Divrei Beha’aloscha
Uncomfortable History
This week’s parsha contains a distinct turning point. Seven full weeks of growth from Pesach to Shavuos have passed by. Last week, the Torah dedicated most of Parshas Nasso to the dedication of the Mizbayach, the key vehicle for a Jew to come closer to Hashem by bringing korbanos. This week’s parsha begins in much the same way, assigning the Menorah to the Cohanim, consecrating the Leviim, instituting the Pesach Sheni, and implementing the order of travel through the Wilderness. Then, suddenly, the Torah turns to some very uncomfortable history. It then proceeds to list, in often-excruciating detail, one sin after another that our ancestors committed while traveling through the desert.
Since the deeds that the Torah records have eternal meaning, simply taking these shameful deeds at face value proves insufficient. However, any deeper look must confront a difficult issue: in every case, the punishments do not seem to fit the crimes!
For example, the very first instance, that of the mis’onenim, the complainers. What was their complaint? Rashi says that that they gave voice to their weariness after walking for three consecutive days in the desert without rest. Is that such a terrible thing? They did not do anything wrong; they merely expressed their thoughts. Hashem, however, thought differently, for “it was evil in the ears of Hashem, and His wrath flared, and a fire of Hashem against them, and it consumed at the edge of the camp. (11:1)
Immediately afterwards, the same thing happens: The erev rav, the Egyptians who had joined Israel, influenced the native-born Jews to crave the earthly food they had not tasted in a solid year. Again, this seemingly innocuous complaint – with no physical sin done -- elicits a strong Divine reaction: “The wrath of Hashem flared greatly.” (11:10) He then sends such a blizzard of quail into the camp that they pile into drifts several feet high. More Jews die from being hit by flying quail than perish in the coming punishment. (Eichah Rabbah ----) As the Jews are picnicking on their bounty from shamayim, Hashem wallops them with such a “very mighty blow” that those who had been craving meat are killed, and the very place where it happened is named “Kivros HaTa’avah -- Burial of the Craving” on account of the many graves the Jews had to dig and fill – just because some people wanted a variety in their menu.
The pattern continues in next week’s parsha. Ten spies – all of them respected leaders – reported that Eretz Yisroel could not be conquered. Two said it could. The people believed the ten over the two. For that they deserved to die in the desert?
Two weeks from now, we will be reliving the episode of Korach. Again, the question arises: We can understand that Korach and his immediate coterie, such as Dasan and Aviram, deserved to die, but why did the 250 men deserve to be burned for exercising a sincere desire to become closer to Hashem? Moreover, when the nation complained to Moshe and Aharon, “You killed the people of Hashem!” a plague in turn killed another 14,700 of them. Why? What sin could possibly have been so grave?
In Parshas Chukas, some people complain again about the difficulties of the desert and the seeming insubstantial mann. What is Hashem’s “slap on the wrist?” Fiery serpents come and kill a large part of the nation.
Finally, at the end of Parshas Balak, some of the tribe of Shimon sinned with the daughters of Moav. The Torah indicates that the more significant sin was that of immorality, as opposed to the idolatry to Ba’al Peor. (Further, Pinchas’ zealousness was against Zimri’s relationship with Cozbi.) If so, according to halacha, consorting with a gentile woman is not a Torah prohibition; in bais din, one only gets Rabbinic lashes. While no one says that their sin was minor, did they deserve to have 24,000 people die in yet another plague?
Clearly, when “mountains of halachos hang by a thread,” i.e. when words, even letters, yield pages and pages of Torah, when so much space is devoted to a repeated pattern, the Torah is telling us a strong message. What is it?
Says the Slonimer Rav, the Taryag mitzvos all contain a common goal: “u’Vo tidbak,” to bring a Jew into a closer relationship with Hashem. The 248 positive mitzvos are means of taking positive steps to Hashem, and the 365 negative mitzvos are pitfalls to avoid falling away from Hashem. Since the mitzvos are means of attaining closeness with Hashem, it stands to reason that the primary purpose of the Torah is that very closeness. Therefore, anything that will directly interrupt or interfere with that closeness must be even worse than committing a sin itself, for though that sin may cause a Jew to fall further from Hashem, it does not do so in a direct way. On the other hand, anything that directly attacks the foundations of a Jew’s Yiddishkeit must be reckoned as far more dangerous. For example, should a Jew succumb to a temptation to eat a cheeseburger, he has no doubt caused damage to his neshamah. If, however, he learns to disregard the wisdom of the sages of his generation and thus ”do his own thing,” his Jewish identity itself is directly under threat.
Now the severe punishments meted out to the Jewish people in the desert become very understandable. The first sin, that of the mis’onenim, was a direct attack upon the emunah of the Jewish people. The complainers were disregarding the concept of “All that Hashem does, He does for the best.” Without that comforting way of Hashem as a constant companion, the loyalty of the Jewish nation – a key component of their relationship with Hashem --- would have been seriously compromised. True, this potential loss could not be punished in a bais din of this world, but it would be a serious accusation if leveled in the Bais Din Above.
Further, the episode of the cravings was actually an assault upon the kedushah of Am Yisroel, for as the Ramban tells us in Parhas Kedoshim, one can be a naval b’reshus ha’Torah, someone who technically follows the laws of the Torah, notably kashrus, while indulging himself and thereby acting in a non-holy way. The mann may have tasted according to the water’s desires, but as the complainers pointed out, it was “insubstantial;” it did not arouse any cravings. One ate it, then went back to his learning. They had no need to taste these other foods; the mann provided that. They desired to have cravings; that the mann did not provide. These other foods would bring out cravings for still more foods, then for non-food physical pleasures (which is why the nation “cried for its families,” a euphemistic way to describe their cravings for forbidden relationships), and the Jewish people would have been in danger of losing its status as “a kingship of priests and a holy nation,” as they were adjured by Hashem before Matan Torah, and “You shall be holy people to Me.” This loss would have struck directly at the foundations of the Jewish nation – a far worse scenario than a simple sin.
The Sin of the Spies also follows this pattern. Not only was he people’s rejection of Eretz Yisroel in effect a rejection of the kedushah of the Land, it showed an ingratitude which, if left unchecked could have undermined the Jewish people’s thankful relationship with Hashem.
Korach also threatened more than he realized. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) states, “Whoever separates from his rav, it is as if he separates from Hashem.” A key facet of u’vo tidbak comes from clinging to a sage. Korach might have relegated the rabbanim to the status of college professors, those who can lecture and publish-or-perish all they want, but if one wishes to argue with them – why not?
The incident of the Bnos Moav also contained a unique danger. The Zohar tells us that while this forbidden relationship may not be so readily punishable in bais din, “no one is more hated before Hashem than he who consorts with a gentile woman. Chazal tell us that Avraham Avinu goes into Gehinnom to pull out worthy neshamos and bring them to Gan Eden. However, he cannot save those who indulged in this sin, for he cannot recognize them. Clearly, the spiritual effect of this sin required special action to save the nation.