Misguided Foci Resulting in Major Miscalculations

Transcription

1 Misguided Foci Resulting in Major Miscalculations R. Yaakov Bieler Parashat Shelach 5770 Obviously, the central portion of Parashat Shelach is the story of the spies: the reaction of the Jewish people to their report (BaMidbar 14:1-5), God s Decree condemning the adult generation that had left Egypt to die in the desert (Ibid. 14:22-35) and the failed desperate attempt of some Jews to enter Canaan despite God s Displeasure with them (14:40-45). The concluding half of the Parasha includes topics that ostensibly have nothing to do with the powerful drama in the first half the addition of meal and wine offerings to sacrifices involving animals (15:1-16), the Commandment to take a portion from a particular amount of dough and give this tithe to the Priests (15:17-21), means for attaining atonement for inadvertent sins in contrast to deliberate transgressions (15:22-31), the vignette of the Shabbat wood- gatherer (15:32-4) and finally a discussion of the Mitzva of Tzitzit (15:37-41). The hermeneutic principle of Smichut HaParashiyot (lit. the juxtaposition of topics in the Bible; an attempt by commentators to account for implied relationships between stories and presentations of Commandments that appear side by side in the text) challenges us to come up with commonalities between the first and second halves of Parashat Shelach. 1 1 Although Yevamot 4a suggests that at least according to some Rabbinic authorities, the Semichut HaParashiot דלא למאן אפילו יוסף 'ר ואמר) * Devarim approach to interpretation is not relevant for Biblical books other than Even according to the opinion that one does not interpret why topics are דריש תורה במשנה,בעלמא סמוכים דריש next to one another in general, with respect to Devarim he would agree that you do interpret such juxtapositions) this is with respect to Halachic matters, as are exemplified in the discussion in Yevamot, e.g., Devarim 22:11-2 where the sequence of the Mitzvot of Sha atnez and Tzitzit is interpreted to reflect that you can attach wool Tzitiyot to a linen garment; Devarim 25:4 vis- à- vis 25:5-10 is understood to assert that a levirate wife cannot be forced to accept marriage to her deceased husband s brother if he suffers from repulsive physical maladies. However, the derivation of moral, ethical and spiritual ideas from cases of Semichut HaParashiot throughout the Tora is a universally accepted interpretive approach, as reflected in this principle being listed as an addition to the thirty- two textual approaches to Aggada attributed to R. Elazar, son of R. Yosi HaGalili. (The Baraita delineating these thirty- two principles appears in the MaHaRZO s (Ze ev Wolf ben Yisrael Issar Einhorn) introduction to Midrash Rabba.) The first of MaHaRZO s seven addendums to this Baraita states as follows: The approach of Semuchin (lit. things next to one another). As is stated in Berachot 10a, From where do we derive the principle of Semuchin? (Tehillim 111:8) Semuchim for eternity are made true and straight. (The literal meaning of the verse in Tehillim is: Commandments are secure/supported/stand fast.) See VaYikra Rabba 25:7 where the entire section of the Tora is interpreted in light of that which comes before and comes after. And see VaYikra Rabba 29:5 where one has to look at what precedes a topic to interpret the reason for why they are associated with one another. And it is demonstrated from the verse (Mishlei 15:24) The way of life above for the intelligent individual in order to turn away from the nether pit. (The literal meaning of the verse is that the righteous strive to ennoble and strive for the upper heights, in order to avoid being relegated to the nether depths.) *The reason why Devarim is singled out in Halachic matters is because it is indisputable that the contents of this biblical book are constituted by Moshe s single valedictory address to the Jewish people the week before he died, allowing for the

2 One particular section of the latter portion of the Parasha that attracted my attention and consequently led to attempts to link it to the story of the spies, is the appearance of a verse that has been propelled to special prominence by its incorporation into the liturgy of the eve of Yom HaKippurim. Immediately following the thrice- repeated mournful iconic Kol Nidrei recitation, the Shliach Tzibbur and then the congregation recites the following verse three times: במדבר פרק טו (כו) ונסלח לכל עדת בני ישראל ולגר הגר בתוכם כי לכל העם בשגגה: VeNislach the entire congregation of the Children of Israel and the sojourner who is sojourning in their midst because the entire people engaged in inadvertent sin. An immediate difference is noticed between the significance of the word VeNislach when appearing in the biblical context as opposed to its connotation within the prayers for the Days of Awe. In BaMidbar 15, when the verse concludes the instructions for the communities atoning for an unwitting transgression, assuming that the ritual requirements are properly and precisely carried out, the verse constitutes a guarantee: And it shall be forgiven, the entire congregation of the Children of Israel 2 Yet it would be arrogant for a penitent to presume that he will achieve automatic forgiveness and atonement when he is standing at the onset of Yom HaKippurim; consequently the translation of the verse on the night of Kol Nidrei becomes: May it be forgiven, the entire congregation of the Children of Israel 3 R. Nosson Scherman suggests that the verse has been borrowed from its biblical context and therefore takes on a different immediate and profoundly narrowed 4 meaning in light of its following on the heels of the Kol Nidrei formula for the nullification of vows between man and God: 5 We beg forgiveness for possible past violations of vows, and express the hope that we may never transgress this grievous sin. Furthermore, Scripture (BaMidbar 32:6 RaShI) speaks of a vow that was not valid but someone thought it was. If one violates such a assumption that if all of these matters were part of the same speech, there is a logical, rational reason behind their organization, which may not be the case with respect to the contents of the previous books. Since according to one view in Gittin 60a, the Tora was given Megilla Megilla, i.e., as each section was taught or occurred, it was committed to writing (as opposed to the view that Chatuma Nitna it was committed to writing for the first and only time at the end of Moshe s life, implied in Devarim 31:22-6), there might not be a specific reason why one topic is placed next to another other than chronological considerations. (Naturally the view that Chatuma Nitna would serve as the basis to be able to interpret even Halachic matters using Semuchin throughout the Tora.) 2 The Jerusalem Bible, English text revised and edited by Harold Fisch, Koren Pub., Jerusalem, 1992, p The Complete ArtScroll Machzor Yom Kippur, new translation and annotized commentary by R. Nosson Scherman, Mesorah Publications, New York, 1996, p The biblical context of the sin in question with which the verse in question is associated, is described as: (BaMidbar 15:22) And if you have erred and not observed all these Commandments, which the Lord Spoke unto Moshe all that the Lord has Commanded you by the hand of Moshe, from the day that the Lord Gave Commandments and thereafter throughout all of your generations. The nature of the sin(s) described appears to be incredibly more comprehensive than an inadvertent violation of a vow. 5 Vows between man and man cannot be dealt with formulaically; hence the practice to engage in Hatarat Nedarim during the Penitential period.

3 vow, then technically he has not sinned. He nevertheless requires forgiveness because he thought he was violating a valid vow. Thus we ask for forgiveness in the event that we have committed such a violation. 6 While R. Scherman is certainly correct with respect to the (sic.) Semichut HaParshiot of Kol Nidrei and BaMidbar 15:26 in the Machzor, it seems to me that an approach that insists upon incorporating the actual biblical context of the verse based upon the association with the sin of the spies instead of defining it within the framework of unfulfilled vows, expands the significance of this text for thoughts of Teshuva on Yom Kippur in an exponential fashion. R. S.R. Hirsch, in his commentary on v. 22, when defining the exact nature of the sin that is being discussed in BaMidbar 15, cites v. 31, the culminating verse of the entire section, as shedding light on the specific context of the earlier verses. BaMidbar 15:31 For a Word of God he has scorned and His Commandment he has broken. Uprooted shall that soul be, his sin will be against him. R. Hirsch contends that the only sin that would qualify for such a description is idolatry. While v. 31 is clearly referring to a particularly egregious Tora violation, nevertheless one could challenge why the commentator concludes that of necessity we are referring to a lack of belief in God as opposed to some other flagrant transgression that demonstrates disdain for Jewish belief and practice. Perhaps it is the close reading of the opening verse of this section of the Parasha (v. 22) that informs R. Hirsch s interpretation of the final verse: BaMidbar 15:22 And if you were to fall into error and you do not do all of these Commandments that God has Spoken to Moshe. It is difficult to imagine how even an entire community, let alone an individual, could literally manage to transgress every single negative prohibition that the Tora delineates. The Rabbis therefore decide to offer a figurative interpretation of the verse, and claim that in fact it is describing is a violation of a single fundamental prohibition, that is equivalent to having broken every law in the Tora: Horiot 8a It was taught: These verses have been written with reference to idolatry. What is the basis for such a contention? The text states, And if you were to fall into error and you do not do all of these Commandments Which Mitzva is equivalent to all of the Mitzvot? I would say this is idolatry. 6 The Complete ArtScroll Machzor Yom Kippur, p. 60.

4 Yerushalmi Nedarim 3:9 It is taught: From where do we know that idolatry is more difficult than any other transgression in the Tora? For it is said, And if you were to fall into error and you do not do all of these Commandments Tora Temima #59 And the reason for this is obvious, because one who accepts idolatry denies the entire Tora and Prophets regarding all that the prophets have commanded from the time of Adam until the end of days. For this reason it is stated here, (BaMidbar 15:23), From this day that HaShem Commanded for eternity, i.e., that the individual is rejecting everything from the Creation until the end of days. And this is the foundation of the entire body of Mitzvot... Whichever way R. Hirsch reached the conclusion that BaMidbar 15:22-31 is dealing with inadvertent and deliberate sins of idolatry by both the community and individuals, he then proceeds to contrast these verses with an earlier section of the Tora that also discusses the community s recourse in terms of sacrifices to achieve forgiveness if they have unintentionally transgressed: VaYikra 4:13-21 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done one thing against any of the Commandments of the Lord concerning things which should have been done, and have incurred guilt, when the sin which they have sinned, is known, then the congregation will offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it to the Tent of Meeting It is a Chatat (sin offering) for the congregation. BaMidbar 15:22-26 And if you were to fall into error and you do not do all of these Commandments that God has Spoken to Moshe then it shall be if it be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bull for an Olah (whole burnt offering) for a sweet savor to the Lord, with its meal offering, and its drink offering, according to its law, and one kid of goats for a Chatat (sin offering)... R. Hirsch (v. 24) suggests that as opposed to the other types of transgressions for which a sin offering suffices, with respect to idolatry, a whole burnt offering is also required because this type of sin indicates not only a temporary inconsistency with respect to one s relationship with God, but rather something far more fundamental and basic:

5 It is not a permanent consciousness of Chatat, not a permanent feeling of being a sinner that is the mood in which Jewish hearts are to beat, 7 and in which Jewish minds are to find their enthusiastic soaring upwards to God Olah, Olah, Olah upwards, upwards, upwards! 8 Up to the radiant proximity of God, and ever higher and higher in constant energetic progress! That is the call that comes unceasingly to His sons and daughters out of the Sanctuary of God So that when the bond between the nation and its God has been torn asunder through their mental erroneous idea (leading to their engaging in idolatry), and after the nation s recovering it senses is again to be established, this renewed bond cannot be expressed other than by Olah The Olah acknowledges God as the Guide of our deeds and if the whole nation places itself again after such a great defection it vows thereby henceforth to keep itself faithful in His service, and by giving up the whole of itself and all its efforts to the heights of the altar and the Fire of His Tora to strive to carry out the whole of His Will on earth, and to show allegiance to Him and Him alone in every phase of its existence and its happiness on earth Consequently, in addition to the language used in BaMidbar 15:31, as well as the implication of the comprehensiveness of sin in 15:22, the fact that a whole burnt offering is required as part of the atonement process becomes a third indication that the specific sin with which we are dealing in this section of the Tora is idolatry. It is possible that a contemporary Jew, while acknowledging how seriously the transgression of idolatry is taken in Jewish primary sources, could easily think that this is a Commandment that has no relevance to him. The idolatrous practices of worshipping two dimensional and three dimensional representations of objects and beings deemed powerful and godly (Shemot 32; Devarim 4:16-24); praying to and giving offerings to aspects of the natural universe such as trees (Devarim 16:21) and celestial bodies (Devarim 4:19); engaging in child sacrifice (Devarim 18:10); orgiastic rituals (BaMidbar 25:1-3), etc. could be dismissed as barbaric practices which no longer serve as means for religious expression on the part of Westernized, sophisticated, educated Jewish populace. Consequently, it is interesting to note that in her essay on the second of the Ten Commandments, (Shemot 20:3; Devarim 5:7) You shall have no other gods before Me, Nechama Leibowitz 9 quotes two Jewish luminaries who 7 I wonder if R. Hirsch is implying in this comment a comparison between Judaism and Christianity. Whereas the latter emphasizes the centrality of Original Sin as the basis for rather than attempting to improve oneself, hence the necessity to be saved by the divine; while Judaism may view sin as a necessary component of human imperfection, nevertheless the overall and ongoing striving towards God, represented by the Olah, is a far more important informing concept. 8 R. Hirsch is punning on the name of the sacrifice, Olah which connotes both total fiery consumption as well as an upward striving. 9 Iyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot, HaHistadrut HaTziyonit HaOlamit, Yerushayim, 5730, pp

6 argue that idolatry is still alive and well, albeit in forms that we don t necessarily associate with with this most serious of transgressions: Akeidat Yitzchak And there is included in this (the prohibition against idolatry) the great idolatry that is found today 10 in the world as a powerful reality, namely the focusing of all thoughts and activities for the sake of accumulating money and the success of one s property. These things are for them (the contemporary citizenry) the powerful deities upon whom they depend and it is the belief in them upon which they rely 11 Nechama is quick to note that materialism per se is not summarily rejected by Judaism. Examples of the acceptance of wealth as a positive value in Judaism include: the description of Avraham as an individual of means (Beraishit 13:2); 12 Yitzchak s material success (Ibid. 26:12); 13 and the Halachic leniencies associated with Hefsed Meruba (a great monetary loss). 14 Consequently, Nechama asserts that the difference between material possessions being acceptable and even a support to spiritual activity as opposed to something detrimental and therefore tantamount to idolatry, is whether one s property and wealth are viewed as means to a greater end or as ends in themselves. The latter mindset is obviously the problematic one. However, Nechama demonstrates that a more contemporary thinker expanded Akeidat Yitzchak s figurative definition of idolatry to include a broad spectrum of passions, commitments, belief systems and weltanschaungs: Franz Rosenzweig R. Yitzchak Arama lived between and is therefore describing a situation existing 500 years ago. 11 Iyunim, p While it could be argued that this very materialism is what directly led to Avraham s bitter disputes with his nephew Lot and their ultimate separation from one another, yet not only is Avraham not criticized for his possessions, but it could be argued that the entire sequence of events of the famine, the descent to Egypt, the taking of Sara, etc. constituted a Divine Plan to deliberately make Avraham wealthy. It should also be noted that as part of the promise of what will eventually happen to his offspring when they are redeemed from their servitude, a promise of great wealth is included (Beraishit 15:14). 13 As in the case of Avraham, Yitzchak s wealth leads directly to his being exiled by the Gerrarites, begging the question whether in the interests of avoiding anti- Semitism, it would be better for Jews to be in depressed circumstances. Then again, those who wish to hate Jews appear to find excuses even when the objects of their resentment are not well- off. 14 E.g., Mishna Berura 261 #16; 266 #27; 442 #1. 15 Rosenzweig lived between 1887 and 1929, positioning him to describe the cultural world in which we find ourselves more accurately than R. Arama; yet the rapid evolution of society over the course of almost a century following Rosenzweig s death allows additional room to continue to apply this line of thinking to the most modern of our experiences. See for example Allen Brill s essay Judaism in Culture: Beyond thebifurcation of Torah and Madda in The Edah Journal, 4:1, 2004.

7 The terminology changes, but the multiplicity (of gods) exists and continues. Culture and civilization, people and country, nationalism and racism, art and science, economics and social class behold before you is a short incomplete review of the pantheon of gods of our day. Who can deny the existence of these gods? 16 The fact that a number of Jewish individuals who have distinguished themselves in these various arenas and at the same time given up their religious heritage, suggests that they have either unconsciously or consciously substituted one belief system for another. Natan Scharansky, during his presentations at KMS this past Shabbat, noted the high percentage of Jews or participated in the Russian Revolution, a phenomenon that starkly illustrates Rosenzweig s point. Perhaps the most sweeping claim with regard to modern day idolatries was made by the Jewish American philosopher and theologian, Will Herberg: 17 any tendency to absolutize a man, a nation, a culture, a system or an ism 18 sooner or later brings with it a threat to his very existence as a Jew, no matter how otherwise well- established in society he may be This fact so clearly evidenced in recent history, is not peculiar to our time. The tendency of ideas, in situations and systems to absolutize themselves is perennial in human affairs; man is always prone to make absolute idolatrous claims for himself and his works and to strive to comprehend all life in their terms Whether it is the Hellenistic effort to establish a divinized world culture or the medieval attempt to exalt Christendom as indeed the very City of God, or the Nazi and Communist efforts to erect a divinized total state 19 Consequently, the verse in BaMidbar 15:26 can be understood to reflect the need for a person and/or a community whose direction and devotion has become confused to reorient towards HaKadosh Baruch Huh, a sentiment that not only is extremely pertinent on the eve of the holiest day of the Jewish year, but also every day of our lives. 16 Rosenzweig s commentary on one of Yehuda HaLevi s poems, Yechu Lashon Chazot Ishon in Jehuda Halevi, Berlin, Lambert- Schneider, Anmerkungen, p. 185, quoted in Iyunim, p Herberg s lifetime, , places him closer to our age, but not entirely. 18 The idea that such a claim could even pertain to Judaism perhaps is an application of the Talmudic statement (Yoma 72b) that for some Tora can serve as a Sam Mavet (a poisonous medicinal preparation) even as for others it is a Sam Chaim. 19 The Chosenness of the Jews and the Jew of Today, (1955) in From Marxism to Judaism: The Collected Essays of Will Herberg, Marcus Wiener Publ., New York, 1989, p. 95.