News

Hey, Whose Side Are You On? Part 4

A Tisha B’Av Primer To Avoiding Machlokes

We left last week’s article wondering about the reaction of the people at the vasikin minyan in a certain town in the U.S.A. over the partial splitting apart of their twenty-year-old minyan; the grabbing of some of their daveners by the netz-hanir’eh junkie; and the sheer chutzpah on the breakaways’ part exhibited by coming back to daven there on Shabbos.

The reaction of the people at the minyan was–

Basically, none. Not a bad word; no one yelled; no two parties formed, the anti-letting-him-daven-there-on-Shabbos and the pro-letting-him-daven– there-on-Shabbos; people smiled, perhaps not broadly, perhaps sadly, but they basically went about their business as usual. No one turned red and vowed revenge.

What gives? Does davening netz cause lobotomies?

Rabbosai, and ladies: Think back how I described this minyan — no pretensions of being a “real” shul, no members, certainly not a kehillah –they daven vasikin and go home! Now think deeply what happened on day two of Creation, the day the waters were divided, the day that machlokes was created, and Gehinnom as well. What was created was the ability for things in this world to have a sense of self, for they were (experientially) unmoored from their spiritual roots where one’s entire being is the will of Hashem in a way that one has no true existence, only a subjective one (as explained in part three ). This gives rise to machlokes, as once you are untethered from being ratzon Hashem, and you are a seemingly independent being, you do and think things which validate your sense of fulfillment of self (and although you might make a decision to perform, to do, the ratzon Hashem, it is an independent decision validating your sense of who YOU are). The problem, of course, is that so do other beings, and with all beings focused on fulfilling their own selves, inevitable machlokes ensues, for they are not all working in tandem for a common cause. (And clearly this also creates the need for a Gehinnom, for now it becomes possible to “oppose” His will, as there is in the beri’ah a being which, at least in an illusory way, can have its own agenda, and thus perhaps may decide to oppose the will of Hashem.)

And so, if you have a minyan whose whole raison d’être is really only to daven vasikin — not to have a shul, not to have a kehillah, not for the rabbi to have a career, a salary, not kavod, not to provide a chevrah… and then one of the mispallelim go off and make a different minyan, based on a different shitah of when netz is, the natural reaction, I submit to you, is to shrug and to not react at all! Someone else is doing the exact same thing, albeit in a different way — why should that affect me, why should that upset me, why should we now split into two camps? Adaraba, on the contrary, we are now working together towards the same goal, each performing a different task! This is like the Ashkenazi, the Sephardi, the Chassid,and the Misnaged looking for a lost girl together. I have lost my personal agenda-powered chassidus, misnagdus, Sephardiyus, Ashkenaziyus in this search, because it melted away, due to its clear irrelevancy! One submerges oneself into ratzon Hashem — and different mahalchim become just that: different parts which make up a whole.

If a rav is working to elevate the spiritual level of people who have decided to daven at his shul…and another rav is doing the same for people who have decided to daven by him, what machlokes, why machlokes? Machlokes is possible if they were vying for members, for kavod, for status, for bragging rights… if they are looking out for themselves. If, though, they are completely devoted, and “lost” in their mission, there would just be a sense of– kol hakovod! And the same with schools. And the same with different types of chassidus; and the same with different yeshivas, or groups within a yeshivah, or a shul, or an apartment building!

Think now please about the machlokesim you know of (and remember that machlokes does NOT MEAN a difference of opinion, it means a split into two camps), and you will see that it is because there is a “self” aspect to opposing sides. It might even be couched as a wish to excel, that we’re right — but machlokes is ossur, nonetheless. But if the sides feel they are working together, albeit differently, on a common goal, then even if they are doing things differently, there’s no machlokes.

When the governing goal is ONLY ratzon Hashem, the natural state is no machlokes, for there is no self.

And so rabbosai and ladies: Instead of haranguing people about achdus, or even achdut, and ahavas Yisroel, or ahavat Yisra-el, ask yourself about motives. Most purveyors of an ahavas Yisrael political line that I have experience with have a personalized agenda of some sort, and hope to escape detection, and even criticism, under that cover. And if you ask them about other groups, you usually get an earful about what terrible, uncouth, horrible, sonei Yisroel THEY (these-ughhh-other groups) are!

And those who act lishmah, who as much as possible endeavor to be motivated solely by ratzon Hashem, are the ones beloved by all, get along with all chugim and shitos, even and especially the ones who stand even in direct contradistinction to their shitos and opinions.

With my remaining, quickly dwindling, word count allotment, I would like to address a question those of a more analytical bent may be asking, to wit: Pirkei Avos speaks of a machlokes which is l’shem shamayim — for the sake of Heaven, with no ulterior motives. The example given is the various machlokesim between Bais Shamai and Bais Hillel. Now, if l’shem shamayim means for the sake of Heaven, and, as the Bartenurah there explains, both groups were only searching for truth, then why did it erupt into machlokes? True, the Gemarra makes the point that it never degenerated into hatred, or spiteful, angry behavior, but why is it even called a machlokes? Weren’t they all on the same team?

Good question! You’re really thinking! The answer is that early and later Acharonim talk about how it was the very basic, intrinsic, fundamental nature of the talmidim of Bais Shammai and Beis Hillel which led them to have the opinions that they had. Certainly all their opinions were Torah and a result of intense Torah study and understanding — not personal. Yet the different intellectual conclusions they each reached was indeed based on something in them that made them what they were, and led them to formulate the ideas that they formulated (e.g, din; rachamim). Thus, it was a reflection of self, and can be called machlokes.

Hey, Whose Side Are You On? Part 3

Logo for Chadash NewspaperWe saw in part one of this series that there is a prohibition — according to some an actual Torah prohibition — to be involved in, aid, or even to refrain from preventing (if one is in a position to do so), machlokes: not argument, not disputes, but division and “sides, even if you are in the right. If Moshe Rabbeinu (!) would not have gone to the tents of Dassan and Aviram (!) to try to placate them, he presumably would have been in violation of this din (we derive the din from what Moshe did).

In part two, we pointed out that at one point of our lives, we have all probably witnessed the setting aside of the most intense of differences in order to join in a common cause. We want to understand: what makes that happen, and how we can achieve that madreigah?

We cited the Medrash that states that machlokes was an actual Creation, created on the second day, when Hakadosh Baruch Hu divided the upper waters (above the sky, or firmament) from the lower waters (the waters beneath). This, the Medrash teaches, represents machlokes (and, according to another opinion there, Gehinnom). How was this division, obviously necessary for the beri’ah, to be divisive and the model for machlokes?

The upper waters represent the spiritual sources of physical matter. Before the second day, there was no division between the corporeal and its ethereal progenitor. The physical had no “selfhood” and existed only as a tool in the hands of the spiritual realm to proclaim the Glory of Hashem.

On day two, Hashem, in order to fulfill the purpose for which He was creating the world, split the two — hafrada, division. The physical now had an ego, a self, a being that existed seemingly as if it has a true self-sustaining existence (we say seemingly because in objective reality, Hashem is actually the only REAL, absolutely authentic metzi’us — everything else is subjective reality — subject to His will that it exist). Everything physical is now b’nifrad (separated) from its spiritual parent, where the only reality is ratzon Hashem, and takes on the veneer of self, where I, or the table or the chair, or the pen in my hand, exist on their own; it is here one moment, and so, we think, that is why it is here the next moment — but that’s wrong! At both moments it only exits as a product of Hashem’s will, and would, should, cease to exist the moment it stands in contradistinction to Hashem’s will. The ability to not self-destruct at that moment was enabled by the hafrada of yom sheini, where the physical (lower waters) were separated from their roots, the spiritual, k’ilu (as if) they now have a self.

And THAT is precisely the creation of machlokes. Once something exits, seemingly objectively, it has its sense of self. And a second thing that exists has its sense of self. And thus there can be, and is, machlokes. When everything everything everything is inherently just a tool to carry out, TO BE, the will of the Almighty, there will be no machlokes. Because nothing has a sense of self, and therefore all act and react as cogs in a machine, as parts of the whole. This is the normal reaction of such a state of existence. It’s when things acquire that “selfhood” that I am I and you are you and machlokes is possible.

A simple story, as a moshol: I am personally aware and am involved in a certain vasikin minyan in a certain town in the USA. The minyan has no pretensions of being a “real” shul, no “members,” certainly not a kehillah, they won’t be meeting for minchah and maariv, they barely stick around for mussaf on Shabbos (just too inconvenient not to, I guess) no speeches, no appeals — no nutthin’! They daven vasikin and go home!

After about 20 years of existence, a long-time mispallel, someone actually there from day one, proposed a change to following what is called netz hanir’eh — the actual perception of sunrise, taking into account the natural topography, and other such factors. Some people said yes, okay, that’s how many do it in Eretz Yisroel, it makes a lot of sense. Others said no way! We’re not changing, this is not the way it is mekubal here in the States, it is NOT logical…

At the end of the day, the matter was decided by the posek of the minyan — no. It is not yet mekubal in the USA, he (the posek) did not see any compelling proof that that is the way to go, and thus to change represented an inappropriate change from minhag hamikom.

The fellow who brought up the subject in the first place, clearly feeling strongly about the matter (nature books warn about trying to separate a vasikin person from his netz — it is considered very, very dangerous and should only be attempted by highly trained personnel), went and made his own minyan! Yes, “he broke away” and started a vasikin minyan according to netz hanir’eh. He drew upon the older original minyan for his new minyan, managing to get around fifteen people, and voila! Two minyanim!

I see the Reader seething. A chutzpah! How could he do such a thing! The nerve! After all these years, where’s his hakaras hatov, where’s his submission to the posek, where’s his deference to the tzibur? And the Reader can envision the verbal accusations, the lashon hora, the rechilus, the malbin p’nei chaveiro that must’ve went on. Ooooh ahhhhh!

And then that fellow had the added chutzpah and audacity and… and… words fail me! He comes back to the old minyan for Shabbos with a smattering of people who went away, because he couldn’t put together a minyan for Shabbos, so he marches back with his partners in crime to his old shul, his old place of davening, and that… that… that I don’t know what, boldly stands there in his former makom kavu’ah and davens as if nothing happened! He breaks apart the minyan and he comes back for Shabbos! Surely the Reader assumes his shtender was thrown out the window, his Siddur Hagra taken away and hidden, and there’ll be three days Rosh Chodesh before he gets an aliyah! And what makom kavu’ah, you LEFT, someone else should sit there now, you go slink away to the back, you good-for-nothing mechutzaf!

And a huge fight breaks out about if he should even be allowed to daven there on Shabbos…

Right? That’s what happened, right?

Wrong!100 percent wrong.

Huh?

Continued next week. . . . . . . .

I wish to thank the tzibbur for coming and participating so strongly in the Kashrus lectures (and a special thank you to Chadash for advertising it gratis). There was a palpable feeling of a willingness to learn and be educated. Im yirtzeh Hashem this will lead to improvements in the status quo of Kashrus in BS and RBS — for ALL chugim, and ALL hechsherim.

Hey, Whose Side Are You On? Part 2

Logo for Chadash NewspaperLast week we saw what makes something a machlokes as opposed to a simple argument. We explained that the point of issur is reached when the parties feel and act with separateness — that there are “two teams” — “us” and “them.” At this time, the beginning of the Three Weeks, this topic is particularly relevant, as we examine whether having different groups with different approaches and different perspectives constitutes machlokes. If being involved in a machlokes is forbidden, even without the almost-inevitably accompanying sinas chinom, loshon hora, rechilus, sheker, hotza’as shem ra, malbin pnei chaveiro b’rabim, ona’as devarim, and at times even haka’ah (hitting a fellow-Jew) and/or kelala (cursing), it certainly behooves us to know when a situation is a machlokes, and when it is diversity of opinion.

One summer many years ago, a young girl got lost in a wooded area during a hike. The entire frum community mobilized to search for her — hundreds of volunteers, buses from all over unloading all kinds of Jews, Chassidim, Misnagdim, Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Satmar, Lubavitch — everybody joined together in what we would indeed refer to as “a show of unity,” and cooperated in a search involving hundreds of square miles through unmapped, uncharted forest. People were glued to the radio; it was THE topic of conversation on everyone’s lips; massive Tehillim rallies were held; the greeting of the day was, “Nu,what’s happening with ____?” (The girl was boruch Hashem located, unharmed) It was a remarkable moment in our divided, splintered, community. (I understand that the same phenomenon occurred in Israel when the soldier Nachshon Wachsman was kidnapped by terrorists. To quote Nachshon’s mother, Esther, “At the Western Wall 100,000 people arrived, with almost no notice — Chassidim in black frock coats and long side curls swayed and prayed and cried, side by side with young boys in torn jeans and ponytails and earrings. There was total unity and solidarity of purpose among us — religious and secular, left wing and right wing, Sephardi and Ashkenazi, old and young, rich and poor — an occurrence unprecedented in our sadly fragmented society.”)

When, why, how, is that achieved?

If we step back and examine these cases, we instinctively understand the anomaly, and we don’t even understand why there’s a question! If you and I join together to look for a lost girl, or pray for a kidnapped soldier, any differences we may have in our opinions, shitos, ideas of avodas Hashem, are simply not relevant. And we would view with suspicion and puzzlement, and question the sanity of someone who would say, “Now wait just a second! There is NO WAY I am going to look for a lost girl with a Sephardi (or Ashkenazi) at my side! I just cannot bring myself to daven for a soldier together with a fellow sporting a black velvet yarmulka (or a kippah serugah).” We all understand the naturalness of unity at such moments, and we all would be shocked at any signs of division and/or antagonism. We all “get it” — instinctively.

Now, rabbosai and ladies, can we explain it? Can we intellectually define and analyze and show the roots and basis of this reality, and thus learn how to avoid machlokes, without just mouthing slogans and clichés? And be zocheh to avoid it, and achieve true shalom and unity?

The Medrash and Zohar talk about the “creation” of machlokes! “Why are the words ‘And Hashem saw that it was good’ not used on the second day of creation? Rav Yochanan… because gehinnom was created on that day… Rabbi Chaninah… because machlokes was created on that day… as Hashem created the ‘raki’a’ (the sky, usually translated as firmament) to separate and divide between the waters above and the waters below… Rav Tuvyumi elaborates: if this separateness and division, which was for the benefit of the world, for its improvement, is still the cause of Hashem refusing, so to speak, to associate the word ‘tov’ with it, certainly a ‘regular’ machlokes, which is destructive, certainly is an undesirable, untenable, situation.”

The Zohar makes clear that these two opinions are linked — that the creation of machlokes and the creation of gehinnom are two sides of the same coin. How, and in what way, are machlokes and gehinnom linked? And the Medrash itself is difficult to understand — was it really machlokes when Hakadosh Baruch Hu separated the upper waters from the lower ones? I mean, it sounds cute, great sound bite, but — machlokes? Really? As the Medrash itself says: Hakadosh Baruch Hu split them into two entities in order for the world to function properly! So why shouldn’t it say that Hashem saw that “it was good”?

The commentators explain that the upper waters represent the ruchnius roots of the beriah — everything in the gashmius world has a spiritual source, a spiritual fount which nourishes and sustains the physical item in this world, and which is its metaphysical lifeline to the Ribbono Shel Olam. Before the second day, there was no hafrada, no separation between the physical and its spiritual parent and origin. And therefore, just as the spiritual realms all proclaimed the Glory of Hashem and did, and do, nothing else — for in fact, it was only for that very purpose for which it was created — so, too, the physical “flowed” naturally from its progenitor, and had no other purpose or goal or reason-for-being other than to do the ratzon Hashem, for it was inextricably tied to its spiritual roots, which existed in a world where the only existence was Hashem and His will. It had no ego, no identity, no selfhood — only a tool of Hashem.

Ah, but then came day two.

To be continued…

As a result of, and as a follow-up to, the “Just What Are Mehadrin Standards” series, the Editor of Jerusalem Kosher News will iy”H be presenting an approximately 90-minute lecture/slideshow explaining and educating the public what to look out for when food shopping, and when eating out. The lecture will take place on Sunday July 4th,for women at 10:30 a.m.,and for men and women (and mechitzah) at 8:45 p.m. at Beis Tefillah Yonah Avraham, corner Refa’im and Luz. There will be questions and answers. Hoping to see you — it will be invaluable!

Rav Malinowitz is the Rav of Beis Tefillah Yonah Avraham, located in Ramat Beit Shemesh Aleph, at the corner of Nachal Refaim and Nachal Luz. Many of Rav Malinowitz's shiurim can be heard at www.btya.org.

Balak 5770-Hey, Whose Side Are You On?

Logo for Chadash NewspaperYOU! Yes, you, the one reading this article:

Are you Ashkenazi or Sephardi? Chassid or Misnaged? Dati Leumi or Chareidi? Anglo
or Israeli? Belz or Satmar? Chevron Geulah or Givat Mordechai? Toldos Aharon or
Avrohom Yitzchok? Regular Lubavitch or Meshichist? Yekke or Litvish? Yeshivish or
YU? Settler or Tel Avivian? Regular Breslov or Na Nach? Bnei Braker or Yerushalmi?
Brisk or Mir? Son'im or Mechablim (you really have to be in the know to get
that reference!)? Gimmel or Shas? Hatfield or McCoy?

I have looked far and wide for weeks and weeks, and it's amazing! I couldn't
find anyone against achdus, ahavas Yisroel, and shalom! Of course,
a few fights broke out when different groups started arguing about who, then, is
responsible for the pirud (divisiveness), sinas chinam, and machlokes
that is all too prevalent amongst Klal Yisroel. Nu, nu, what's a little fight
when it's for the purpose of having shalom?

The Gemara in Sanhedrin says, "He who maintains a machlokes (just maintains
– that is, he doesn't take positive steps to prevent it, or to stop it!) violates
a prohibition…" And there are many who hold that this is a real "lav," a Torah-prohibition.

But, we all want to know, does that mean everyone has to hold the same ideas?
Isn't there room for diversity, allowing for different emphases in life, different
ways of living, different hashkofos, different outlooks? Weren't there 12
shevatim, and aren't we proud of that fact? Don't we say that they indeed
had different approaches in their avodas Hashem? Why do different
opinions sometimes break out into huge fights, and sometimes not? If we can hold
different things, and have different opinions, when is it machlokes, and
when not?

And when is it machlokes, and when is it just an argument? Is there ever
a difference? If we are in beis din over a sum of money that I may or may
not owe you, are we having a machlokes and violating an issur?

The poskim clarify that two people, and even two groups, who are having
an argument do not violate this issur. Although the Torah recommends making
compromises and concessions to restore peace – [peace, Rashi says wisely in the
name of Chazal, never ends up resulting from a knock-down hot-tempered argument
(Devarim 25:1, with Rashi)], it is not forbidden halachically.

BUT – if the dispute degenerates to the point where the parties are divided into
two camps, "us" and "them," when it becomes "personal," when there is loyalty to
one's side, and antagonism to the other, then you have a schism, machlokes,
two camps, and you probably have machlokes, cognate with chiluk, a
division. And, generally, an issur.

As long as it is a dispute, as long as it hasn't reached the two-teams point,
it is an undesirable disagreement, but not yet a machlokss.

(Do political parties represent machlokes by their very nature? Perhaps
– something to think about, at the very least.)

That is why Rashi in Parshas Korach says, in explanation of the words of the
posuk "Vayikach Korach (and Korach took), "What did he take? He took himself
to one side to be divided from amongst the congregation." So now there were "two
teams" – The Mesorah Moshes and the Korrupt Korachs. Such is a machlokes,
almost always forbidden by the Torah.

And anyone who joins a side, or even is in a position to try to settle the
machlokes
and fails to do so, is in violation.

And guess what? Even if you are in the right (Whaddya mean? Of course I'm
in the right!!)
, and the other side is wrong (Wrong? They are misguided,
off-track, and horribly mistaken
– and I'm being nice!) you, nevertheless, are
obligated to make every effort that the machlokes cease. And even if the
wrong side (that's the other side, the ones who are not me) continues the
machlokes and continuously antagonizes, the right side (i.e, my side)
is still obligated to continue its efforts to make peace, and failing to do so when
possible is violating the issur. (This is learned out from Moshe Rabbeinu
who acted thusly with Korach – see Rashi to Bamidbar 16:12.)

A person who is entangled in a machlokes must make every attempt to extract
himself from it – even if his standing in his circle suffers, and he feels embarrassment.
It is also forbidden to give aid to one side of a machlokes. Even if one
side is a parent – it is the equivalent of a parent telling a child to violate the
Law of the Torah.

Next week, im yirtzeh Hashem: What are the roots of machlokes?
What is a
machlokes l'shem shamayim – isn't it (almost) always "l'shem
shamayim"? What are the practical, emotional and intellectual steps one can take
to avoid
machlokes? How can you have "two teams" – Ashkenazi and Sephardi,
Chassid and Misnaged, Dati Leumi and Chareidi, Anglo and Israeli, WITHOUT
machlokes?

Yes, it absolutely can be done – not through platitudes and slogans, but through
a deep understanding of the forces involved.


As a result of , and as a follow-up to, the "Just What Are Mehadrin Standards"
series, the Editor of Jerusalem Kosher News will iy"H be presenting an approximately
90-minute lecture/slideshow explaining and educating the public what to look out
for when food shopping, and when eating out. The lecture will take place on Sunday
July 4th,for women at 10:30 a.m.,and for men and women (and mechitzah)
at 8:45 p.m. at Beis Tefillah Yonah Avraham, corner Refa'im and Luz. There will
be questions and answers. Hoping to see you – it will be invaluable!

Chukas

a href=”http://btya.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/logo-chadash-e1275560988767.jpg”>Logo for Chadash NewspaperThis week's Torah reading has one of the most disturbing, and tragic, events
which occurred in the Midbar, on par with the episode of the spies (which resulted
in the 40-year stay in the Midbar). This is the event of Mei Merivah, the
waters of Merivah, where it was decreed that Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohen would
not be leading the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, but would pass away before entering
there. Besides the personal tragedy for them, it was a tragedy on a national scale,
for, as the Meforshim teach us, this changed the very nature of the Jews' entry,
making their capture of the Land occur through a more "natural " process, and ultimately
made possible the destruction of the Holy Temple.

Moshe (and Aharon) sinned, we are told; but amazingly, their sin is not explicitely
stated, nor clarified, by the Torah. A most cryptic possuk says: "You failed to
believe in me and to sanctify my name in the eyes of B'nei Yisrael–you will therefore
not lead the Jews into Eretz Yisrael (but rather you will die in the Midbar). "

What exactly did Moshe Rabbeinu do? Sefer Sha'arei Aharon, a contemporary sefer
which clarifies and explains basic peshat in the Chumash, Targum, Rashi, and the
major commentators, counts out no less than 23 (!) opinions from classic Meforshim
on exactly what that sin was.

We will iy"h clarify Rashi's approach, as explained and elucidated by the Maharal
in his sefer on Rashi, Gur Aryeh, and add some analysis.

Rashi famously says that HaShem told Moshe Rabbeinu to speak to the rock ; Moshe
became angry at B'nei Yisrael when they questioned if what he was going to do with
the rock was actually a miraculous intervention by HKBH, and he then hit the rock
instead (see Rashis on pessukim 10-12 and Gur Aryeh on possuk 12 ; this is the Maharal's
interpretation of Rashi))

This is all very cryptic and just about incomprehensible. What is actually the
difference between hitting and speaking to a rock to have water flow forth? Aren't
they both equally miraculous? And what in the world does this have to do with believing
in HaShem (possuk 12) ?And which sin caused it–the getting angry, or the ' hitting
– instead- of- speaking' ?

And isn't this whole incident being blown out of proportion? One small mistake,
and –!!??

Here is the Maharal's take on this (that is, my understanding of what the Maharal
is teaching) :

HaShem gave Moshe Rabbeinu a mission—to perform this miracle in front of the
entire nation of Israel (see Rashi posuk 10, who says that the entire nation was
miraculously gathered together in a way that they would all see the miracle).We
will see in a moment why speaking was crucial here(as opposed to the end of parshas
Beshalach where Moshe Rabbeinu was told to hit the rock)

Moshe Rabbeinu, having been charged with this assignment, should have reached
a peak of emunah. RamBan writes that the fruit of the tree of emunah
is bitachon, our obligation to rely on HaShem, and nothing else, in
every single thing that we do. As the Chovohs HaLevavohs writes in his introduction
to Sha'ar HaBitachon, having bitachon, truly relying on haShem that He
will be the One enabling you, is powerfully liberating! It enables one to be optimistic,
to relax, to be b'simchah, as one does what he/she does with the knowledge and realization
that one is relying on HaShem to succeed..And if I am comfortable that I am doing
the ratzon HaShem in what I am doing, I can be relaxed and serene.

On the verge of entering Eretz Yisrael, there was a requirement to break free,
as it were, from the effects of the spies' sin—-I.e, instead of crying and bemoaning
and wailing about what the future holds (as in Bamidbar 14:1), Moshe Rabbeinu would
speak to a rock, the waters would flow, and B'nei Yisrael would see that doing the
will of HaShem is as natural and successful and stress-free as any natural order
(see Rashi to possuk 12).

But B'nei Yisrael tested and taunted Moshe Rabbeinu–why this rock, why not that
rock, you know where there's a spring, what miracle, when miracle–And Moshe Rabbeinu
was angered.

BUT, says the Maharal, there is NO PLACE for anger, for stress, for anxiety,
for anything but total simchah and optimism and joy as I go to do what I feel I
am charged with–my task, my mission, whether it be in life, or at that moment!
Says the Maharal–if Moshe Rabbeinu would have ignored this 'obstacle' of the scoffers,
and just gone ahead serenely, confidentally, and joyously, and spoken to
the rock, and would have had the total emunah and bitachon and joy in HaShem
that his mission would succeed–the Kiddush HaShem of the joy and optimism with
which one performs one's mission would have once-and-for-all eradicated the meraglim's
pernicious effects.K'llal Yisrael would have entered Eretz Yisrael with Moshe Rabbeinu
at their helm, conquered the Land with their emunah, and a never-to-be-destroyed
Beis HaMikdash would have been built.

But Moshe Rabbeinu was angered.He somehow got rattled by the nation, and was
no longer joyously confident that he would successfully complete his mission.And,
in his anger, he felt he had to force the rock into submission, that his
mission had been altered, been made more difficult, now there are obstacles, we
have to beat the rock…not simchah, but anger. Not serenity, but anxiety.
Not the natural tendency for fulfillment of ratzon HaShem but browbeating into submission.

This flaw in emunah/bitachon, the loss of joy, leaving a vacuum where there could
be anger, allowed a hitting instead of a speaking.And thus Moshe was told "You,
too, cannot enter Eretz Yisrael" and, as is strongly implied in Devarim 1:37, Moshe
now becomes enmeshed in a spy-like flaw, having missed an opportunity to be mekadesh
shem Shamayim through joy and confidence in his mission and eradicate completely
the spies' pessimism and angst. He is therefore told that he, too, would not be
entering Eretz Yisrael.

The lesson, the message? Rather obvious, I would think: Serve HaShem with
Joy!
The personality of an oved HaShem should not be one of a dour face, anxious,
nervous, even angry at times–but rather one radiating joy, optimism, serenity,
and good cheer.

May any zechus accruing from anyone taking this lesson of the iniquitous
effects of anger to heart, be utilized for the zechus of a refu'ah shelaymoh for
Yeshaya Shalom ben Malka Gittel