Can we do תפילות prayers for:
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein and Torah.org?
So that through them The האור Light, רפואה The Healing and The ואהבה Love of ישועת יהוה Yeshuath YHWH may come back to הארץ The Land of Israel?
|
|  |
|
|
| To sponsor an edition of the Netziv: Davar B'Ito e-mail list, click here |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Parshas Shlach
Two Halachic Highways1
Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moshe and Aharon...
What were they thinking? With all due respect to Aharon, did anyone
believe that if Moshe could not provide an answer, that Aharon would?
Note how they are ordered in the pasuk, with Moshe listed first. The
plain reading is that they turned to them in sequence.
One approach is given in the Sifri here, and applied by Rashi in a
few similar pesukim relating to Pesach Sheni[2] and the request of
Tzelafchad’s daughters[3]. This reading has Moshe and Aharon already
sitting together in the beis medrash. They were not approached serially,
which would have been pointless after going to Moshe first. Rather, in
each case, those who brought the question for a decision happened to
find the brothers engrossed in a frequent activity: Torah study. And, we should add, the questions were addressed to both, because in an open, free-wheeling Torah discussion, there is room for greater and lesser authorities joining in on the discussion.
We are really not where we want to be yet. People who would not be
able to team up to give testimony – like the brothers Moshe and Aharon –
may still sit together to decide difficult matters of halachah. The
gemara states this explicitly[4]. It is perfectly plausible, therefore,
to explain in this way some of the other joint references to Moshe and
his brother. In those cases, they were asked to rule in the abstract
about the halachic definition of some Torah
statute. There was plenty of room for both to take part in the
deliberations, along with others as well. That was not the case in our
pasuk. Here, a person’s life hung in the balance. They were asked to
determine whether the accused had committed a crime for which he needed
to pay with his life. Two relatives, like Moshe and Aharon, will not
count as separate voices. Should a father and son both take part in such
a discussion, it is only the father’s vote that counts, while his son
is treated as an assistant. Moreove
r, Rashi on the gemara cites a Tosefta that two relatives should not
even sit together in a capital case – possibly to avoid the appearance
of impropriety[5]. One of them should get up and leave. If so, we are no
closer to a solution than when we began. Why invoke Aharon here, when
he was barred from adding substantively to the discussion?
What we have here is a glimpse of a fundamental distinction in
deciding halachic matters. Moshe and Aharon could not sit together in a
single court – and they did not have to. Each headed a court of his own,
each seeking to uncover Torah truth, but using different tools.
Parshas Shoftim[6] instructs us to resolve doubtful halachic matters
by going to higher authorities. Somewhat surprisingly, it speaks of
going to the kohanim and to the shofet. We understand the reference to
the shofet; deciding the law is his job. But why mention kohanim?
Know that there are two ways in which to arrive at an acceptable
halachic answer regarding a matter for which no earlier, accepted
approach exists. The first is largely rational. The decisor looks at
similar cases and comparable models, and arrives at a position that he
finds logically compelling. We would call this hora’ah. It is fully
legitimate – but may only be relied upon in the instance that the
decision is rendered.
A very different method uses the systematized rules of Torah
inference to derive new laws from the ground up. When used properly,
its conclusions become part of the corpus of law passed down from
generation to generation, i.e. mishnah. Applying these rules of
inference is no simple matter, and requires much analysis and
comprehension of subtlety and nuance. We call those things “pilpul.”
The first method is linked to the kohanim; the second to the shofet.
Both can be used, and both are recommended by the pasuk in Shoftim.
During the travels of Bnei Yisrael in the wilderness, Aharon headed up a
court specializing in the first method, while Moshe was the
acknowledged master of the pilpul process.
When the gatherer of wood violated the laws of Shabbos, the community was at a loss as to how to grasp the Torah’s
command to execute the Shabbos desecrater. People came to both Moshe
and Aharon, ready to accept instruction from either of them, each
employing his specialty in consultation with his own court.
Those two institutions remain alive and vital to this very day.
Individual Choice In Avodas Hashem7
You shall not seek out after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray[8].
What the Torah really means to say is that
we should not follow the dictates of our hearts. Strangely, it doesn’t
employ the expected verb, but instead takes us back to the very
beginning of our parshah. There[9] , we find the verb form lasur/ to spy
out the land, joining that pasuk to the lo sasuru/ you shall not seek
out, of our pasuk.
The Torah hints at something remarkable
about individual choice in the way we live our lives. There is nothing
more important to us than how we serve Hashem. Yet, this is nothing that
can be standardized. The general outlines of avodas Hashem vary from
person to person. One person toils constantly in his Torah
learning. Another throws himself into the performance of practical
mitzvos, while yet another tries to maximize his output of chesed. All
of them act in devotion to Heaven.
We see that even within these three broad choices there is much room
for difference. Among those who immerse themselves entirely in their
learning, we still find very different styles of and approaches to that
learning. Even those who devote themselves to rigorous performance of
the mitzvos find room for individual choice. The gemara[10] speaks
approvingly of great people who devote themselves to some mitzvah with
great tenacity; the Yerushalmi[11] sees special bracha accruing to a
person who chooses a single mitzvah which he never compromises,
regardless of circumstances.
Were a person to ask how he should choose between the three major
options, and from the choices within each group, we would answer simply:
Follow where your heart leads you. It is certain that even if you
cannot articulate to yourself why you should pick one option over
another, your heart will not fail you. It will take you to the place
most suitable to the powers of your soul.
With so much leeway granted to individual choice, we might come to
think that Hashem is interested only in that a person act for the sake
of Heaven. If one’s inclination and fervor orient him to explore new
ways of serving Hashem, that might be fine as well. It isn’t. And it is
for this reason that our pasuk uses a verb that connotes spying,
searching for something previously unknown. Creativity and individuality
have their limits. When they tell a person to seek out new forms of
avodah, they become illegitimate. Choices are available and desirable
within the orbits of Torah study and mitzvah performance – but not in the creation of new forms of service.
We note that our pasuk is located in the wake of the story of the
gatherer of wood. Tosafos[12] claim that he acted as he did for the sake
of Heaven. He saw a generation demoralized by the sentence imposed upon
them of wandering for forty years. They thought that all their
activities had become irrelevant, as G-d simply did not care any longer
what they did. The wood-gatherer sought to demonstrate that Hashem cared
very much. By drawing a death sentence upon himself for desecrating
Shabbos, he hoped to prove that their mitzvos and sins were still
important, even if he had to sacrifice his life to make his point.
He, too, was “spying out” the landscape, using his individuality to
tell himself that he could serve Hashem by breaking His law. The Torah
emphasizes in our pasuk that a person who acts in such a manner has
overstepped his authority. One cannot transgress for the sake of Heaven.
(Although the gemara[13] states that a transgression for the sake of
Heaven is on par with a mitzvah performed not entirely for the sake of
Heaven, this has no bearing on our discussion. When the gemara creates
this identity, it speaks specifically about a person trapped in a
predicament not of his choosing, and dealing with it through an aveirah
with good intentions. It does not license transgression in other
circumstances.)
Similarly, we are barred from creatively inventing new ways of
serving G-d, even when they do not involve transgression. Hashem
understands quite well our need for individuality. He is the One, after
all, Who made it part of us. He also assigned us our individual
strengths and talents. And He left ample room for our individual choices
within the great task He gave us at birth.
1. Based on Ha’amek Davar and Harchev Davar, Bamidbar 15:33
2. Bamidbar 9:6
3. Bamidbar 27:20
4. Sanhedrin 36A
5. So in the Cooperman ed. Netziv
6. Devarim 17:8
7. Based on Ha’amek Davar, Bamidbar 15:41
8. Bamidbar 15:41
9. Bamidbar 13:2
10. Shabbos 118B
11. Kiddushin 1:
12. Bava Basra 119B
13. Nazir 23B
|
|
|
|
Questions or comments? Email feedback@torah.org.
Join the Jewish Learning Revolution! Torah.org: The Judaism Site brings this and a host of other classes to you every
week. Visit http://torah.org or email learn@torah.org to get your own free copy of this mailing.
Permission is granted to redistribute, but please give proper attribution and copyright to the author and Torah.org.
Both the author and Torah.org reserve certain rights. Email copyrights@torah.org for full information.
|
|
|
Please Say Yes to Abba Yahweh and His Laws special in
this time when Abba Yahweh is 'testing' us:
Hab 1:12 Art thou not mikedem (‘everlasting’ also said of
Moshiach, indicating Moshiach’s eternal divine nature: Dan
7:14 And there was given Him
(Moshiach) dominion, and honor, and sovereignty, that all people, Goyim,
tongues, should pey-lammed-chet. [1](worship
as deity) (see Dan 3:12, serve, reverence as deity Him (Moshiach). His dominion
is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His (Messianic)
Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.]see Michoh 5:1[2]; Yahweh Elohai (my
Elohim) Kedoshi (my Holy One)? We shall not die. Yahweh, Thou hast appointed them
(these Chaldean) for mishpat (ordinance); O Tzur, Thou hast ordained them (these
Chaldean) for reproof.
(Please
read the whole book of HaNavi Habakuk?)
Please take it serious what Abba Yahweh is telling us in:
Deu 18:15 Yahweh Eloheicha (your Elohim) will raise up unto thee a Navi
(prophet) from among thee, of thy achim (bretheren), kamoni (like me Exo
32:30 The next day Moshe said to the
people, "You have committed a terrible sin. Now I will go up to Yahweh;
maybe I will be able to atone for your sin."); unto him ye must listen;
Deu 18:16 According to all that thou
desired of Yahweh Eloheicha (your Elohimin) Chorev in the Yom HaKahal (day of
the congregation), saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh Elohav
(your Elohim), neither let me see this eish hagedolah (‘great fire’) any more,
that I die not.
Deu 18:17 And Yahweh said unto me, They
have well-spoken that which they have spoken.
Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Navi
(prophet) from among their achim (brethren), like unto thee, and will put My
words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him
[Yn 10:18].
Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass,
that whosoever will not listen unto My words which he shall speak Bishmi (in My
Name), I will require it of him.
Joh 8:28 Therefore, Rebbe, Melech
HaMoshiach said to them, When you perform the hagbah (lifting up) of
the Ben HaAdam, you will have da'as (knowledge) that Ani Hu [YESHAYAH
41:4; SHEMOT 3:14-16], and from myself I do nothing, but as HaAv (the Father)
of me taught me, these things I speak.
[1]
Dictionary of the Talmud. M. Jastrow p. 1178 פלח
No comments:
Post a Comment