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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)