|
Throughout the ages, many misguided individuals have sought to improve upon the inherent values of the Torah through change, rather than strictly complying to and emulating these values. To illustrate this folly, the renown Torah luminary - Rav Elchanan Wasserman, z"l - offered the following anecdote.
Among the nobles in a great empire was one young man, who was exceedingly beloved by the king. Desiring to raise the station of this young noble, the king ordered that the lad be diligently instructed in the protocols of a royal emissary. The young man, a most avid and quick student, soon completed his studies, and was brought before his monarch to receive his first royal mission - traveling to a neighboring kingdom with very important documents.
"Do you fully understand your mission?" queried the king of his royal charge. "Perfectly, sire," replied the young noble. "Now then," continued the king, "before you undertake your journey, there is a matter of great importance I must discuss with you. The nobles of the kingdom to which you journey are men who take great pleasure in gambling.
They will wager on anything at any time. Under no circumstances are you to enter into a wager with these nobles while you are there. Do you understand?"
The young noble answered in the affirmative, and began making his way to leave the king's presence. However, the king called the lad back.
"Do you understand that you are not to gamble with the nobles of this kingdom?" asked the king once again. Another affirmative response was issued by the young nobleman, who now exited the king's chamber.
In short, the young emissary acquitted himself most favorably in the neighboring kingdom, performing his mission in full compliance with royal protocol and propriety. Soon, he found himself in the company of the notorious noblemen of whom he was warned. "It seems to me, " said one of the gamblers to the young emissary, "that you sir are a hunchback."
The young man laughed at this inane remark, and responded, "Sir, you must be confusing me with someone else." "No, No!" chimed in the other noblemen. "He is correct. We think you to be a hunchback as well!" "But, that is untrue," responded the young man, now very irritated. "Well then," replied the gamblers. "We are prepared to wager 1,000 pieces of gold that you are in fact a hunchback!"
Now the young emissary thought to himself that this was a wager he could not lose. Yet, he remembered his king's order not to gamble with these men under any circumstances. On the other hand, if he undertook the wager - a wager he must surely win - his king would be overjoyed at adding 1,000 gold pieces to the royal coffers. Round and round these thoughts went in the mind of the emissary. In the end, his youthful exuberance overcame him, and he took the bet.
In front of all the assembled noblemen, the young man stripped off his clothing, revealing a perfectly configured and healthy body.
The assembled noblemen thereupon stated, "It appears we were mistaken after all." A purse of 1,000 gold pieces was handed to the young emissary, who was now exhilarated by the prospect of bringing his king the 1,000 gold pieces.
After returning home, the young emissary told the king of his successful mission. "All was accomplished in accordance with the proper royal dictates and formality," proudly announced the young man. "And, I have brought back a much unexpected bounty for my king." The 1,000 gold piece purse was handed to the monarch.
"How did you come by this money?" inquired the king. The tale of the wager with the noblemen was narrated. "Then, you are a fool!" lashed out the king with great indignation. "Did I not order you against gambling with these noblemen? By not following my directive, you have cost me 99,000 gold pieces!"
Perplexed, the young nobleman responded, "Sire, I do not understand. I thought you would be pleased."
"You did not think at all!" accused the king. "A year ago these notorious noblemen made a wager of 100,000 gold pieces with me that they could pursuade one of my noblemen to strip himself naked in public!"
In this manner, related Rav Elchanan, all who attempt to improve on the dictates of our holy Torah, and to alter its directives through their own flawed logic, end up doing more damage than they could ever have imagined. In the commentary of the Toldot Yitzchok on Parshat Chukat, we see a further development of the dangers of the flawed reasoning.
The Torah goes out of its way to describe the mitzva of the Para Aduma (red heifer) as a chok - a statute which seems not to have any basis in logic. Yet, our chachamim seem to supply us with some form of reasoning for this mitzva. In the Bamidbar Raba (parsha 19; siman 8) we are informed that the Para Aduma is in fact, an atonement for the Egel HaZahav (The Golden Calf). The analogy is to the son of a maid who has trashed the palace of a high official. Without doubt, the official will order the one responsible for the son - the maid - to clean up the untidiness made by her son. In a similar manner, the Holy One Blessed Be He orders that the mother of the calf - the heifer - come, and clean up the clutter made by her child. This selection of Midrash is as well brought down by Rashi in Parshat Chukat, and by the Tosfot in Moed Katan (28a).
The Toldot Yitzchak posed two questions on this Midrash. 1) What is the relationship that Chazal had in mind, when they compared the Egel HaZahav and the Para Aduma? 2) If the Torah stresses that Para Aduma is a chok, a mitzva where logic has no basis, how then are Chazal permitted to supply us with any form of reasoning through their analogy of the maid's son? In the words of Rashi in Chukat we see, "...The word chok was written here - it is a decree issued from Me - you have no permission to consider its meaning!"
The Toldot Yitzchak addresses the second question first. For one to try and discover the actual reasoning for a chok such as Para Aduma, is certainly forbidden. However, to try and understand why the Torah intentionally obfuscates any reasoning in such a chok - that is permissible. This then, is the intention of the above Midrash. It is well known that Israel's intention in creating an Egel HaZahav was not for the purpose of idolatry (Kuzari: first Ma'amar, Eshed HaNechalim; Midrash Ki Tisa), but rather to find an earthly intermediary to replace Moshe Rabbeinu, whom they believed was dead, due to what they perceived as his delayed descent from Mount Sinai. To elaborate on this a bit further, the Egyptians had a practice of creating the form of one of the heavenly constellations, whereby through this image, they would receive heavenly advice on how to conduct their lives. In the case of the Egel HaZahav, the prominent constellation of the season was Taurus. In essence then, Israel was reticent at this juncture to trust HaShem through pure Emuna (faith) in Moshe, as they once did. Instead, they would seek advice in a more logical and reasonable manner, as did the Egyptians. In short, they decided to improve on the directives of HaShem through change.
Now, our first question of the relationship that Chazal had in mind when they compared the Egel HaZahav and the Para Aduma, is resolved. That is, since the logical alternative to pure Emuna was the transgression of Israel in the creation of the Egel HaZahav, HaShem sought to correct this flawed logic through the mitzva of the Para Aduma - a chok, where reason and logic have no basis. And, it is the obligation of every Jew to trust fully in the dictates of HaShem without question -without the need to logically improve these dictates through change.
There is a Gemara in Ta'anit (23b) which beautifully illustrates the importance of pure Emuna as opposed to logic. Two talmidim once came before Rav Yitzchak Ben Elyashiv, with the request that he daven (pray) for them to become great scholars. Rav Yitzchak informed the two that at an earlier stage in his life, any request he made of HaShem was granted, through his tefila. However, later in his life he had purposely discharged that ability (Rashi), whereby HaShem did not always hearken to his supplications.
Why would Rav Yitzchak have done this? The Toldot Yitzchak answers that it is a higher level to trust in the benevolence of HaShem, from pure Emunah, rather than through a human medium- the results of which may be guaranteed. And, so it is for us. While logic and reason are the hallmarks of the human species, even to the point of comprehending the intricacies of Torah, they are virtually useless when it comes to second guessing the mysteries and wonderful ways of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. While we may not logically comprehend at all how HaShem runs His world, we must nevertheless trust in His administration and the obligations He puts upon us without the reservations of reason and change. May we merit through the accomplishment of pure Emuna to see the complete redemption, speedily in our times.
Good Shabbos originally published: June 30, 2001 * * * * * Click Here for an Audio Lecture on Chukas 5769 by NCYI Rabbinic Intern, Menachem Mendel Borenstein* * * * * THE WEEKLY SIDRA- CHUKAS 5769Moshe Greebel
One of the most essential outlooks of life that a Torah Jew must possess, deals with being content with whatever he may have. The Mishna in Avos 4-1 poses:
“Who is a wealthy man? He who is content with whatever he has.”
Often, we see those who have the most, complaining the most. While in many cases, those who are lacking, seem to have accepted this condition, and work quietly towards improving their lot. This very principle of not allowing the eyes to mislead us, is discussed in this week’s Sidra, when the B’nai Yisroel approached the lands of Edom:
“And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moshe, ‘Why have you brought us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness; for there is no bread, nor is there any water; and our soul loathes this light bread.’” (ibid. 21:5)
What is this ‘light bread’? Rashi there, citing from Avodah Zara 75b, informs us:
“For, the Mon (Mannah) was absorbed into their organs (without the need to ever void it). That is why they referred to it as ‘light bread’. They said, ‘In the future, this Mon will implode in our intestines! Can anyone born of woman ingest, and not void?’”
The Chasam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer [Schreiber] 1762- 1839) of blessed memory, in his text Toras Moshe, posed the following question. This complaining about the Mon, took place at the very end of 40 years in the wilderness. That is, the previous generation that sinned with the M’raglim (spies) had already died out- not inheriting Eretz Canaan.
Now then, the present generation, which was born in the wilderness, fed primarily off of Mon for forty years, without ever seeing any form of fruit, vegetable, or grain. Why now, after all this time, at the very end of those 40 years, prior to entering Canaan, does this present generation first complain about the Mon, referring to it as ‘light bread’?
In order to comprehend this, the Chasam Sofer looked at the earlier grievance against the Mon, in the beginning of this 40 years in the wilderness, which was made by the previous generation:
“But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, beside this Mon, before our eyes.” (ibid. 11:6)
What exactly, was this complaint? The Sifri on this Passuk, explained that even though the Mon could taste like any food the one eating it desired, the actual sight, aroma, or texture of that food was not present. One could have consumed Mon that had the flavor of an apple. Yet, no apple could be seen, smelled, or touched. Basically, seeing what is being devoured is a great part of the joy of eating. The Gemarah in Yoma 74b, informs us:
“…..You cannot compare one who sees what he eats with one who does not see what he is eating.. Rabbi Yosef said, ‘This is an allusion to (the reason) why blind people eat on without becoming satisfied.’”
That is the meaning of ‘there is nothing at all beside this Mon before our eyes.’ That first generation which saw actual fruit, vegetables, and grain in Egypt, complained that all they had before their eyes in the wilderness, was the Mon- not actual food, which would have satisfied them more.
However, explained the Chasam Sofer, the later generation which never saw produce in 40 years, were now confronted with the vast amounts of grain, vegetables, and fruit they saw in the fields of Edom. And, because that generation had not been fully satisfied in 40 years, as a result of not being able to see what they tasted, they now began to complain about this ‘light bread’ when they first saw the rich produce of Edom. That is why they first complained now.
A second query is discussed by the Chasam Sofer. Generally, HaShem punishes Midah K’neged Midah- measure for measure. In the way one sins, one is punished. Yet here, when this second generation complained about the Mon, HaShem sent poisonous serpents to inflict the sinners. Why punish complainers with serpents? Can this be Midah K’neged Midah?
The Chasam Sofer concluded by citing this Passuk from our Sidra:
“And Moshe made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked at the serpent of bronze, he lived.” (ibid. 21:9)
Just as this later generation did not know about actual produce, so too, did they not know that the serpents, spiders, and scorpions from which HaShem protected them for forty years, could kill. The realization of food that caused them to sin, resulted in their punishment- the realization of being bitten by serpents. There then, through seeing or realizing something for the first time, is the Midah K’neged Midah.
And, because they sinned by looking at actual food, they could only be cured from the poisonous venom within them, by looking back at the serpent of bronze.
However, what is the meaning of looking at this forged serpent of bronze? The Mishna in Rosh HaShana 29a has this to say:
“…..Now, did the serpent (of bronze) kill, or did the serpent keep alive? No! When Yisroel turned their thoughts above, and subjected their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed…..”
Hence, sinning as a result of inducement by the eyes, is to be guarded against. So essential is it for a Jew not to be misled by his eyes, the Kriyas Sh’ma itself warns:
“…..And that you seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, which incline you to go astray.” (Bamidbar 15:39)
Let us all learn to be content with what HaShem has given us, without allowing our eyes to randomly roam, and dictate our priorities to us. And, even though one may have much more than another, let us learn not to view this as something inequitable- but rather, as the will of HaShem.
May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times. Good Shabbos.
* * * * * NCYI's Weekly Divrei Torah Bulletin is
sponsored by To receive a free e-mail subscription to NCYI’s weekly
Torah Bulletin, send an email to:
YI_Torah@lb.bcentral.com
|
||
Search YoungIsrael.org for:
Today is Wednesday, May 23, 2012
