Thursday, July 11, 2019

Balak 5779 - Individual Responsibility, Collective Greatness


Parsha Paragraphs
Rabbi Naftali Moshe Kassorla
Balak 5779
Individual Responsibility, 
Collective Greatness
The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated for the urgent Refuah Shleimah of:

אליהו בן שרה גיטל

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

This week’s parsha tells us about 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 the greatest prophet to have ever risen - Moshe. The Gemara (Brachot 7a) tells us that Bilaam was able to discern the exact moment when Hashem 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 these abilities, The Chazal 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 within the same person?

Touching upon this, Rashi (22:5), quoting the Midrash Tanchuma, asks a fascinating question:

ואם תאמר מפני מה השרה הקב"ה שכינתו על גוי רשע? כדי שלא יהיה פתחון פה לאמות לומר, אלו היו לנו נביאים, חזרנו למוטב, העמיד להם נביאים והם פרצו גדר העולם, שבתחלה היו גדורים בעריות, וזה נתן להם עצה להפקיר עצמן לזנות
How could Hashem rest His Shechina upon such a wicked non-Jew? The answer is so that the nations of the world should not have a פתחון פה (a complaint) by saying, “Were we [the Gentiles] to have had prophets, we would repent.” Therefore Hashem established prophets for them. Yet they [the Gentiles] breached “the fence of the world,” for originally they were restrained regarding immorality, but this one [Bilaam] advised them to abandon themselves to licentiousness.

The Midrash tells us that Hashem gave prophecy to Bilaam in order to forestall a פתחון פה from the Gentile nations. For their complaint would have been that their circumstances were unfair, arguing that: “Of course the Jewish people are great!; they were given great 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. Being that Bilaam was such a wicked person, how does it help to help remove the argument of the nations by setting him up as a prophet? Their complaint is predicated on the fact 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? Moreover, it is explicit in the Midrash that the nations’ devolving morality was due to the influence of Bilaam. If so, how did Hashem 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 complaint still stand?

I would like to suggest the following: when we think of the role of a “leader” they can manifest themselves in different forms. In the American sense, leaders and Heads of State act as “North Stars” for their people, guides to higher ideals, often expressing visions for a future and a direction for their nation, which will guide them towards great societal accomplishments. President Lincoln stepped into the role of mending the bonds of a frayed nation after a bitter Civil War. JFK expressed the vision of American space dominance years before the technological capabilities were developed, this spurred Americans towards space discoveries, captivating generations. Reagan, credited with defeating communist Russia, was able to do this by articulating American exceptionalism and inspire national pride. Each of these leaders inspired and steered their country towards great feats, ultimately shaping their time periods.

In stark contrast, world history stands as a testament to the many leaders who were not morally upstanding people and acted in ways detrimental to basic decency. Our own people are painfully aware of the power one leader can wield over his people, and the evil that can be wrought.

Nevertheless, as much power that a leader has, by “leading the way” for the private citizen, the actions of a leader don't ״פטר״ (exempt) the people from the moral imperative and responsibility to be righteous. For each person, regardless of the state of his surroundings, is expected to be an upright and moral member of society. 

Though we sense that leaders and presidents influence the decency of the people, 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. 

With this in mind we can answer our question. Giving a רשע like Bilaam as a prophet really was Hashem’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 רשע for a leader.” By giving them a prophet like Bilaam, Hashem 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.

The message conveyed here, as we said above, 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. For in reality excusing one's actions, and placing blame on outside factors is the antithesis of greatness.

To further showcase this idea we will take a look at the Gemara in Makkot (9b) (in the context of why Avimelech the King of the Plishtim was punished for taking Sarah away from Avraham, even though he didn't “know” that Sarah was Avraham’s wife) tells us of an interesting idea. In general, the Halacha is that one is not subject to punishment from Beit Din unless he has had התראה (prior warning) regarding the particular עבירה 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 לו ללמוד ולא למד (They [the Bnei Noach] should have learnt, but they did not learn). Rashi (דף ח: ד״ה כדקא מהדרי) on the Gemara explains that this refers to דרך ארץ (common decency). Common decency (which, in the Gemara’s context refers to not taking someone's wife, but this applies as well to all basic moral guidelines) is so פשוט, 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. (1)

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. (2)

Amazingly, Avraham Avinu came to the truth of Hashem, not through a leader or a teacher, and nor even initially through prophecy, but through his own personal inquiry. Hashem revealed himself to Avraham only once he discovered Hashem on his own. Avraham’s journey to Hashem was travelled purely through his own inner moral compass, and his intellect which discerned the truth. (3)

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. Before prophecy, Our ancestors first 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. (4)

This idea is not to, חס ושלום degrade or detract from 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 the alluring trap of moral license, which exempts us from any individual responsibility to fight the tides of the time. 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

(1) Baruch Hashem החונן דעת, this exact point from this exact Gemara is made in the sefer אור הצפון, the shmuessen of the Alter of Slabodka זצ״לֹ. See as well the הקדמה לש״ס from Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon that writes:
כל המצות שהן תלויין בסברא ובואבנתא דליבא, כבר הכל מתחייבים בהן מן היום אשר ברא אלקים אדם על הארץ, עליו ועל זרעו אחריו לדורי דורים״ ע״כ.

(2) See Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky’s Emes L’Yaakov - Noach 9:25 regarding what we have inherited from them.

(3) 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.

(4) This is why Judaism actually places much emphasis on ואהבתם את הגר ,to “Love the Convert” (Devarim 10:19). This is because we cherish their nonconformist 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. ברוך שכוונתי this is exactly what the Rambam writes in a fascinating teshuva (שו״ת הרמב״ם קנ״ט) to a question from a גר צדק in regards to the status of Muslims as idol worshippers. The Ger had first asked his Teacher this question, and the teacher responded degradingly to the Ger, calling him a כסיל - a fool. The Rambam after responding the question, then turns his ire towards the teacher. The Rambam was incensed that the teacher could possibly speak disparagingly to a Ger, and demands the teacher repent in no uncertain terms. The Rambam then, in an incredible display of compassion begins to praise Converts in the most beautiful of prose. Any translation I would offer would surely not do it justice, so I will just share his words here:
וזה שקרא לך כסיל תימ' גדול הוא אדם שהניח אביו ואמו ומקום מולדתו ומלכות עמו וידם הנטויה והבין בעין לבו ובא ונדבק באומה זו שהיא היום למתעב גוי עבד מושלים בו והכיר וידע שדתם דת אמת וצדק והבין דרכי ישראל והכיר הכל ורדף אחרי ה' ועבר בדרך הקדש ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה ונתאבק בעפר רגלי משה רבינו ע"ה רבן של כל הנביאים וחפץ במצותיו ונשאו לבו לקרבה לאור באור החיים ולעלות למעלת המלאכים ולשמוח ולהתענג בשמחת הצדיקים והשליך העולם הזה מלבו ולא פנה אל רהבים ושטי כזב מי שזו מעלתו כסיל יקרא חלילה לך לא כסיל קרא ה' שמך אלא משכיל ופקח ומבין והולך נכוחות תלמידו של אברהם אבינו שהניח אבותיו ומולדתו ונטה אחרי ה' ומי שבירך את אברהם רבן ונתן לו שכרו בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא הוא יברך אותך ויתן לך שכרך כראוי בעולם הזה ולעולם הבא ויאריך ימיך עד שתורה במשפטי ה' לכל עדתו ויזכה אותך לראות בכל הנחמות העתידות לישראל והיה הטובוהיה אשר ייטיב ה' עמנו והטבנו לך כי ה' דבר טוב על ישראל
משה ברבי מימון זצ"ל


Chukat 5779 - Thoughtful Servants


Parsha Paragraphs
Rabbi Naftali Moshe Kassorla

Chukat 5779
Thoughtful Servants
The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated for the urgent Refuah Shleimah of:
אליהו בן שרה גיטל
To sponsor a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

In this week’s Parsha, the באר מרים (the well which accompanied the Children of Israel in the wilderness in the merit of Miriam) ceases after Miriam’s death, leaving Klal Yisrael complaining of thirst. In response to this, Hashem commands Moshe and Aharon: “Take the staff and gather together the Assembly, you and Aharon your brother. And you shall speak to the rock before their eyes, and it shall give its waters” (Bamidbar 20:7-8). Then, “Moshe raised his arm and struck the rock with his staff twice” (ibid 20:11).

Hashem is angered that Moshe hits the rock instead of following His specific instruction to speak to it. “Hashem said to Moshe and Aharon: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this congregation to the land which I have given them” (ibid 20:12). Rashi on this verse says that Hashem is saying that “had you spoken to the rock, and it would have brought forth water, I would have been sanctified before the eyes of the Assembly, and they would have said ‘Just as this rock, which neither speaks nor hears and does not need sustenance nevertheless fulfills the will of Hashem, how much more so should we fulfill His word.’” (Rashi, ibid).

Because Moshe did not speak to the rock, he was punished with not being able to enter into the Land.

At first glance, this seems difficult to understand. Even when Moshe hits the rock, the rock still brings forth water. Given that the Children of Israel did not know that Hashem commanded Moshe to speak to the rock, surely, whether Moshe hits the rock or speaks to it, they will see that the rock produces water. Therefore, wouldn't they deduce that if a rock (an entity that does not speak, and naturally does not produce water) obeys Hashem, how much more so should humans obey Him? What is the special significance of speaking to the rock instead of hitting? Don't they accomplish the same desired goal?

I believe that herein lies an indispensable lesson for educators and parents.

Many chinuch and parenting books have been written with one goal in mind: how to get a student/child to do what you want them to do, i.e. to be obedient. Some experts are insistent that the adult/teacher must maintain an authoritative stance, never go down to the child’s eye level, speak in a commanding tone such as “go get that... go do this”; some are more extreme that one should be slightly cold and a bit removed. This is known colloquially as the “old school” method.

There is also the “new age” or progressive method. This approach, beginning in the 19th century, emphasizes a focus on the student’s feelings and emotions. Every decision is viewed through the perspective of the child. This would eventually spur the “self-esteem movement” of the 1970’s where every interaction was judged and evaluated by how much it would increase the child's self-image. This method encouraged parents and teachers to become less like authority figures and develop more of a friend-like relationship with the child/student, in the hope that through friendship, the pupil will want to listen to authority.

Proponents of each of these methods, the old school and progressive, can quote copious amounts of research and evidence that supports the efficacy of their approaches.

But, as believing Jews who look to the Torah for guidance, what can we learn from the Torah in this area? I believe that we see from this episode with Moshe that, from the standpoint of authority, it’s not about getting the student to do follow your instructions, it's about how we get them to do it.

As mentioned previously, the desired result of Moshe speaking to the rock was that the people would deduce from the rock bringing forth water, that they too should obey the word of G-d. And while it's true that the people would have also learned a similar lesson now that Moshe hit the rock, this clearly was not Hashem’s desired method in this case. G-d wanted us to learn this lesson specifically through: the power of speech. For by witnessing obedience which stems from the hitting of the rock, we only see that we are to be obedient under the threat of force. And while there is clearly a time and place for when force is integral for obedience, we see in this instance that Hashem does not always want this to be our mode of service. He does not want automated robots or fearful slaves; rather He wants our obedience to come from being good listeners. People who can hear a command and by their own decision come to obey it.

We can take this lesson one step further. By seeing the rock obey in response to Moshe speaking to it, the nation would deduce that they too must listen to G-d’s instruction. In contrast, When Moshe hit the rock, he was giving the visual impression that he was literally forcing the rock to give water – a very obvious and overt lesson that one must obey his master, no matter what.

In this case, there is no deductive reasoning being used by the student. In the case of speaking, the nation actively, through their own logic, can come to the truth themselves. Arriving at conclusions independently accomplishes the goal of fashioning the mind of the student to think critically. By the student going through that thought process, filtering the facts through himself, the mind of the pupil is expanded and more perfected, something which will serve him in good stead for the rest of his life. This is perhaps what G-d wants for us – to become more thoughtful servants.

This is a lesson which we can hopefully apply both in our own Service of G-d as well as how we teach others to serve as well.

Shabbat Shalom
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...