The Torah tells us that Hashem assured Yehoshua that He will be with him, just as he was with Moshe Rabbeinu. The Medrash infers that Yehoshua was destined to live for one hundred and twenty years, just like Moshe. However, Hashem took away ten years from his life, as a punishment for failing to follow Hashem’s instructions properly. Yehoshua knew that he would be niftar after he finished vanquishing the thirty-one kings of Eretz Cana’an. He therefore delayed the wars’ conclusion, so that he could continue to lead Klal Yisroel. Because of this sin, Hashem shortened his life by ten years.
Interestingly, Moshe had faced the very same challenge. Hashem told Moshe to avenge the Yidden from the Midyonim before his death. Despite knowing that this war would lead to his immediate demise, Moshe did not hesitate, and he hastened to fulfill the will of Hashem and prepare for war.
In his sefer Chidushei Lev, Rav Henach Leibowitz points out that undoubtedly, Yehoshua intentions were purely l’shem shamayim. Moshe already foretold that the Yidden would begin to stray from the proper path after his petira. Yehoshua realized that as long as he was alive, he could postpone and reduce the moral decay of the people, by continuing to lead and guide them. Nevertheless, he was held accountable for failing to fulfill Hashem’s directives immediately. Why? Where did he go wrong? There was nothing wrong with Yehoshua’s analysis; his reasoning was sound.
Nevertheless, he came to the wrong conclusion, because it simply was not his place to make such calculations. A Yid is supposed to obey and follow Hashem’s commandments, without factoring in his own reasons and predictions. Hashem told you what to do, and Hashem will take care of the future, without your brilliant plans. You cannot succeed in doing your task by circumventing Hashem’s instructions. If we persist in challenging Hashem’s will, it simply will not bring about the desired result.
This is exactly what happened to Yehoshua. Despite his best intentions, his efforts were counterproductive, and he died earlier than expected.
We must now try to understand Yehoshua’s motivations. Why didn’t he learn from his Rebbi, Moshe, and obey Hashem unquestioningly?
Perhaps We Can Suggest
Perhaps we can suggest that Yehoshua indeed modeled all his behavior by observing Moshe. However, he focused on the wrong aspect of his activities. He saw how Moshe was niftar immediately after the war, and he saw the negative impact this had on Klal Yisroel. This made him determined to do things differently, to delay his own death. Instead, he should have learned from Moshe’s behavior. He should have realized that Moshe also understood the consequences, and yet he did not hesitate to obey Hashem.
The Gemara (Brachos 10) records a conversation between Yeshayahu Hanavi and Chizkiyahu Hamelech. The Navi came and informed Chizkiyahu that he would die from his illness, because he did not fulfill the mitzva to marry and have children. Chizkiyahu explained that he foresaw that his son, Menashe, would wreak terrible destruction in Klal Yisroel, but the Navi did not accept this excuse. Our job is to do what we are told, and not to mix into Hashem’s plans. Chizkiyahu accepted his rebuke, and he recovered from his illness and married.
It was well-known that the Brisker Rav fought against the notion of uniting with other religious parties in elections, since it is forbidden to partner with resha’im. Others tried to explain to him that the Yeshivos and frum communities stood to gain large sums of money from such an arrangement, but he remained steadfast in his opposition. “Whenever it is a matter of halacha, we do not make cheshbonos.”
We find the Brisker Rav applying this principle in his explanation of a famous halacha. The Rambam (Yesodei Hatorah 5:5) discusses a case where a non-Jew orders the people of a town to hand over a certain Jew to be killed, and he threatens to kill all of them if they do not comply. The Rambam rules that it is forbidden to cooperate with his request, even if it means they will all be killed. Now, the reason a person cannot commit murder to save his own life is because of the svara of mai chazis – “perhaps the other person’s blood is redder.” In other words, you have no right to value your own life over another’s. However, in the Rambam’s case, the victim will die either way. If so, asks the Kesef Mishna, why aren’t the townspeople allowed to save their own lives?
The Brisker Rav explains that if we approach this dilemma from a humanist point of view, it indeed sounds like an ethically-sound decision to sacrifice one person to save a large group. However, we do not make such calculations when observing the Torah. It is forbidden to take positive action that causes another person’s death, because his life is not any less valuable. The associated benefit of saving multiple lives cannot be factored into the decision. Because, as we cited earlier, “whenever it is a matter of halacha, we do not make cheshbonos.”
