Parshat Devarim - Ripple Effects

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Devarim

Ripple Effects

This D’var Torah has been dedicated in the memory of
ר׳ אלחנן יעקב ז״ל בן ר׳ שמואל פנחס

This week’s parsha marks the beginning of the Nation's preparation to settle in the Land of Israel. With the people about to enter, Moshe Rabbeinu stands before them, addressing them for the last time. Through veiled references, Moshe scolds the nation and prepares them for the journey ahead.

In his speech, Moshe alludes to the sin of the Meraglim. Within this allusion, he also mentions his fate from the episode of מי מריבה (the Waters of Strife) where Moshe, instead of speaking to the rock to bring forth water, hit the rock. G-d penalized Moshe for this, and so he was prohibited from entering the land.

Moshe says: ״גם בי התאנף ה׳ בגללכם לאמר גם אתה לא תבוא שם״ – “With me as well, Hashem became angry because of you, saying: You too shall not come there ” (1:37).

At first glance, we see something peculiar here. When Moshe references his own punishment, it sounds as though he is placing the onus upon the nation: “Hashem became angry because of you.”  This appears uncalled for – why would Moshe blame others for his own infraction? This kind of behavior does not seem congruous with what we would expect of a man of Moshe’s stature.

Surely, Moshe Rabbeinu did not rebuke the people this way with the intent of avoiding responsibility, or out of personal anger towards them. No – if he “blamed” them, it must have been because, as their leader, he had a message for them. What is the message he could convey by saying “...because of you”?

Furthermore, the commentators struggle to understand why Moshe puts the episode of the Mei Meriva within the context of the sin of the Spies. Seemingly they are two distinct and unrelated episodes – what is the connection between them?

The truth is that there is nothing in this world that is disconnected.  To understand this, we need to look no further than to the mathematical concept of “The Butterfly Effect.” This is the notion that small causes can have far-reaching effects. The Mathematician Edward Lorenz (the one who coined the phrase) explained it as follows: “The fluttering of a butterfly’s wing in Rio de Janeiro, amplified by atmospheric currents, could cause a tornado in Texas two weeks later.”

But this idea goes back even farther. The German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) wrote: “You could not remove a single grain of sand from its place without thereby…changing something throughout all parts of the immeasurable whole.” (The Vocation of Man - 1800)

All things are interconnected, and all things affect each other. If this is true in the physical realm, how much more so in the spiritual! All of our actions – our aveiros as well as our mitzvos – have an incredible impact on the world around us.

Rav Yisrael Salanter was said to have remarked that “if we strengthen our observance of Shabbat in Lithuania, it will prevent a fellow Jew from desecrating the Shabbat in Paris.”

Perhaps Moshe was trying to relay this message of spiritual connectivity to the nation. By mentioning his infraction in the context of the episode of the spies and saying that his mistake was due to them, Moshe was teaching that his actions and theirs are interlocked. The implication of this being that if one person (i.e. Moshe) sins, it stems from an “air” of sin in the world and among the nation.

It is important for the Jewish People to know that when they err, it is not limited to just them; rather it has an effect on the entire nation, even the greatest among them. It has an effect on the entire world. No action is in a vacuum, and when we realize how serious and important our actions are, we can take more responsibility for them.

But rather than focus on the negative, let us instead use this idea as source of strength for us this Tisha B'av. It should steer us away from the debilitating thought that our actions will accomplish very little, because we see from the parsha the exact opposite: our actions, no matter how big or how small, have a tremendous impact.

If each one of us takes upon ourselves to love another Jew just a little more, it will have extensive ripple-effects on the entire nation. If we each do just a little better in our daily routine, it can be the catalyst to overarching change in our world. A little bit goes a very long way.

If we personally cry out to Hashem to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash, with each person’s help, perhaps we will not have to see Tish’a B’av this year.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Matot - Masei: Brothers in Arms

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Matot - Masei

Brothers in Arms

This D’var Torah has been sponsored Anonymously
In Appreciation of Rabbi Naftali Kassorla's Enlightening Divrei Torah

Among the many topics discussed in this week’s parsha is the episode of the tribes of Reuven and Gad, as the nation approaches the Land of Israel. The Nation is preparing themselves to conquer it as their eternal homeland, which will later be apportioned to each of the Tribes.

The Torah tells us : “The Children of Reuven and Gad had abundant livestock – very great” (32:1). They come to Moshe with a request: “If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants as a heritage; do not bring us across the Jordan” (ibid. 5). The tribes of Reuven and Gad request from Moshe to remain on the other side of the Jordan river, rather than take a portion in the land of Israel.

Moshe castigates the tribes for this request – for it might show the rest of the nation that they are afraid of entering the land, thus repeating the mistake of the Spies. (Rashi ibid. 7)

The Shevatim, acquiescing to Moshe’s critique, promise to participate in the battles to conquer the land. They exclaim:  “ואנחנו נחלץ חשים לפני בני ישראל” – “We shall arm ourselves swiftly before the Children of Israel” (ibid. 17).

Hearing this pledge, Moshe responds, “If you do this thing, if you arm yourselves before Hashem for the battle...then you shall return [i.e. to your land]” (Ibid. 20).

The Abarbanel points out a subtle difference between the statement of the tribes and Moshe’s repetition of their commitment: the Tribes state that they will fight with their brethren, “before the children of Israel”, yet Moshe says they will fight “before Hashem.” Why is Moshe repeating back the pledge of the tribes with this slight change?

The Abarbanel explains that Moshe sensed the tribe’s affirmation of loyalty was based on their feeling of obligation based on a shared bond of brotherhood; they did not wish to desert their brethren at a time of war. However, Moshe’s reply to them is as follows: “You must fight before Hashem,” meaning that the reason for fighting along with the rest of the Nation should not only be based on tribal loyalty, but rather on account of the Will of Hashem.

Perhaps we can explain this Abarbanel in broader terms. Human definitions of compassion and morals are not static; they are subject to societal change. What was once considered an anathema and toxic to civilization, may today be regarded as axiomatic to a functional society. Yesterday in the mainstream, today a bigot.

The only absolute guarantee of consistent moral truth is a reliance upon the definition which G-d, the Source of all morality, has set out for us. This was the gift to the world at Har Sinai: Moral Monotheism, based not on subjective human conceptions, but rather a Divinely based ethos. I once heard it said that the Laws of the Torah are timely and timeless – flexible enough to accommodate the ways of modern man, while at the same time ironclad in the face of societal degeneracy.

Over the years, archeologists have uncovered steeles and manuscripts showcasing ancient societies’ complex laws. The Code of Hammurabi – one of the greatest archeological finds in modern history – bears stark resemblances to many aspects of our Holy Torah. Yet, as we know, it couldn’t be more different. Imbued in the Torah and the moral message that it proclaims, standing at its core, is not some ancient and long-forgotten War Lord; but rather stands G-d Himself – infusing it with timeless, enduring truth, unchained from the confines of man.

This is why it was imperative that the tribes enter their mission not just on the basis of what they defined as compassionate and correct, stemming from a feeling of familial obligation. Moshe emphasized to them the importance of doing the task with the intention of fulfilling Hashem’s Will, based on a moral standard which is never-changing and consistently applicable.

The Torah is our guidebook and anchor for what is moral, compassionate, kind and – most importantly – true. If we make the mistake of relying only on our own subjective standards, we may arrive at erred conclusions and incorrect decisions. But when our innermost intention is to act “before Hashem,” and we behave according to the ways set by the Torah, then we can know our actions to be absolutely and undeniably correct.

Moshe’s message to the tribes speaks to us today as well. May we have the strength in life to make all of our decisions according to the Will of Hashem and in doing so, merit to find success in all of our endeavors.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Pinchas: Reflexive Response

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Pinchas

Reflexive Response

Following on the heels of last week's parsha (which ended with Pinchas taking a stand against licentious behavior in the camp) our parsha tells us of the tremendous reward that G-d bestowed upon Pinchas, elevating him and his children to the level of Kohanim.

Pinchas, witnessing the breach of holiness in the encampment rose “from amid the assembly” (25:7), killing both Zimri and Cozbi the Midianite.

However, as we observe, there is tremendous blowback towards Pinchas from the Nation. This is despite the fact that his actions put an end to the devastating punishment (for licentiousness) which struck the encampment – a plague which had taken 24,000 lives! Nonetheless, instead of applauding him, the people accuse him of murder. They doubt Pinchas’ motivation, so much so that G-d himself has to come to his defense. G-d tells Moshe that not only did Pinchas not commit murder, but that he avenged His vengeance.

Pinchas is the archetype of zealotry in the Jewish tradition. His example serves as a paradigm when discussing zealotry throughout Jewish history. And in an age of extremes, it is worthwhile to analyze the nature of Pinchas’ zealotry and its lessons for the Jewish people.

The principle according to which Pinchas acts in killing Zimri, a Nasi in his own right, was קנאין פוגעין בו  (the zealous one may slay him) – a law from Sinai that allows for one to kill a person who is violating the prohibition of cohabiting with a gentile in public. This law has few a caveats to it. Firstly, it is not proactively taught; this is known as הלכה ואין מורין כן – “it is the law, but we [Beit Din] does not rule to do it” (Sanhedrin 82a). Secondly, the dispensation to allow for killing is only limited to the very moment of the act itself, i.e. while the cohabitation is taking place. If the קנאי comes even a few seconds after the sin and kills the perpetrator, the קנאי is liable for murder and is himself punished with death. The perpetrator can even defend himself and kill the zealot, and he would be wholly innocent for defending himself!

It is worth noting that this perpetrator, particularly in our episode (Zimri) is committing this act completely in public – a wanton display of brazenness! Yet were Zimri to defend himself afterwards and kill Pinchas, he would not be liable.

What is this caveat of הלכה ואין מורין כן? It appears a bit strange to say that were one to come ask Beit Din whether to punish this type of overt sin, the Beit Din would refuse to answer. Seemingly, this is working counter to all other aspects of Jewish Law. In other areas of Halacha, it is axiomatic that disputes and questions are directed towards and adjudicated by the Rabbis. Yet here, were a קנאי to ask, we [Beit Din] wouldn't rule the law? Shouldn't such an important question need to be ruled on prior to acting?

We can see from the Halacha, that built within the system is a principle which does not allow for a blanket application of this mode of action – it is limited to an elite, a select few. How is this so? I once heard a good line, in response to one who was asking if he was holding on a certain spiritual level, which can shed light on this idea: “If you’re asking the question, you're not on that level.”

When the “zealot” comes to the Beit Din and asks whether to act, it is a sign that he truly isn't a zealot. A “real” קנאי wouldn't need to ask; the fact they are even asking the question shows they are not fit to act. A true קנאי wouldn't hesitate for a moment, even to ask. Why is this so?

I believe the answer lies in the science of “muscle memory.” Muscle memory is the result of constant and repetitive motions to the extent that an action or response becomes ingrained and embedded in the fiber of the muscles. Athletes, policemen and soldiers – after thousands of hours of practice – train their bodies to respond automatically in incredibly complex ways, in specific, and often stressful scenarios. Without thinking, they are able to act at the drop of a hat. Whether that means operating complicated machinery, performing difficult maneuvers, or throwing a ball at maximum speed – through intense repetition, they have relegated such actions to subconscious reflexes.

This is the key to understanding a “zealot”. A קנאי is not just someone who gets emotional or angry at something he doesn't like. Nor is he simply someone who always acts in the most extreme way. Anyone can do that. A קנאי is someone who, after years of inculcating the values of Torah, holiness and truth, through intense labor and study, has ingrained morality and holiness in his very essence. And he has done so to the extent that his approach when confronted with a brazen breach of morality, is to act immediately, without the need for thinking. His spiritual muscles have been worked to such a point that there no longer is a decision to act – it is a trained response.

If his desire for truth and morality was so ingrained in him, would he need to ask permission? Does the pitcher need to think and ask for guidance before he throws the baseball? Of course not! On the contrary – were he to think about it, it would completely throw him off (a condition known in sports psychology as “The Yips,” a little-understood phenomena which is caused when the athlete starts to think consciously before acting and paralyzes him from performing tasks through muscle memory). For a true zealot, the reaction must be stemming from a deep-seeded reflex which lies within his internal morality.

However, based on the above, one could ask an obvious question. Rashi (ibid.), quoting the Midrash, says explicitly that Pinchas came to Moshe:

He saw the incident and was reminded of the law. He said to Moshe: “I have received from you as a teaching that one who has relations with a non-Jewish woman, that a zealot can kill him.” Moshe said to Pinchas: “the one who proclaims the letter (i.e. the law) let him be the messenger to carry it out.” Thereupon, “and he [Pinchas] took a spear in his hand.”

It's seems clear that in fact, Pinchas did ask Moshe about taking action. If so, how was Pinchas not only allowed to act, but also considered the paradigm of Jewish zealotry? Why did he wait and ask? Furthermore, Pinchas knew the law of הלכה ואין מורין כן. If so, didn't he understand that Moshe would not tell him to do it?

I saw an amazing explanation to this question from the שערי אהרון. He says that really, Pinchas was not asking for permission. Rather, because he did not realize that Moshe actually forgot the Halacha, Pinchas was flabbergasted as to why Moshe himself  was not acting on this brazen display of immorality. Only after understanding from Moshe’s response that Moshe forgot, did Pinchas recognize that he alone had the power to respond, and so he finally went ahead with his act of zealotry.

With this explanation, we arrive at another lesson about a quality which is essential to a Torah zealot: the pure zealot does not essentially want to be the one to act. If we observe a קנאי “chomping at the bit” to act, it is a red flag. The true personality of a zealot is not someone who relishes the opportunity to admonish others and treat his brethren harshly. Rather, a קנאי is someone who feels he has been “called” to action. Pinchas was called.

A קנאי acts upon their zealotry and desire for justice with the pure motivation of carrying out G-d’s Will. It is not a self-serving act to see his will carried out by others, to be an authoritarian under the guise of piety. Hashem Himself attested to Pinchas’ motivations: בקנאו את קנאתי - “He [Pinchas] zealously avenged my vengeance” (ibid. 11). Pinchas was so attuned to G-d’s Will that his vengeance was in reality G-d’s vengeance.

Pinchas is raised up in Jewish tradition as the paragon of zealotry so that we should learn from him the true qualities of being zealous for G-d’s will. Pinchas sets a high bar for the zealot. By analyzing his character and understanding the true nature of zealotry, we can gain deeper insight about ourselves and where we are really holding. As much as we try to learn about traits to inculcate within ourselves, there is a value in recognizing what we are not as well. Zealotry is a high status, and few among us are capable of being awarded such a title.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Balak - Individual Responsibility, Collective Greatness

Parshat Balak

Individual Responsibility, Collective Greatness

This week’s parsha tells us of King Balak, his fear of the impending threat of the Jewish people, and his attempts to undercut them by using Bilaam the prophet, to curse them.

Bilaam is an interesting character in the Torah. He is considered on par – in terms of his prophetic level – with Moshe. The Gemara (Brachot 7a) tells us that he was able to discern the exact moment when G-d was upset with the Jewish people (something that even Moshe Rabbeinu was not privy to) and he knew that in that moment, his prayers would be answered.

Despite his lofty abilities, the Midrashim paint him as a greedy and debased man, even taking part in beastiality with his mule. Yet, he is called a “prophet” in the parsha. (See the Ramban who discusses the exact nature of Bilaam’s standing as a prophet.) How can these contradictory attributes coexist in the same person?

Touching upon this, Rashi (23:5), quoting the Midrash Tanchuma, asks a fascinating question:

Why did Hashem rest his Shechina upon such a wicked non-Jew? So that the nations of the world should not have a פתחון פה (an excuse) by saying, “Were we [the Gentiles] to have had prophets we would have repented.” Therefore G-d established prophets for them, yet they breached “the fence of the world,” for originally they were restrained regarding immorality, but this one [Bilaam] advised them to abandon themselves to licentiousness.

From here we see that G-d gave prophecy to Bilaam in order to forestall a פתחון פה from the nations. They could complain that their circumstances were unfair. They may argue, “Of course the Jewish people are exemplary; they were given leaders like Moshe! But we were never given such leaders, therefore it is not our fault that we are not great.”

This Midrash is hard to understand. If Bilaam was such a wicked person, how does G-d, help remove the argument of the nations by setting him up as a prophet ? Their complaint is that they weren't “given a chance” to be good because they weren't given good leaders. Obviously if their leader is a wicked person, wouldn’t he lead them astray? It's explicit in the Midrash that the nations’ devolving morality was due to the influence of Bilaam. If so, how did G-d remove the פתחון פה from the other nations by giving them Bilaam? They could still say that surely, had they been given a righteous leader with the character of Moshe, they would be able to act in the proper way. Doesn't their argument retain its strength?

I would like to suggest the following: Leaders and Heads of State have the potential to act as a “North Star” for their people, able to express a vision and a direction for their populace which will guide them towards great societal accomplishments. Reagan was able to articulate American exceptionalism and inspire national pride. JFK spurred the country towards space discoveries captivating generations. And Lincoln mended a frayed nation after a bitter civil war. Each of these leaders inspired and steered their citizenry towards great feats, shaping their time periods.

Human history is also rife with examples of leaders who were not morally upstanding people and acted in ways detrimental to basic decency. But their actions do not remove the responsibility for the individual citizen to be good. For each person has their own obligation to be an upright and moral member of society. Though we sense that leaders and presidents influence the decency of the populous, this is not an excuse. Moral decency is a personal obligation incumbent upon each individual regardless of the leaders of the time. Following orders, being swept up with the winds of degeneracy, is not an excuse.

Perhaps this was really G-d’s way of removing the nations’ פתחון פה. Hashem was in essence saying: “If you think that the morality of your actions is dependent on the quality of the leader, then I will give you a Rasha for a leader.” The message conveyed here is that each person has a built-in moral compass, and each person has been given a שכל to discern the truth. Having bad leaders is not carte blanche to act immorally. By giving them a prophet like Bilaam, G-d was pointing out the ridiculousness of their argument. The fact that they lacked this attitude of personal responsibility proved that even were they to have had good leaders, they would never have become great. Excusing and exempting one's actions is the antithesis of greatness.

The Gemara in Makkot (9b) (in the context of why Avimelech was punished for taking Sarah away from Avraham) tells us of an interesting idea. The Halacha is that one is not subject to punishment from Beit Din unless he has had התראה (prior warning) regarding the particular sin he is about to transgress and the punishment it carries. However, this only applies to a Jew. For a בן נח (gentile), the law is different. He is subject to punishment even without התראה. In explaining why, the Gemara says: שהיה להם ללמוד ולא למד (They [the Bnei Noach] should have learnt, but they did not learn). Rashi on the Gemara explains that this refers to דרך ארץ (common decency). Common decency (which, in the Gemara’s context is not stealing someone's wife, but also applies to all basic moral guidelines) is so axiomatic to a functioning society that there is no excuse for “not knowing.” It is possible and attainable for everyone to maintain those standards, therefore there is no need to warn the transgressor prior to the act; he should have known it inherently.

This explanation can give us a deeper insight into the nation's perception of the Jewish People's unique character. The Gentiles complain that they would also be like the Jewish people had they had leaders like us. This complaint presumes that the greatness of the Jews is attributed to the fact that we had great leaders. This is not true. The reason we are great is because we are the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov Avinu. (See Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky’s Emes L’Yaakov - Noach 9:25 regarding what we have inherited from them). Avraham Avinu came to the truth of G-d, not through a leader or a teacher, and nor through prophecy. G-d revealed himself to Avraham only once he discovered G-d on his own. His journey to G-d was travelled purely through his own inner moral compass, and his intellect which discerned the truth.*

Our Ancestors bucked the trends and popular beliefs of their time. This is why Avraham was called עברי from the word עבר (crossover, see Yehoshua 24:3), for Avraham crossed over to the other side of the river of popular opinion – from polytheism to Moral Monotheism. Serving as our paradigm, the Avot teach us the invaluable lesson that the Jewish people's national greatness is not due to a leader or a prophet. Leadership and prophecy were given to us much later on. Our first ancestors tapped into their personal connection with the Divine, and set down a path of spiritual discovery and moral uprightness which extends through our spiritual genes till today.**

This idea is not to G-d forbid degrade or demur the need for a personal teacher or leader. On the contrary – we are all potentially fallible, subject to mistakes, and in need of guidance. The point here is that while leaders can guide us, the greatness of our people is not due to a leader. The mistake that the other nations made was in placing the burden of their own moral actions and responsibility upon a leader alone.

This lesson is particularly powerful today, given the political climate, where it feels like every day we are reaching new “lows” in common decency. It is all-too-easy to fall into this alluring trap of moral license, which exempts us from any individual responsibility to fight the tides of the time and act with decency. As Jews, and as members of a society at large, we have the ability – and the responsibility – to behave in the way we know to be true.

Shabbat Shalom

* One could claim that the Jewish people having the Avot as examples is inherently having good leaders. But the example that the Avot set was being resolute in their principles. They discerned the truth and stuck to it despite world opinion. No leader can instill that in the people, that must be decided and inculcated. The complaint of the Gentiles is that they if they had good leaders telling them exactly what to do, they wouldn't be led astray. The point is that being led astray is not an excuse. The Avot teach us: one needs to remain a strong individual in the face of the masses being led astray. The Jewish people have been infused with this message and have lived it time and again throughout the generations in the face of much persecution and pressure to change, following in the footsteps of our ancestors, in line with our spiritual genes.

** This is why Judaism actually places much emphasis of “Loving the Convert”. We cherish their maverick attitude in actively deciding to place their lot with a people so diametrically opposed to the rest of the world. Though they are not literally our genetic family, they are our spiritual brethren. This is why a convert is called up to the Torah as “Ben Avraham” the son of Avraham. For not only has he emulated the very traits of Avraham, but the convert has become the literal spiritual child of Avraham.