PARSHAT MATOT – PURSUING PEACE
As their 40 year sojourn in the desert drew to a close, the Jews encamped in what is now the country of Jordan and prepared to enter the land by crossing westward across the Jordan River. The tribes of Ruvain and Gad then declared that they would prefer to remain in that area and forego their rights to ancestral land within Israel. They possessed a great deal of livestock, and they felt that the land east of the Jordan River was better suited to grazing than Israel proper.
The entire nation had just participated in the war for the area that these two tribes desired. The mainland of Israel itself, however, remained to be conquered. If so, it would have been unfair for these two tribes to settle and leave the conquest of Israel for the others. If the other Jews fought to secure their area east of the Jordan, the two tribes were duty bound to participate in conquering Israel.
Moshe (Moses) and the two tribes arrived at a compromise. The men of military age from the two tribes would enter Israel together with the rest of the Jews. They would remain there and participate in all of the battles until the wars were completed. The other members of the two tribes would remain in their area, and all of them would be reunited once the fighters returned.
The Commentary of the Sforno (Parshat Matot 32:28) explains that there was one remaining difference of opinion between Moshe and the members of the two tribes. Moshe felt that until the pledge to fight in Israel was completely fulfilled, they should not be granted outright ownership of their land. The members of the two tribes argued that the land should be given to them immediately based on their pledge to participate in the battles until their successful conclusion.
The Sforno (ibid. 32:33) further explains the sentences in Parshat Matot to indicate that in the end, Moshe acquiesced to their point of view…for the sake of peace. Moshe’s view was more inherently just, for he was representing the Wisdom of The Almighty. Furthermore, the Sforno explains that Moshe only honored the wishes of the two tribes for the purpose of peace. This clearly implies that the Torah is saying that were it not for the imperative to avoid strife, Moshe’s opinion would have been deemed correct and it would have therefore prevailed.
This teaches a basic and highly relevant idea on the obligation to prevent strife. As a rule, “It is more important to avoid discord than it is to be right.” Moshe was “right.” His view was aligned with the Divine Wisdom. Hence, accepting the position of the two tribes meant compromising Absolute Truth. One might assume that Divine Precepts must always be unconditionally followed – and compromise in matters of the Torah’s perspective is sacrilegious and forbidden. Moshe saw things differently. He agreed to forego being absolutely complicit with G-d’s Will in order to avoid quarreling with those who would have rejected his decision.
As a practical matter, in this day and age, whenever people quarrel, both sides are likely partially right and partially wrong. Unlike the prophets of biblical times, it is now extremely difficult for one to be certain of being altogether “right” in a quarrel. If so, it is even more obligatory for today’s people to compromise their views in order to pursue peace than it was for Moshe.
There is, however, one point that should be clarified. The Torah’s “rights and wrongs” can be divided into two categories: A) The 613 Commandments of the Torah and, B) Daat Torah. The first category denotes the specific positive and negative commandments of the Torah such as honoring parents and avoiding unkosher food.
Category B) encompasses the opinions and suggestions of the Torah that are not a part of the 613 Mitzvot. For example, the Talmud writes, “One should divide his money into thirds – a third in land, a third in cash, and a third in business.” (There is some discussion among rabbis as to the exact meaning of this phrase.) The fact that this suggestion is incorporated in the Talmud means that that it is a part of the sacred Torah; Torah-minded Jews therefore accept it as the word of G-d. Nevertheless, one who ignores this advice is not violating a Mitzvah of the Torah.
There is a basic difference between Category A) and Category B) that is most relevant to this Dvar Torah. As a rule, except in matters of life and death, Category A) mitzvot must always be observed. Daat Torah, however, has many adaptations. For example, even the poorest of Jews are not allowed to eat less expensive unkosher food or work on Shabbat in order to become financially solvent. However, extremely poor people need not follow the Talmud’s advice on dividing one’s assets into thirds – they cannot afford to. It is not that Daat Torah can be ignored – it is the Word of The Almighty. One, however, who is steeped in Torah is capable of discerning how and to what extent Daat Torah applies to specific situations.
Understanding this distinction is necessary in order to understand what Moshe did for the sake of peace...and what he would not have done. Moshe did indeed concede The Almighty’s preferred approach in order to maintain tranquility among Jews. Although the Daat Torah was to only hand over the land after the military service was completed, Moshe gave it to the two tribes earlier in the interest of communal harmony. Moshe, however, would have never compromised in a matter of Halacha (Torah Law) such as permitting the eating of unkosher food, no matter how it affected peace and harmony.
The imperative to avoid quarreling among Jews is of paramount importance. This dvar Torah expresses the extent to which one must go to promote harmony. However, the pursuit of peace does not justify violating any of the Torah’s outright commandments. Except for when human life is at stake, the Torah’s commandments are inviolable.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Pinchas
PARSHAT BALAK – GROUP SYMBIOSIS
Parshat Balak, read last week, discusses the attempts of the Moavite king to destroy the Jewish People. He first attempted to have them cursed by Bilam, a Gentile prophet. When that failed, Bilam advised that if the Moavite and Minyanite women would seduce the Jewish men to sin, G-d’s wrath would be spilled out on them. The plan was adopted, and unfortunately, it ultimately resulted in many Jewish deaths.
As the public was sinning, Zimri ben Salu, the Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, committed a particularly brazen act. He and a Minyanite woman openly cohabited in front of Moshe and all of the Jews. According to Torah law, in this type of situation, those who are zealous, may avenge G-d’s Honor by killing them.” Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron therefore arose and slew both of them with a spear.
Regarding Pinchas’s deed the Torah (Parshat Pinchas 25:11) writes, “Pinchas the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron the priest, turned back My wrath from the Children of Israel when he zealously avenged Me among them, so I did not consume the Children of Israel in My vengeance. This sentence clearly indicates that were it not for Pinchas’s deed, Hashem (G-d) would have destroyed the Jewish People.
The Midrash Rabbah (20:25) explains that the situation could be compared to a king who was passing a group of young people. One of them cursed the king, who understandably became enraged. A local citizen quickly slapped the one who cursed, and the king’s anger abated. So too, due to what Zimri did, Hashem’s anger with the Jews could have led to their death. But after Pinchas’s deed, the Heavenly wrath subsided, and the Jews were saved.
The words of the Midrash require closer examination. Had Zimri not sinned, the people would not have been in danger. This is evident from the Midrash’s example where if the person would not have cursed the king, he would not have gotten angry. If so, why were they suddenly deemed guilty as a result of another person’s sinning? It was Zimri who sinned, not them. If they were considered guilty anyway due to their own sinning, why were only guilty because of what Zimri did?
It must be that there is a powerful symbiotic relationship among members of a group. It is as if their morals were all mixed together in a large pot and that concoction of principles becomes the moral code of every member of the group. Therefore, when one of the group acts, even in an outrageous manner, it is certain that underlying ethics or lack of ethics behind that act was shared by all members of the group. Hence, they too are considered guilty, despite not having committed the actual sin.
Consider: when the Palestinians commit a heinous terrorist act in Israel, who is the guilty party? The prevailing secular notion is that only the perpetrators who are guilty. Hence, after such incidents, Israel typically attempts to avenge the crime by targeting those responsible. And when there is collateral damage to “innocent” bystanders, handwringing, guilt, and earnest apologies are the order of the day.
This text would indicate that the entire Palestinian society is largely guilty and deserving of retribution. If they were a humane people who shuddered at the thought of outrages such as murdering and maiming children on school busses, no member of their group would commit such crimes. A comparable deed in the US would be for someone to shoot Katyusha rockets into downtown Toronto from Rochester, NY because he had a gripe with Canada. For one, it would likely never happen in the country as we know it. Because the USA society is generally law abiding and just, even its extremists will likely not act in this manner. And if such an act ever occurred, the entire USA would be embarrassed and outraged and it would mobilize to track down the cowardly murderer.
The Palestinians act very differently. When five members of the Fogel family in Israeli town of Itamar were treacherously stabbed to death on March 11, 2011, Arabs throughout the territories rejoiced. To illustrate, there were news reports of candy being distributed to children all over Gaza to mark the celebration. The Arabs also maintain a museum of terrorism in the city of Ramallah where they honor the memory of particularly ‘successful’ suicide bombers.
From the perspective of the Torah’s ethics taught in Parshat Pinchas, this group endorsement of terrorist killing renders virtually all of their community guilty of murder. Some may argue that many of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are simply people who want to live peacefully and raise their families and not much more. Is every single one of them guilty of murder? Should all of them be blamed? It is however true that in the example of the Midrash, all of the friends incurred the deadly wrath of the king simply for being part of a group, one member of which cursed the king.
The Arabs are far more than just members of a society that happens to have terrorists in its midst. As a group, they glorify stabbing Jewish children while they sleep. Palestinian children are being raised to rejoice when such events occur. If so, it is all the more true they are all considered participants in the extremist acts of members of their group, despite the fact that they did not do the actual killing.
Politics aside, the idea of group symbiosis has significant personal application as well. People should be very careful when choosing their group of friends. To some extent, the morality of every one of them is uploaded to someplace where it is pooled and returned. The newly downloaded blend then powerfully impacts upon each group member’s code of morals – for worse or for better.
Parshat Balak, read last week, discusses the attempts of the Moavite king to destroy the Jewish People. He first attempted to have them cursed by Bilam, a Gentile prophet. When that failed, Bilam advised that if the Moavite and Minyanite women would seduce the Jewish men to sin, G-d’s wrath would be spilled out on them. The plan was adopted, and unfortunately, it ultimately resulted in many Jewish deaths.
As the public was sinning, Zimri ben Salu, the Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, committed a particularly brazen act. He and a Minyanite woman openly cohabited in front of Moshe and all of the Jews. According to Torah law, in this type of situation, those who are zealous, may avenge G-d’s Honor by killing them.” Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron therefore arose and slew both of them with a spear.
Regarding Pinchas’s deed the Torah (Parshat Pinchas 25:11) writes, “Pinchas the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron the priest, turned back My wrath from the Children of Israel when he zealously avenged Me among them, so I did not consume the Children of Israel in My vengeance. This sentence clearly indicates that were it not for Pinchas’s deed, Hashem (G-d) would have destroyed the Jewish People.
The Midrash Rabbah (20:25) explains that the situation could be compared to a king who was passing a group of young people. One of them cursed the king, who understandably became enraged. A local citizen quickly slapped the one who cursed, and the king’s anger abated. So too, due to what Zimri did, Hashem’s anger with the Jews could have led to their death. But after Pinchas’s deed, the Heavenly wrath subsided, and the Jews were saved.
The words of the Midrash require closer examination. Had Zimri not sinned, the people would not have been in danger. This is evident from the Midrash’s example where if the person would not have cursed the king, he would not have gotten angry. If so, why were they suddenly deemed guilty as a result of another person’s sinning? It was Zimri who sinned, not them. If they were considered guilty anyway due to their own sinning, why were only guilty because of what Zimri did?
It must be that there is a powerful symbiotic relationship among members of a group. It is as if their morals were all mixed together in a large pot and that concoction of principles becomes the moral code of every member of the group. Therefore, when one of the group acts, even in an outrageous manner, it is certain that underlying ethics or lack of ethics behind that act was shared by all members of the group. Hence, they too are considered guilty, despite not having committed the actual sin.
Consider: when the Palestinians commit a heinous terrorist act in Israel, who is the guilty party? The prevailing secular notion is that only the perpetrators who are guilty. Hence, after such incidents, Israel typically attempts to avenge the crime by targeting those responsible. And when there is collateral damage to “innocent” bystanders, handwringing, guilt, and earnest apologies are the order of the day.
This text would indicate that the entire Palestinian society is largely guilty and deserving of retribution. If they were a humane people who shuddered at the thought of outrages such as murdering and maiming children on school busses, no member of their group would commit such crimes. A comparable deed in the US would be for someone to shoot Katyusha rockets into downtown Toronto from Rochester, NY because he had a gripe with Canada. For one, it would likely never happen in the country as we know it. Because the USA society is generally law abiding and just, even its extremists will likely not act in this manner. And if such an act ever occurred, the entire USA would be embarrassed and outraged and it would mobilize to track down the cowardly murderer.
The Palestinians act very differently. When five members of the Fogel family in Israeli town of Itamar were treacherously stabbed to death on March 11, 2011, Arabs throughout the territories rejoiced. To illustrate, there were news reports of candy being distributed to children all over Gaza to mark the celebration. The Arabs also maintain a museum of terrorism in the city of Ramallah where they honor the memory of particularly ‘successful’ suicide bombers.
From the perspective of the Torah’s ethics taught in Parshat Pinchas, this group endorsement of terrorist killing renders virtually all of their community guilty of murder. Some may argue that many of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are simply people who want to live peacefully and raise their families and not much more. Is every single one of them guilty of murder? Should all of them be blamed? It is however true that in the example of the Midrash, all of the friends incurred the deadly wrath of the king simply for being part of a group, one member of which cursed the king.
The Arabs are far more than just members of a society that happens to have terrorists in its midst. As a group, they glorify stabbing Jewish children while they sleep. Palestinian children are being raised to rejoice when such events occur. If so, it is all the more true they are all considered participants in the extremist acts of members of their group, despite the fact that they did not do the actual killing.
Politics aside, the idea of group symbiosis has significant personal application as well. People should be very careful when choosing their group of friends. To some extent, the morality of every one of them is uploaded to someplace where it is pooled and returned. The newly downloaded blend then powerfully impacts upon each group member’s code of morals – for worse or for better.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Balak
PARSHAT BALAK – VINDCTIVE REBUKE
Parshat Balak deals entirely with the story of Balak, Bilam and the Jews.
The Jews were approaching the land of Israel after their 40 year sojourn in the dessert. Balak the king of Moav grew fearful that he and his people would be destroyed, for his country adjoined Israel. Having just witnessed the military defeat of the great kingdoms of Sichon and Og, Balak sensed that he too would never prevail against the Jews in a conventional war.
At that time, there lived a Gentile prophet named Bilam from the nation of Midyan. The Talmud writes that Bilam’s capacity for prophesy rivaled that of Moshe (Moses). Balak devised a plan. He would destroy the Jews by hiring Bilam to utilize his Heavenly ‘access’ to curse them. The Almighty, however, prevented the curses from ever being pronounced. Despite his best efforts to harm the Jewish nation, every time Bilam attempted to pronounce curses, blessings emanated from his mouth instead. (One of those blessings, “Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov...” is recited at the beginning of the daily morning prayers.)
Balak soon grew impatient with Bilam’s inability to deliver, and he began to mock him. They then went to a certain location from where Balak reasoned it might be more feasible to curse the Jews. After they arrived at that spot, Hashem (G-d) appeared to Bilam. Balak then asked, “What did G-d say” (Parshat Balak, 23,17)? Before conveying Hashem’s message, Bilam first addressed Balak saying, “Arise Balak” (ibid. 23,18)!
The commentary of Rashi explains that this command of Bilam was prompted by the fact that Balak was mocking him. Bilam therefore responded this way in order to cause Balak pain. Rashi continues that what Bilam actually said was, “Arise Balak! You are not permitted to sit when I am the emissary of Hashem.” These words, however, were not meant to help Balak by advising him on how to act properly. Rather, they were spoken out of hatred with no intention to instruct Balak whatsoever.
Standing in respect when something important is being said is a well established practice. For this reason, many stand in the synagogue when Hashem’s Torah is being read. Reputedly, the great Torah scholar, R. Akiva Eiger (1761-1838) would first don Shabbat clothing and then rise out of respect before allowing anyone to repeat anything in the name of the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797). An elderly Polish Jew from a scholarly rabbinic family recounted something similar. He related that as a child growing up in pre-war Poland, whenever someone at their Shabbat table was about to repeat a thought attributed to the Chassidic rebbe, Rabbi Chaim Halberstam (AKA the Tzanzer Rav, 1793–1876), the entire family would first rise, and only then would the person be asked to continue.
Bilam was about to convey the direct message that he had just personally received from Hashem. It would therefore appear that it was correct for him to demand that Balak first rise out of respect. Why was this considered an act of paining Balak?
Evidently, although it was indeed proper to demand that Balak rise, Bilam made that demand for an unacceptable reason. His intention was solely to pain Balak. Evidently a person can accurately target problematic behavior and wisely criticize another person. Yet, at the same time he may be exclusively motivated by malevolence.
It is extremely difficult for people in positions of authority such as parents, teachers and bosses to criticize deficient conduct and achieve a constructive result. Numerous criteria must be ‘just right’ for there to be any chance of success. For example, the message must be tailored to the temperament of the person being spoken to. How much of the message is said and how much is left unsaid matters a great deal. The tone of voice is critical. It is also important to know when it is best not to speak at all.
The text of this dvar reveals yet a different aspect to the difficulties inherent in these situations. Despite saying exactly the right words exactly the right way at exactly the right time, one inner motives might consist of nothing but hatred and revenge. Even parents who truly love their children might nonetheless speak critically to their child for no other reason other than the fact that they are engaged in an ego-driven power struggle.
Do these inner motives matter?
In Mishlei (Proverbs) 27:19 it is written: “As the water of one face is to the other, so too is the heart of one person to another.” The Commentary of Metsudat Dovid explains the verse’s meaning. When one looks at a body of very smooth water, he sees his own reflection. If he is smiling at the time, he sees his smiling face. When his face expresses a different mood, that is what the water will mirror. So too, the way one person thinks internally about another person will be reflected back. In return, the person addressed will ‘reflect’ the attitude of the first one and feel the same way toward the first person. In other words, one’s inner feelings towards others are often communicated and ‘counter transferred.’
Thus, when a stylistically appropriate rebuke emanates from an inwardly malicious heart, that malice will somehow be recognized, possibly subliminally. The person being spoken to will then never harken to the words of criticism, even if they are absolutely correct. Rather, he will inwardly respond with comparable feelings of vindictiveness.
Successful criticism does not just entail a script that appears to be exactly right. It also requires sterling and well-meaning inner motives.
Parshat Balak deals entirely with the story of Balak, Bilam and the Jews.
The Jews were approaching the land of Israel after their 40 year sojourn in the dessert. Balak the king of Moav grew fearful that he and his people would be destroyed, for his country adjoined Israel. Having just witnessed the military defeat of the great kingdoms of Sichon and Og, Balak sensed that he too would never prevail against the Jews in a conventional war.
At that time, there lived a Gentile prophet named Bilam from the nation of Midyan. The Talmud writes that Bilam’s capacity for prophesy rivaled that of Moshe (Moses). Balak devised a plan. He would destroy the Jews by hiring Bilam to utilize his Heavenly ‘access’ to curse them. The Almighty, however, prevented the curses from ever being pronounced. Despite his best efforts to harm the Jewish nation, every time Bilam attempted to pronounce curses, blessings emanated from his mouth instead. (One of those blessings, “Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov...” is recited at the beginning of the daily morning prayers.)
Balak soon grew impatient with Bilam’s inability to deliver, and he began to mock him. They then went to a certain location from where Balak reasoned it might be more feasible to curse the Jews. After they arrived at that spot, Hashem (G-d) appeared to Bilam. Balak then asked, “What did G-d say” (Parshat Balak, 23,17)? Before conveying Hashem’s message, Bilam first addressed Balak saying, “Arise Balak” (ibid. 23,18)!
The commentary of Rashi explains that this command of Bilam was prompted by the fact that Balak was mocking him. Bilam therefore responded this way in order to cause Balak pain. Rashi continues that what Bilam actually said was, “Arise Balak! You are not permitted to sit when I am the emissary of Hashem.” These words, however, were not meant to help Balak by advising him on how to act properly. Rather, they were spoken out of hatred with no intention to instruct Balak whatsoever.
Standing in respect when something important is being said is a well established practice. For this reason, many stand in the synagogue when Hashem’s Torah is being read. Reputedly, the great Torah scholar, R. Akiva Eiger (1761-1838) would first don Shabbat clothing and then rise out of respect before allowing anyone to repeat anything in the name of the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797). An elderly Polish Jew from a scholarly rabbinic family recounted something similar. He related that as a child growing up in pre-war Poland, whenever someone at their Shabbat table was about to repeat a thought attributed to the Chassidic rebbe, Rabbi Chaim Halberstam (AKA the Tzanzer Rav, 1793–1876), the entire family would first rise, and only then would the person be asked to continue.
Bilam was about to convey the direct message that he had just personally received from Hashem. It would therefore appear that it was correct for him to demand that Balak first rise out of respect. Why was this considered an act of paining Balak?
Evidently, although it was indeed proper to demand that Balak rise, Bilam made that demand for an unacceptable reason. His intention was solely to pain Balak. Evidently a person can accurately target problematic behavior and wisely criticize another person. Yet, at the same time he may be exclusively motivated by malevolence.
It is extremely difficult for people in positions of authority such as parents, teachers and bosses to criticize deficient conduct and achieve a constructive result. Numerous criteria must be ‘just right’ for there to be any chance of success. For example, the message must be tailored to the temperament of the person being spoken to. How much of the message is said and how much is left unsaid matters a great deal. The tone of voice is critical. It is also important to know when it is best not to speak at all.
The text of this dvar reveals yet a different aspect to the difficulties inherent in these situations. Despite saying exactly the right words exactly the right way at exactly the right time, one inner motives might consist of nothing but hatred and revenge. Even parents who truly love their children might nonetheless speak critically to their child for no other reason other than the fact that they are engaged in an ego-driven power struggle.
Do these inner motives matter?
In Mishlei (Proverbs) 27:19 it is written: “As the water of one face is to the other, so too is the heart of one person to another.” The Commentary of Metsudat Dovid explains the verse’s meaning. When one looks at a body of very smooth water, he sees his own reflection. If he is smiling at the time, he sees his smiling face. When his face expresses a different mood, that is what the water will mirror. So too, the way one person thinks internally about another person will be reflected back. In return, the person addressed will ‘reflect’ the attitude of the first one and feel the same way toward the first person. In other words, one’s inner feelings towards others are often communicated and ‘counter transferred.’
Thus, when a stylistically appropriate rebuke emanates from an inwardly malicious heart, that malice will somehow be recognized, possibly subliminally. The person being spoken to will then never harken to the words of criticism, even if they are absolutely correct. Rather, he will inwardly respond with comparable feelings of vindictiveness.
Successful criticism does not just entail a script that appears to be exactly right. It also requires sterling and well-meaning inner motives.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Chukat
THE IMPORTANCE AND SANCTITY OF RESPECT
Our morning prayers contain the phrase, “The study of Torah is above all.” This means that Torah study is the most important of all of Hashem’s (G-d’s) Mitzvot. Nevertheless, the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah Vayikra 19:3) writes: “Derech eretz (respect) precedes Torah.” Despite the primacy of Torah study in the commandments of the Torah, respect is a necessary prerequisite before undertaking the study of Torah.
There are several different aspects to the trait of respect. Included in the meaning of derech eretz are speaking, acting, and dressing respectfully. All of these qualities are thus necessary if one wishes to pursue a deeper connection to Hashem’s Torah.
It is also true that the trait of respect is a supremely important virtue, in and of itself, in addition to the fact that it is a necessary prerequisite for the study of Torah. Parshat Chukat describes that when the Jews were finally preparing to enter the land of Israel, they were traveling eastward south of Israel. Due north of their position and separating them from Israel was the land mass of the nation of Edom, who were the descendants of Eisav (Eisau). Eisav was and remains to this day the sworn enemy of the Jews. If they would have been able to traverse the land of Edom, it would have facilitated their entry into Israel.
The Jews, therefore, sent a message to the king of Edom saying: “Let us pass through your land; we will not pass through field or vineyard, and we will not drink the water of the well; on the King’s Road we will travel - we will never veer right or left - until we pass through your border”(Parshat Chukat 20:17). The Jews also pledged that if they partook of any water, they would pay for it (ibid. 19). The request was refused, and they were made to continue traveling eastward, turn north, and then enter Israel by crossing the Jordan River westward at the city of Jericho.
The request that the Jews made contained the phrase: “We will not drink the water of the well.” At first glance, they appeared to be saying that when passing through, they would not take water from the wells without paying for it. This interpretation, however, is belied by the fact that the Jews said that they would not drink of “the well” – one single well. Seemingly, if they were passing through a sizeable country, they would be drinking from many wells. What then is the meaning of this phrase?
The commentary of Rashi explains that the phrase ‘the well’ refers to something other than the wells of Edom. This event occurred at the end of the 40 year journey in the desert that had been decreed as a result of the sin of the spies. Throughout that period, the Jews were miraculously sustained by the Almighty. Their food came in the form of Manna that fell from heaven, and water was supplied by a well that traveled with them.
What the Jews said to the king of Edom was that even though we have Manna and the Well, we will nevertheless not eat and drink from them. Rather, we will purchase these necessities from you when we are passing through. Rashi continues that this offer was based on a principle of derech eretz. Even when a guest has his own provisions, he should nevertheless purchase them from the host as a way of conferring benefit upon that host. Despite the fact that the the Jews had their own miracle-laden supply of food and water, Derech eretz required that had they passed through the land of Edom, they would have to buy their supplies from the Edomites as a way of conferring benefit to their hosts.
This calls for closer examination. Had the Jews traversed Edom, two food choices would have been available to them. One was the Manna and water that came to them in an outright miracle of G-d. The other choice was to purchase food from Edom, the sworn enemy of the Jews. In fact, the Torah teaches that the nation of Amalek, a family within Edom will eventually be completely destroyed by the Almighty (See Targum on Parshat Beshalach 17:16).
Seemingly, any G-d-fearing Jew would see it as being infinitely more “religious” to eat from the food of Hashem’s open miracles than from the food of the evil Amalek. Yet, the Torah is teaching that in this situation, proper Torah observance entails following the precepts of respect. This means disregarding Hashem’s ‘miracle food’ and instead paying money to benefit the evil Amalek and then partake of his food.
This demonstrates the extreme degree of importance the Torah attaches to acting respectfully - with derech eretz.
It should also be pointed out that in this case of Parshat Chukat, there was extremely valid justification for ignoring the niceties of respect. Their alternative was to ‘religiously’ partake of The Almighty’s Manna and water. Yet, the possibly distasteful duty to respect Amalek by benefiting him through food purchases and consumption was deemed a higher priority by the Torah. In almost all ordinary human interactions though, there is no such rationalization available to NOT act with respect. If so, in everyday situations the call of the Torah to always act with the derech eretz is all the more incumbent upon people.
Our morning prayers contain the phrase, “The study of Torah is above all.” This means that Torah study is the most important of all of Hashem’s (G-d’s) Mitzvot. Nevertheless, the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah Vayikra 19:3) writes: “Derech eretz (respect) precedes Torah.” Despite the primacy of Torah study in the commandments of the Torah, respect is a necessary prerequisite before undertaking the study of Torah.
There are several different aspects to the trait of respect. Included in the meaning of derech eretz are speaking, acting, and dressing respectfully. All of these qualities are thus necessary if one wishes to pursue a deeper connection to Hashem’s Torah.
It is also true that the trait of respect is a supremely important virtue, in and of itself, in addition to the fact that it is a necessary prerequisite for the study of Torah. Parshat Chukat describes that when the Jews were finally preparing to enter the land of Israel, they were traveling eastward south of Israel. Due north of their position and separating them from Israel was the land mass of the nation of Edom, who were the descendants of Eisav (Eisau). Eisav was and remains to this day the sworn enemy of the Jews. If they would have been able to traverse the land of Edom, it would have facilitated their entry into Israel.
The Jews, therefore, sent a message to the king of Edom saying: “Let us pass through your land; we will not pass through field or vineyard, and we will not drink the water of the well; on the King’s Road we will travel - we will never veer right or left - until we pass through your border”(Parshat Chukat 20:17). The Jews also pledged that if they partook of any water, they would pay for it (ibid. 19). The request was refused, and they were made to continue traveling eastward, turn north, and then enter Israel by crossing the Jordan River westward at the city of Jericho.
The request that the Jews made contained the phrase: “We will not drink the water of the well.” At first glance, they appeared to be saying that when passing through, they would not take water from the wells without paying for it. This interpretation, however, is belied by the fact that the Jews said that they would not drink of “the well” – one single well. Seemingly, if they were passing through a sizeable country, they would be drinking from many wells. What then is the meaning of this phrase?
The commentary of Rashi explains that the phrase ‘the well’ refers to something other than the wells of Edom. This event occurred at the end of the 40 year journey in the desert that had been decreed as a result of the sin of the spies. Throughout that period, the Jews were miraculously sustained by the Almighty. Their food came in the form of Manna that fell from heaven, and water was supplied by a well that traveled with them.
What the Jews said to the king of Edom was that even though we have Manna and the Well, we will nevertheless not eat and drink from them. Rather, we will purchase these necessities from you when we are passing through. Rashi continues that this offer was based on a principle of derech eretz. Even when a guest has his own provisions, he should nevertheless purchase them from the host as a way of conferring benefit upon that host. Despite the fact that the the Jews had their own miracle-laden supply of food and water, Derech eretz required that had they passed through the land of Edom, they would have to buy their supplies from the Edomites as a way of conferring benefit to their hosts.
This calls for closer examination. Had the Jews traversed Edom, two food choices would have been available to them. One was the Manna and water that came to them in an outright miracle of G-d. The other choice was to purchase food from Edom, the sworn enemy of the Jews. In fact, the Torah teaches that the nation of Amalek, a family within Edom will eventually be completely destroyed by the Almighty (See Targum on Parshat Beshalach 17:16).
Seemingly, any G-d-fearing Jew would see it as being infinitely more “religious” to eat from the food of Hashem’s open miracles than from the food of the evil Amalek. Yet, the Torah is teaching that in this situation, proper Torah observance entails following the precepts of respect. This means disregarding Hashem’s ‘miracle food’ and instead paying money to benefit the evil Amalek and then partake of his food.
This demonstrates the extreme degree of importance the Torah attaches to acting respectfully - with derech eretz.
It should also be pointed out that in this case of Parshat Chukat, there was extremely valid justification for ignoring the niceties of respect. Their alternative was to ‘religiously’ partake of The Almighty’s Manna and water. Yet, the possibly distasteful duty to respect Amalek by benefiting him through food purchases and consumption was deemed a higher priority by the Torah. In almost all ordinary human interactions though, there is no such rationalization available to NOT act with respect. If so, in everyday situations the call of the Torah to always act with the derech eretz is all the more incumbent upon people.
Friday, June 17, 2011
JHI Devar Torah on Parshat Shelach
PARSHAT SHELACH – SUBCONSCIOUS INFLUENCES AND SUDDEN DOWNFALL
By Rabbi Dov Berish Ganz
Much of Parshat Shelach deals with the tragic story of the spies that the Jews sent to scout the land of Israel.
G-d had promised that the Children of Israel would inherit the Land of Israel. Yet, as the Jews were about to conclude their triumphant march from Egypt to the Holy Land, they began to doubt the certainty of this outcome. So, they appointed 12 people - one from each tribe – to secretly enter Israel and ascertain whether its inhabitants could be defeated. Upon returning, the spies denounced Israel and G-d’s assurance that it could be conquered. This turned the hearts of the people against The Almighty. Other than two individuals (Yehoshua and Calev) and the entire Tribe of Levi, all of the Jews spent a night weeping over the fact that they were now facing this ‘situation.’ The calendar date of that fateful night was the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, i.e. Tisha B’Av.
For this sin, the entire Jewish Nation was punished. Instead of entering Israel immediately, they were made to first wander in the desert for 40 years. During that period, the entire generation that was supportive of the spies perished, and only their children merited entering Israel. Throughout Jewish history, Tisha B’Av became a day of communal misfortune, fasting, and mourning. Over the centuries several major national catastrophes occurred on Tisha B’Av. Notable among them was the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
What was the character of the people who precipitated such tragedy? Surprisingly, the Midrash writes that due to their singular piety, these people wehad been previously designated as the princes of each of the tribes. The Midrash (Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar, 16:5) writes further that whenever Moshe (Moses) selected one of the princes as the spy who would represent his tribe, he then consulted with G-d who concurred that the person chosen was indeed supremely righteous. This was the ‘Dor Deah,’ the G-dly generation that beheld the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mt Sinai, and these 12 men were among the most righteous members of that entire group.
How could such supremely devout individuals become involved in such supremely terrible wrongdoing? The Zohar (Targum Zohar 3:158 – quoted in the Chumash Otzar Hamidrashim) explains that the spies fell prey to bad (or evil) counsel. They reasoned that as long as the Jews remained in the desert, they would continue serving as their princes. Once everyone entered Israel, however, they themselves would no longer be qualified to serve in those exalted positions. Moshe would therefore appoint other princes in their place. This led them to speak critically as a way of dissuading the Jews from entering Israel.
The previous question remains unanswered. If these 12 individuals were so truly righteous, how could they sin so egregiously? The fact that they acted in order to protect their jobs is hardly an answer. People of integrity – let alone of extreme piety – do not inflict catastrophe upon a nation for such selfish reasons.
In truth, this type of question can be posed about other incidents in the Torah. For example, when an Angel told Sarah the wife of Avraham (Abraham) that she would bear her first child at the age of 90, the Torah relates that she did not believe it (Bereishit 18:12). Traditionally observant Jews have always accepted that The Almighty can do anything. This is echoed in the old Yiddish expression: “Ven Go-t vil, shissed ah baisem.” (When G-d so desires, a broom shoots.) Sarah’s measure of faith in G-d was far beyond that of the average “traditionally observant Jew.” Her level of prophecy exceeded even that of her great husband (Rashi, Bereishit 21:12). If so, why did she not believe that G-d could grant her a child?
When it comes to such questions, I have a tradition on this matter from my Rebbe (primary teacher of Torah) who received it from his Rebbe who received it from his Rebbe, Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel - AKA the Alter of Slabodka (1849-1927). To apply this tradition to understanding the case of Parshat Shelach…
One must say that without question, the once righteous spies fully believed that as G-d had promised, the land could have been conquered. Furthermore, they would have never knowingly sinned in order to retain their jobs and they would have never blasphemed G-d and His Holy Land for almost any reason. People of far lesser spiritual stature would not act in this manner, and the same is all the more true of such great individuals.
Nevertheless, there were apparently legitimate questions and concerns over how exactly their findings should have been presented. As they themselves said, from a practical perspective, the conquest would be extremely difficult. Among other obstacles, there were giants who dwelled in Israel who alone could have defeated all of the Jews in conventional battle. How could these facts and realities be presented truthfully without creating a nation-wide outbreak of fear and panic? Evidently, those great people had the wisdom and integrity to do just that. Somehow, they had the capacity to faithfully report what they beheld while at the same time not turning the people away from Hashem.
However, it remained true that their leadership positions might have been lost had the Jews entered Israel. This created within them an unseen and subconscious bias. Once a bias is present, one’s objectivity is compromised. It becomes like the case of a judge who accepted a generous bribe from one of two litigants appearing before him for a lawsuit; objectivity becomes impossible. In the case of the spies, their bias led them to exaggerate, however slightly, the difficulties that the Jews would face when attempting to conquer Israel. That additional and untrue measure of doubting Hashem’s ‘Promise and Prowess’ snowballed into an outright panic during which all of the people involved, including the spies themselves, began to openly doubt the Power of Hashem. Eventually, a great national tragedy ensued.
This demonstrates the sudden and extreme damage that can be caused by hidden biases. As already alluded to in this Dvar, the Torah describes other sinning of great people that is explained by attributing the mistakes to unseen biases. For example, the Midrash writes that Joseph’s righteous brothers decided to sell him into slavery in Egypt because of jealousy. Their father gave Joseph alone the coat of many colors. That jealousy was subconscious and undetected, but it could have taken hold over an extended period of time. Furthermore, in the end, it “only” resulted in Joseph being sold. In the instance of Parshat Shelach, however, the Zohar writes that the spies “took bad counsel.” They reasoned that if they denounced Israel upon their return, they could keep their jobs. The implication is that this was the first time that such thoughts entered their minds (albeit subconsciously). The resulting damage was enormous. The spies themselves and an entire generation of the Jewish people perished.
It is positively frightening. Without warning, an unseen bias can suddenly take hold within the human mind and quickly lead to personal and worldwide devastation.
How can one combat the unseen mind-bending influences of bias? In fact, this is an entirely separate subject. One concluding thought that can be mentioned is the Talmudic phrase: “On each and every day, man’s evil inclination overpowers him and seeks to destroy him, and were it not for the fact that The Almighty helps, man would be incapable of resisting this onslaught” (Talmud, Succah, 52a). It is indeed true that a man alone cannot avoid falling prey to the unseen mind-bending influence of bias. But man is not alone. With sincerity, devotion, and prayer, one can merit Hashem’s Protection from Above against biases (and other temptations to sin as well).
By Rabbi Dov Berish Ganz
Much of Parshat Shelach deals with the tragic story of the spies that the Jews sent to scout the land of Israel.
G-d had promised that the Children of Israel would inherit the Land of Israel. Yet, as the Jews were about to conclude their triumphant march from Egypt to the Holy Land, they began to doubt the certainty of this outcome. So, they appointed 12 people - one from each tribe – to secretly enter Israel and ascertain whether its inhabitants could be defeated. Upon returning, the spies denounced Israel and G-d’s assurance that it could be conquered. This turned the hearts of the people against The Almighty. Other than two individuals (Yehoshua and Calev) and the entire Tribe of Levi, all of the Jews spent a night weeping over the fact that they were now facing this ‘situation.’ The calendar date of that fateful night was the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, i.e. Tisha B’Av.
For this sin, the entire Jewish Nation was punished. Instead of entering Israel immediately, they were made to first wander in the desert for 40 years. During that period, the entire generation that was supportive of the spies perished, and only their children merited entering Israel. Throughout Jewish history, Tisha B’Av became a day of communal misfortune, fasting, and mourning. Over the centuries several major national catastrophes occurred on Tisha B’Av. Notable among them was the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
What was the character of the people who precipitated such tragedy? Surprisingly, the Midrash writes that due to their singular piety, these people wehad been previously designated as the princes of each of the tribes. The Midrash (Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar, 16:5) writes further that whenever Moshe (Moses) selected one of the princes as the spy who would represent his tribe, he then consulted with G-d who concurred that the person chosen was indeed supremely righteous. This was the ‘Dor Deah,’ the G-dly generation that beheld the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mt Sinai, and these 12 men were among the most righteous members of that entire group.
How could such supremely devout individuals become involved in such supremely terrible wrongdoing? The Zohar (Targum Zohar 3:158 – quoted in the Chumash Otzar Hamidrashim) explains that the spies fell prey to bad (or evil) counsel. They reasoned that as long as the Jews remained in the desert, they would continue serving as their princes. Once everyone entered Israel, however, they themselves would no longer be qualified to serve in those exalted positions. Moshe would therefore appoint other princes in their place. This led them to speak critically as a way of dissuading the Jews from entering Israel.
The previous question remains unanswered. If these 12 individuals were so truly righteous, how could they sin so egregiously? The fact that they acted in order to protect their jobs is hardly an answer. People of integrity – let alone of extreme piety – do not inflict catastrophe upon a nation for such selfish reasons.
In truth, this type of question can be posed about other incidents in the Torah. For example, when an Angel told Sarah the wife of Avraham (Abraham) that she would bear her first child at the age of 90, the Torah relates that she did not believe it (Bereishit 18:12). Traditionally observant Jews have always accepted that The Almighty can do anything. This is echoed in the old Yiddish expression: “Ven Go-t vil, shissed ah baisem.” (When G-d so desires, a broom shoots.) Sarah’s measure of faith in G-d was far beyond that of the average “traditionally observant Jew.” Her level of prophecy exceeded even that of her great husband (Rashi, Bereishit 21:12). If so, why did she not believe that G-d could grant her a child?
When it comes to such questions, I have a tradition on this matter from my Rebbe (primary teacher of Torah) who received it from his Rebbe who received it from his Rebbe, Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel - AKA the Alter of Slabodka (1849-1927). To apply this tradition to understanding the case of Parshat Shelach…
One must say that without question, the once righteous spies fully believed that as G-d had promised, the land could have been conquered. Furthermore, they would have never knowingly sinned in order to retain their jobs and they would have never blasphemed G-d and His Holy Land for almost any reason. People of far lesser spiritual stature would not act in this manner, and the same is all the more true of such great individuals.
Nevertheless, there were apparently legitimate questions and concerns over how exactly their findings should have been presented. As they themselves said, from a practical perspective, the conquest would be extremely difficult. Among other obstacles, there were giants who dwelled in Israel who alone could have defeated all of the Jews in conventional battle. How could these facts and realities be presented truthfully without creating a nation-wide outbreak of fear and panic? Evidently, those great people had the wisdom and integrity to do just that. Somehow, they had the capacity to faithfully report what they beheld while at the same time not turning the people away from Hashem.
However, it remained true that their leadership positions might have been lost had the Jews entered Israel. This created within them an unseen and subconscious bias. Once a bias is present, one’s objectivity is compromised. It becomes like the case of a judge who accepted a generous bribe from one of two litigants appearing before him for a lawsuit; objectivity becomes impossible. In the case of the spies, their bias led them to exaggerate, however slightly, the difficulties that the Jews would face when attempting to conquer Israel. That additional and untrue measure of doubting Hashem’s ‘Promise and Prowess’ snowballed into an outright panic during which all of the people involved, including the spies themselves, began to openly doubt the Power of Hashem. Eventually, a great national tragedy ensued.
This demonstrates the sudden and extreme damage that can be caused by hidden biases. As already alluded to in this Dvar, the Torah describes other sinning of great people that is explained by attributing the mistakes to unseen biases. For example, the Midrash writes that Joseph’s righteous brothers decided to sell him into slavery in Egypt because of jealousy. Their father gave Joseph alone the coat of many colors. That jealousy was subconscious and undetected, but it could have taken hold over an extended period of time. Furthermore, in the end, it “only” resulted in Joseph being sold. In the instance of Parshat Shelach, however, the Zohar writes that the spies “took bad counsel.” They reasoned that if they denounced Israel upon their return, they could keep their jobs. The implication is that this was the first time that such thoughts entered their minds (albeit subconsciously). The resulting damage was enormous. The spies themselves and an entire generation of the Jewish people perished.
It is positively frightening. Without warning, an unseen bias can suddenly take hold within the human mind and quickly lead to personal and worldwide devastation.
How can one combat the unseen mind-bending influences of bias? In fact, this is an entirely separate subject. One concluding thought that can be mentioned is the Talmudic phrase: “On each and every day, man’s evil inclination overpowers him and seeks to destroy him, and were it not for the fact that The Almighty helps, man would be incapable of resisting this onslaught” (Talmud, Succah, 52a). It is indeed true that a man alone cannot avoid falling prey to the unseen mind-bending influence of bias. But man is not alone. With sincerity, devotion, and prayer, one can merit Hashem’s Protection from Above against biases (and other temptations to sin as well).
Thursday, April 14, 2011
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Acharei Mot
PARSHAT ACHAREI MOT – EXALTED AND EXALTING SPIRITUALITY
Parshat Acharei Mot contains the prohibition against a form of idolatry known as the “Molech.” The Commentary of Ramban writes that the service of the Molech entailed presenting one’s young child or grandchild to a priest of the Molech who then passed the child through a fire until death ensued. According to the Torah, this idolatry is itself a capital offense (in addition to the other capital offence of murder for which only the Molech priest is technically liable).
In articulating the prohibition of Molech, the Torah in Parshat Acharei Mot (18:21) writes: “You shall not present any of your children to pass through for Molech, and do not profane the Name of your G-d…” The juxtaposition within the sentence is interesting. First, the Torah forbids one from serving the Molech; then it continues, “And do not profane the Name of your G-d.” How does the second part of the sentence follow upon the heels of the first?
The Commentary of Sforno explains: “If you sacrifice other (lesser) forms of life to The Blessed G–d and to the Molech you sacrifice a child, it would appear from this that the Molech is greater than He (G-d), perish the thought.”
According to the Sforno, the Torah is communicating this message to the one contemplating service of the Molech in order to dissuade him. According to the Torah, human sacrifice is never permitted. But ignoring this prohibition and sacrificing your own child makes you additionally guilty of an entirely different type of wrongdoing: Sacrificing a human child’s life to the Molech while sacrificing only animals to Hashem (G-d) in the Temple in Jerusalem, is a slight to Hashem’s Honor.
One who commits this sin is deeply entrenched into the degeneracy of idolatry. In particular, he is especially committed to the Molech. Serving the Molech entails violating one of Judaism’s three cardinal sins (idolatry, murder, and adultery). In ancient times when Israel was governed by the laws of the Torah, he could have been executed for the transgression. Furthermore, he is forfeiting the life of his own beloved child in order to serve the Molech.
How does one reach out to someone so decadent in order to inspire him to repent? To what message will someone so evil respond? Seemingly, in this situation, a more direct and jolting communication would be most effective “You are killing your own beloved child. You yourself could be executed. Look at the depravity to which you have sunk. Repent and reclaim your life!”
Yet based on the Sforno, the message for the would-be idolater touches upon sublime (if not esoteric) nuances of effrontery to G-d’s honor. “Would you dishonor Hashem bringing a dearer sacrifice to the Molech?” This person is profoundly driven to the debauchery of the Molech – so much so that he is willing to forfeit human life - his own and that of his own child. Seemingly, the exalted details of G-d’s honor mean nothing to such a person.
The Sforno’s understanding is based on an idea that is basic to the Torah’s understanding of mankind. All people are endowed with a G-dly neshama (soul). Even when one lives a life of sin, that soul and its lofty agenda are still a part of him. However, the soul is buried under layers of wrongdoing. Yet, at any time the soul of even the worst sinner might be awakened and energized by a call to G-dly behavior. Hence, when the Torah calls out to the one about to serve the Molech, it bypasses the person’s terribly sinful conduct and focuses instead upon that which is most exalted. It appeals directly to the neshama and reminds it that one should only act in a matter that honors The Almighty.
This points to an interesting dichotomy within man. People, as a rule, cannot easily acquire spiritual heights, no matter how hard they try. True spirituality must be accessed in developmental stages. (For this reason, many ‘baalei teshuva’ suffer setbacks - they try to ascend the ladder of holiness too-far-too-fast.) Yet, it is also true that a person mired in depravity can be rescued by a call to the sublime. People at the lowest rungs of immorality who are full of rationalizations that justify sinning are nevertheless responsive to the call of the most lofty of ideals. That higher call can somehow at times interface with the soul and deflate the human rationalizations.
It should also be pointed that obviously, being depraved is not a requirement in order to hear the call to extreme spirituality. All otherwise “good” people struggle with recurring and hard to control impulses that are detrimental to one’s personal growth. The Sforno is teaching that for all people, focusing on the imperative to attain holiness can be the catalyst that enables one to break loose from the frustrating grip of repetitive bad or immoral behavior.
Among the most grandiose statements of the Passover Haggadah is the phrase, “In each and every generation, one is obligated to see himself as if he exited Egypt.” The descriptions of the Bible and the Talmud indicate that the great events of the Exodus featured many outright manifestations of G-d’s Being. The obligation when sitting at the Seder is therefore to somehow relive the manifested G-dliness and spirituality of the Exodus to the extent of feeling as if physically present.
The Sforno in Achearei Mot adds yet additional significance to this Seder experience. It teaches that the exalted spirituality of the Seder can have an exalting effect on each person’s perpetual and hard to control shortcomings.
We wish a Chag Kasher V’Someach – a happy Passover to all.
Please consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc. The “cost” is $120. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!
Parshat Acharei Mot contains the prohibition against a form of idolatry known as the “Molech.” The Commentary of Ramban writes that the service of the Molech entailed presenting one’s young child or grandchild to a priest of the Molech who then passed the child through a fire until death ensued. According to the Torah, this idolatry is itself a capital offense (in addition to the other capital offence of murder for which only the Molech priest is technically liable).
In articulating the prohibition of Molech, the Torah in Parshat Acharei Mot (18:21) writes: “You shall not present any of your children to pass through for Molech, and do not profane the Name of your G-d…” The juxtaposition within the sentence is interesting. First, the Torah forbids one from serving the Molech; then it continues, “And do not profane the Name of your G-d.” How does the second part of the sentence follow upon the heels of the first?
The Commentary of Sforno explains: “If you sacrifice other (lesser) forms of life to The Blessed G–d and to the Molech you sacrifice a child, it would appear from this that the Molech is greater than He (G-d), perish the thought.”
According to the Sforno, the Torah is communicating this message to the one contemplating service of the Molech in order to dissuade him. According to the Torah, human sacrifice is never permitted. But ignoring this prohibition and sacrificing your own child makes you additionally guilty of an entirely different type of wrongdoing: Sacrificing a human child’s life to the Molech while sacrificing only animals to Hashem (G-d) in the Temple in Jerusalem, is a slight to Hashem’s Honor.
One who commits this sin is deeply entrenched into the degeneracy of idolatry. In particular, he is especially committed to the Molech. Serving the Molech entails violating one of Judaism’s three cardinal sins (idolatry, murder, and adultery). In ancient times when Israel was governed by the laws of the Torah, he could have been executed for the transgression. Furthermore, he is forfeiting the life of his own beloved child in order to serve the Molech.
How does one reach out to someone so decadent in order to inspire him to repent? To what message will someone so evil respond? Seemingly, in this situation, a more direct and jolting communication would be most effective “You are killing your own beloved child. You yourself could be executed. Look at the depravity to which you have sunk. Repent and reclaim your life!”
Yet based on the Sforno, the message for the would-be idolater touches upon sublime (if not esoteric) nuances of effrontery to G-d’s honor. “Would you dishonor Hashem bringing a dearer sacrifice to the Molech?” This person is profoundly driven to the debauchery of the Molech – so much so that he is willing to forfeit human life - his own and that of his own child. Seemingly, the exalted details of G-d’s honor mean nothing to such a person.
The Sforno’s understanding is based on an idea that is basic to the Torah’s understanding of mankind. All people are endowed with a G-dly neshama (soul). Even when one lives a life of sin, that soul and its lofty agenda are still a part of him. However, the soul is buried under layers of wrongdoing. Yet, at any time the soul of even the worst sinner might be awakened and energized by a call to G-dly behavior. Hence, when the Torah calls out to the one about to serve the Molech, it bypasses the person’s terribly sinful conduct and focuses instead upon that which is most exalted. It appeals directly to the neshama and reminds it that one should only act in a matter that honors The Almighty.
This points to an interesting dichotomy within man. People, as a rule, cannot easily acquire spiritual heights, no matter how hard they try. True spirituality must be accessed in developmental stages. (For this reason, many ‘baalei teshuva’ suffer setbacks - they try to ascend the ladder of holiness too-far-too-fast.) Yet, it is also true that a person mired in depravity can be rescued by a call to the sublime. People at the lowest rungs of immorality who are full of rationalizations that justify sinning are nevertheless responsive to the call of the most lofty of ideals. That higher call can somehow at times interface with the soul and deflate the human rationalizations.
It should also be pointed that obviously, being depraved is not a requirement in order to hear the call to extreme spirituality. All otherwise “good” people struggle with recurring and hard to control impulses that are detrimental to one’s personal growth. The Sforno is teaching that for all people, focusing on the imperative to attain holiness can be the catalyst that enables one to break loose from the frustrating grip of repetitive bad or immoral behavior.
Among the most grandiose statements of the Passover Haggadah is the phrase, “In each and every generation, one is obligated to see himself as if he exited Egypt.” The descriptions of the Bible and the Talmud indicate that the great events of the Exodus featured many outright manifestations of G-d’s Being. The obligation when sitting at the Seder is therefore to somehow relive the manifested G-dliness and spirituality of the Exodus to the extent of feeling as if physically present.
The Sforno in Achearei Mot adds yet additional significance to this Seder experience. It teaches that the exalted spirituality of the Seder can have an exalting effect on each person’s perpetual and hard to control shortcomings.
We wish a Chag Kasher V’Someach – a happy Passover to all.
Please consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc. The “cost” is $120. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Metzorah
PARSHAT METZORAH – KINDNESS AND ‘SERIAL SINNING’
Parshat Metzorah continues the discussion of the supernatural leprosy that afflicted sinners. When the Temple in Jerusalem stood, this miraculous affliction was a warning from The Almighty that one should repent.
In Chapter 14:35-35, the Parsha relates that at times, even homes were stricken with leprosy. When this happened, a learned Kohain (member of the priestly family) was then summoned to examine the affliction and ascertain its status. If it was determined to be a spiritual affliction, the house was quarantined. There were times when the entire house was destroyed because of the leprosy.
The Parsha relates that before the Kohain first comes, the house had to be entirely emptied of its contents. The Talmud (Yoma 11b) and Midrash Rabbah (Vayikra 17:2) explain why the Torah instituted this procedure. It was in response to a homeowner who would not share his possessions with others. When people would ask to borrow things, the homeowner would hide the requested items and say that he did not have them. Hashem (G-d) therefore struck the home with leprosy, thereby causing it to be emptied. All then realize that the homeowner had possessed those articles but lied in order to avoid sharing them. The Midrash adds that people will then curse the house saying that its fate was justified.
The Commentary of Eshed Hanichalim on the Midrash adds that this entire procedure was meant to benefit the Jews. It was a special opportunity bestowed by Hashem upon their entry into Israel. It helped assure that selfish but otherwise righteous people would cleanse their hearts of untoward behavior, such as not sharing one’s possessions with others. “He placed this leprous affliction for it is for his good to purify his heart so that he should not lack generosity.”
(at least) Two ideas emerge from this text:
KINDNESS is more than a mere ‘extra’ - something unnecessary that merely augments one’s character. An example of an ‘extra’ is when a financially solvent individual makes a good investment. Although the extra profit is noticed, that person could have managed very nicely without it.
The Torah is teaching that the trait of kindness is not viewed this way. One who does not proactively help others, especially when asked to do so, is considered to have a serious character deficiency. It is, in fact, so serious a personal failing that Hashem performed outright miracles to help that person change his ways and embrace the attribute of sharing.
Most people living in a Jewish community are often beseeched for various types of favors – physical and financial. As a practical matter, this text teaches that one should actively respond to at least some of these requests. One who always demurs when asked to ‘help’ is acting in a way that is reminiscent of the person whose house was stricken by leprosy.
‘SERIAL SINNING’ is an intellectually interesting psychodynamic. In the Midrash’s case, it is clearly implied is that if someone had not asked to borrow the item, the selfish homeowner would not have perjured himself to conceal his ownership – there was no need to. But he was asked for the favor, and that created a dilemma. On one hand, he was unwilling to brazenly say, “I have the requested item, but nonetheless, I will not allow you to borrow it.” On the other hand, he basically was not a liar. What ultimately ensued is that he compromised his principles thereby becoming just that…a liar.
This text teaches that very often, one wrongdoing creates the need for additional wrongdoing – even wrongdoing of an entirely different character. This man, in essence, was not dishonest. Nevertheless, in order to maintain his selfishness, he succumbed to proclaiming falsehoods. In the language of this Dvar, he became a ‘serial sinner.’ (Presumably, this lying will itself later give rise to yet other unrelated types of sin.)
In fact, the Talmud openly writes, “One mitzvah leads to another mitzvah, and one sin causes another sin” (Avot 4:2). If so, what is the added contribution of the insight into this Midrash? Isn't it simply a case of 'one sin causing another sin?'
One can answer that Avot 4:2 might only be referring to an “associative” phenomenon. For example, one who attends the morning minyan (service in the synagogue), will likely also end up giving charity, because at one point during the service, a charity box is typically passed around. Conversely, one who does not attend the morning minyan will likely not give the charity. Furthermore, he might end up reciting the prayers at an unacceptably late hour of the day. What the Dvar adds is that one sin can create the psychological need to pursue an entirely different form of wrongdoing in order to sustain the first sin.
In the instance of the Midrash in Parshat Metzorah, the urge to act selfishly created the need for a justification of lying – something that would not have otherwise occurred.
Examples of this phenomenon abound in everyday life. A student with a lazy streak might fail to keep up with schoolwork. As a result, he could suddenly find himself facing the possibility of flunking out of his program. What might then happen is that he suddenly “realizes” that he made a mistake in choosing this particular course of study – it isn’t what he likes. In truth, this course could be exactly what he likes, but in order to maintain his lazy work habits, he fabricates the canard that this program is ill-suited to his interests. In truth, whatever he undertook to study would have likely ended this same way and for this same reason – laziness.
In the religious realm, people sometimes stray from the path of “Mesorah.” Mesorah is the Talmudic approach to Judaism that has been faithfully passed from great and erudite teachers of Torah to great and erudite students of Torah in an unbroken chain since the time of Moshe Rabbenu (Moses our teacher). At times, the deviation entails an almost fanatical insistence on being even more ‘religious’ than the Torah’s norm. At other times, the deviation veers to the left in the form of leniencies and practices that great scholars of Torah have deemed objectionable for centuries.
A next step that almost invariably follows is that these zealots of the right and the left gravitate to ‘rogue rabbis’ who support their “contra-Mesorah” principles. A further corollary to this dynamic is to then disregard and delegitimize the generation’s recognized Talmudic scholars and proponents of Mesorah. Being disconnected from Mesorah will then surely beget a host of other problems. This teaches that one must be extremely careful when choosing religious ideologies and affiliations. One misstep can ultimately lead to ‘serial’ aberrations of Torah in many seemingly unconnected areas.
Please consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc. The “cost” is $120. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)