arachin 15b). Tying this back to אֵלֶּה, through invalidating others with lashon hara and division of hearts, the journeys of Bnei Yisrael are produced, causing them to wander in exile. And the rectification is true and complete unity.
With this, we can now enter our main topic – the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. On the upcoming Sunday, Tisha B'Av will occur; 1953 years since the destruction of the Second Temple [as of the year 5781]. Despite the time that has lapsed, Chazal say that a person must feel as if the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed in his own days. Therefore, we must feel the same feeling that was in those days, as if right now our enemies entered the Sanctuary, desecrated and destroyed it. As is known, Megillat Eichah was written even before the destruction of the First Beit Hamikdash, but in the Kinot (lamentations) that were established for us to recite on the morning of Tisha B'Av, we together recite a poem (31) called בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם בְּצֵאתִי מִירוּשָׁלַיִם – When I left Egypt, when I left Yerushalayim. All communities recite it, with the only difference being how. Among Ashkenazi communities, they recite it quietly whereas Sephardi communities sing it with a melody. Rabbotai, the question is, what is the significance of this poem? What is the connection between Yetziat Mitzrayim and the departure from Yerushalayim into Galut?
The commentators point to one technical connection between the exodus from Egypt and the departure from Yerushalayim – on the same day that Pesach falls, Tisha B'Av also falls. The Tur (428) writes: בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח יִהְיֶה לְעוֹלָם תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב.
Another connection between the two is that on the night of the Seder, it is customary to eat an egg, and besides being a remembrance for the Korban Chagigah, the egg is also a food of mourners. On the night of the Seder, we say: "Ribbono Shel Olam, if, chas v’shalom, the Beit Hamikdash is not rebuilt in the month of Nissan, in four months’ time we are destined to sit on the floor on Tisha B'Av and lament the Churban."
The Gemara (Yoma 21b) comes and lists the differences between the First Beit Hamikdash and the Second Beit Hamikdash. The Gemara says:
These are the five things that were between the First Beit Hamikdash and the Second Beit Hamikdash: the Aron, the Cover, and the Cherubim, the Fire, the Shechinah, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim v’Tummim.
The Gemara asks: And what about the smoke of the altar, which all the winds in the world could not extinguish or move it from its place? In examining whether the fire produced smoke, the Gemara brings a Baraita that states five principles about the fire on the Mizbe’ach:
There were five matters stated with regard to the fire of the arrangement of wood: It crouched above the wood like a lion; and it was as clear as the light of the sun; and it had substance to the extent that it could be felt; it was powerful enough to consume wet wood like dry wood; and it did not raise smoke.
Rashi says, a coal that fell from the heavens in the days of Shlomo HaMelech was on the altar until Menashe came and removed it; it was similar to a crouching lion. With regards to this imagery. the Gemara then presents another Baraita which seemingly contradicts the original:
Rabbi Chanina, the deputy High Priest, said: I saw the fire in the Beit Hamikdash, and it was crouched like a dog.
Rabbotai, was its appearance that of a lion or a dog? The Gemara answers that reference to the lion was in the First Beit Hamikdash, whereas reference to the dog was in the Second Beit Hamikdash.
It is understandable if it were in the form of a lion – since the lion is a symbol of strength. But why would the fire be in the form of a dog on the altar?! The Maharsha says, this is because the First Beit Hamikdash was built by Shlomo HaMelech from the tribe of Yehuda, who is compared to a lion, but the Second Beit Hamikdash was built by the kingdom of Paras, and there the fire crouched only like a dog, as we find Paras compared to a dog (Rosh Hashanah 4a).
The Abarbanel brings a story that happened: There was a Persian king named Ashtiragish who had only one daughter, the heir to his throne. She secretly married one of the kingdom’s ministers and became pregnant. When the king found out, he was furious. He imprisoned the minister and tortured him to death and also imprisoned his daughter under harsh conditions. When she gave birth, the king declared that the child of such parents would never inherit the throne, and ordered a servant to take the newborn to a desolate land and abandon him. The servant left the child in a forest full of wild beasts, saying “Let him be devoured, and my hand will not be in his death.” Hakadosh Baruch Hu sent a dog, which found the child, nursed him, and carried him in her mouth like a cat carries its young. The dog became his nurse until he was weaned. The boy grew up to be a mighty archer and hunter. When the aging king later heard of him, he sent men to capture and kill him. But the boy – Cyrus (Koresh) – gathered followers, came to the royal city, defeated his grandfather, and ruled the land. Because he was raised by a dog, he was called Cyrus, which in Persian means dog. His power and fame spread, and all the land submitted to him.
What I want to derive from all this is: the fire on the altar was crouched in the form of a dog, and the one who built the Second Beit Hamikdash was a dog – Cyrus. The question arises: Did Hakadosh Baruch Hu orchestrate this for no reason at all, that the builder of the Second Beit Hamikdash would be Cyrus, who is a dog, and the fire on the altar would be in the form of a dog?!
To move forward, we need to approach another Gemara. The Gemara in (Berachot 3a) says: The night is divided into three watches, and on each watch, Hakadosh Baruch Hu sits and, k’viyachol, roars like a lion from the pain of the destruction of the Mikdash and the exile of Yisrael, as it says in Yirmiyahu (25:30):
ה' מִמָּרוֹם יִשְׁאָג וּמִמְּעוֹן קָדְשׁוֹ יִתֵּן קוֹלוֹ שָׁאֹג יִשְׁאַג עַל נָוֵהוּ – The Lord will roar from on high, and from His holy habitation He will give forth His voice; He will roar mightily against His habitation. Since this Pasuk uses the term roar three times, it hints at the three watches of the night during which Hakadosh Baruch Hu roars over His habitation – the destroyed Beit Hamikdash. The Gemara presents a sign to recognize when these watches are: the first watch a – a donkey brays, the second – dogs bark, and the third – a baby nurses from its mother's breast, and a woman speaks with her husband.
The question arises: What is the significance of these three watches? The Ben Yehoyada writes: The term watch hints at the Mikdash, which is a safeguard for Yisrael, and this world, which is six thousand years, is called night, while Olam Haba is called day. The Third Beit Hamikdash will be built before the completion of two thousand years; even if a few years remain from the sixth millennium, Hakadosh Baruch Hu will extend the days to fulfill שַׂמְּחֵנוּ כִּימוֹת עִנִּיתָנוּ – Make us glad according to the days You afflicted us. Thus, “three watches are the night" hints at the three Batei Mikdash built in this world, called night. Only for the First and Second Batei Mikdash does Hakadosh Baruch Hu sit and roars like a lion – a hint at a heavenly voice that emerges from before Hakadosh Baruch Hu and roars over their destruction.
The Ben Yehoyada further says, the first watch is the First Beit Hamikdash, and a donkey braying signals the reason for its destruction – the neglecting of Torah study and engaging in it like a donkey for its load. Dogs barking on the second watch signal the reason for the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash – because of the sin of lashon hara, which strengthens the husk of dogs. Therefore, one who speaks slander deserves to be thrown to the dogs. The third watch is the Third Beit Hamikdash, which will be built speedily in our days, and where there is no destruction. Therefore, its reference is a baby, representing Bnei Yisrael, who receive abundance from the Shechinah directly just as an infant receives from their mother.
If so, we learn that the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed because of dogs barking – note the language of the Gemara; it does not say dogs barking but dogs crying – and the question is, why did the Gemara specifically use the term crying? Let's move on to another Gemara (Pesachim 88a):
The First Beit Hamikdash was destroyed because it corresponded to Avraham Avinu, from whom came pesolet – waste; namely, Yishmael. The Second Beit Hamikdash, which corresponded to Yitzchak Avinu, was destroyed because from him also came pesolet – Eisav. The Third Beit Hamikdash, which corresponds to Yaakov Avinu, whose ‘bed was complete’ – without any pesolet, will therefore exist forever.
The sefer Semuchim Le'ad says something wonderful. In Parshat Toldot, when Yitzchak Avinu reaches the age of 123, he calls Eisav and says to him: הִנֵּה נָא זָקַנְתִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי יוֹם מוֹתִי – Behold now, I am old, I do not know the day of my death. (Rashi says, if a person reaches the age of his parents, he should worry five years before and five years after. Yitzchak was 123 years old and thought perhaps he would reach the age of his mother, who died at 127, and he was five years away, therefore he did not know the day of his death, perhaps it would be his mother's age, perhaps his father's.) The Torah writes: וְעַתָּה שָׂא נָא כֵלֶיךָ תֶּלְיְךָ וְקַשְׁתֶּךָ וְצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה וְצוּדָה לִי צָיִד – Now please take your equipment, your sword and your bow, and go out to the field and trap for me. The Midrash Aggadah writes, Yitzchak told Eisav to bring him game, meaning birds, and if not, then from the ten kinds of animals mentioned in the Torah as permissible to eat. He also asked his son to be careful with the laws of schechita, which can invalidate the slaughter. Rivka hears these words and immediately calls Yaakov:
לֶךְ־נָא אֶל־הַצֹּאן וְקַח־לִי מִשָּׁם שְׁנֵי גְּדָיֵי עִזִּים טֹבִים וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים לְאָבִיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב – Go, please, to the sheep and take for me from there two choice young goats, and I will make them a tasty dish for your father as he likes. You will bring it to your father to eat, in order that he will bless you before he dies. Yaakov said to Rivka, his mother, Behold, Eisav, my brother is a hairy person and I am a smooth-skinned person. Suppose my father touches me. I will be in his eyes as an impostor. I will bring upon myself a curse – not a blessing. His mother said to him, Your curse shall be upon me, my son; but listen to me. Go bring them to me.
Rashi asks, were two kid goats the food of Yitzchak? Rather, one was offered for his Korban Pesach and the other made into delicacies, as the Midrash says (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 32), the taste of the kid is like the taste of the deer. From here we learn that the might was the night of Pesach.
וַתִּתֵּן אֶת־הַמַּטְעַמִּים וְאֶת־הַלֶּחֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשְׂתָה בְּיַד יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ – She placed the tasty dish and the bread which she had made, in the hand of Yaakov, her son.
The question arises – if it was Leil Pesach, how could she have given him bread to eat?! The answer is very simple. It was not bread but matzah!
וַיֹּאמֶר אַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי. וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּשָׁה לִי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ נַפְשִׁי וַיַּגֶּשׁ לוֹ וַיֹּאכַל וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן וַיֵּשְׁתְּ – Yitzchak said, "Are you really my son Esav?" and he said, "I am." He said, "Bring it to me, and I will eat of my son's game, so that my soul may bless you." So he brought it to him, and he ate, and he brought him wine, and he drank.
The question arises – where did Yaakov Avinu get wine from?! The Da’at Zekainim explains that we do not find that his mother gave him wine. Rather, it was the angel Michael who brought him wine from Gan Eden. If so, there was matzah, there was the Korban Pesach, and there was wine – but what about the marror? The answer is quite simple. When you have a son like Eisav in the house, you don't need any more marror!
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יִצְחָק אָבִיו גְּשָׁה נָּא וּשַׁקָּה לִי בְּנִי: וַיִּגַּשׁ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיָּרַח אֶת רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר רְאֵה רֵיחַ בְּנִי כְּרֵיחַ שָׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרֲכוֹ ה' – Yitzchak his father said to him, "Please come closer and kiss me, my son." So he came closer and kissed him, and he smelled the fragrance of his garments and blessed him, and he said, "See, the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field which Hashem has blessed."
Chazal teach in Bereshit Rabbah (65:23): This teaches that Hakadosh Baruch Hu showed him the Beit Hamikdash built, destroyed, and rebuilt: בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בָּנוּי וְחָרֵב וּבָנוּי. Thus, it emerges that he was shown the two destroyed Natei Mikdash – the second of which was destroyed by Titus, who belonged to Edom. The Midrash further says, the Pasuk שָׂא נָא כֵלֶיךָ also has references to Bavel, Madai, and Edom. The reference to Edom is 'field,' and the second Beit Hamikdash is also called 'field'; Titus, who belongs to Edom, was who plowed (destroyed) the Second Beit Hamikdash.
Chazal bring that Eisav worked hard to bring delicacies to his father. The Midrash (Tanchuma 11) says he would run and hunt a deer, tie it, and leave it, then run and catch another, tie it, and leave it, but the Satan would untie them and cause them to escape. Eisav would come back and find none of them. He did this two or three times until giving up. And what did he do next? What did Eisav ultimately bring to his father? Targum Yonatan ben Uziel writes (27:31):
He found a dog, killed it, and made dishes from it, and brought it to his father.
This means that in the end, the wicked Eisav brought his father a dog to eat! The question arises – weren't there other things to bring? Why bring a dog?! The Semuchim Le'ad explains, since the second Beit Hamikdash corresponded to...
