SEEDS OF DISCONTENT – II

Parashas Shelach

Shelach lecha anashim veyasuru es eretz k’naan asher ani nosen l’vnei yisrael, ish echad, ish echad l’mateh avosav tishlachu, kol nasi bahem … send out men for yourself and they will explore the land of k’naan that I am giving to the children of Israel, one man for each tribe, each of them a person of high rank (Bamidbar 13:1)

The tragedy of the spies is well known; their malicious report resulted in an entire generation being denied entry into the Land of Israel. Many of the commentaries go to great length in examining the precise sin for which the spies were guilty. The Torah only tells us that they were motzi dibas ha-aretz – they spoke badly about the land. The Torah does not specify what that evil speech embodied. Some suggest that they were guilty of exaggeration; they described the country as eretz ochelet yoshveha – a nation that devours its residents. Others maintain that they needlessly frightened the people – telling them that the inhabitants of the land are anshei midos – people of giant proportions.

Both of these approaches seem to be somewhat deficient and it would be hard to categorize either description of the land as being malicious lashon hara, for their report was essentially true. The land did devour its inhabitants. The seven nations dwelling there were being uprooted by the Jews who were to replace them as masters of this land. Why? Because their decadence made them unworthy of inhabiting the land. Hashem had destroyed Sodom and Amorah for having lived liscentiously in the platrin shel melech – the palace of the king – and the Emorites and their fellow tribes had continued this kind of immoral behavior and were also being punished with banishment.

Moreover, it was true that the land was inhabited by anshei midos. The spies did not lie when they reported seeing the giants of Chevron. When they returned to the encampment, they brought with them a cluster of grapes so large that it took two people to carry it – another sign of the grotesque proportions that were common in the land.

The punishment also seems to be somewhat out of character. The spies, in convincing the people that it would be dangerous to try and capture the land, were guilty of leading an insurrection against G-d. Hashem had promised that the nation would go up to the land and they claimed that it would be impossible, efes ki az ha’am – the nation [dwelling there] is too strong and cunning! The ten spies are struck down for their blasphemy. They are devoured by a Divine plague, but not because they challenged G-d’s ability or His intention to keep His promise? Vayamusu ha-anashim motzei dibas ha-aretz ra’ah b’magefah … and the men who had given an evil report about the land died in a plague (ibid. :37) – the plague was a result of their having spoken lashon hara about the land. Not the sin of convincing the nation to deny its manifest destiny, nor the sin of fomenting a revolution against G-d.

And the people, who are guilty of joining with the spies and demanding to go back to Egypt and free themselves of their Divine mission accepted at Sinai, how are they punished? A plague, a fire from Heaven? No! They die a natural death over the next forty years and are not permitted to enter the land. True it is a punishment – tantamount to forbidding a child who has misbehaved from participating in some event. It appears to be no more than a slap on the wrist for a people who declared that they had no desire to go up to the land.

Perhaps we might offer another suggestion. The message of the spies report was not that it was beyond God’s ability to conquer the mighty nations of Canaan. They were the leaders of the generation, do you really think that they denied that God could do it if He so willed? Remember, we are dealing here with the dor de’ah – the generation that had witnessed the revelation at Sinai. But they also knew that the Divine will was inextricably linked to the spiritual level of the people which was anything but attractive at this juncture.

The spies honestly believed that the people were not on a level that would bring the requisite Divine intervention. They needed to go back to Egypt, to begin the entire Exodus process again, for they were still influenced by their years of slavery and had not yet become truly free of Egypt. And what was wrong with the spies’ analysis? They underestimated the ability of the Land of Israel to change the nature of the people. They did not realize what an effect entering the land would have, how it could transform a group of chronic complainers into a nation untied in seeking kirvat Elokim. Woe to the leaders who underestimate the ability of their people.

SEEDS OF DISCONTENT - I
Parashas Beha’aloscha

Vayehi ha’am k’misonenim, ra b’aznei Hashem ... v’ha’asafsuf asher b’kirbo hisavu ta’avah ... vayomru mi ya’achilenu basar ... v’ata nafshenu yevaisha ein kol bilti el haman einenu ... And the people complained which was evil in the ears of Hashem ... and the rabble that was in their midst had a great desire and they said, who will feed us meat ... for now our bodies are dried up, there is nothing to look forward to but manna (Bamidbar 11:1-6)

The Torah does not specify what the complaint was of those who it categorizes as being k’misonenim, unlike the asafsuf - rabble - mentioned in pasuk 6, who complained that their diet in the desert was boring and consisted only of manna. There is a disagreement among the Sages as to who these people were; one school maintains that they were the erev rav, the stragglers who joined bnei yisrael at the time of the Exodus. The other school maintains that they were ketzinim - officers or people of noble birth. In either case, the simple peshat would seem to indicate that they did no more than raise a general complaint but found nothing specifically wrong. Nevertheless, they are severely punished by a Divine flame that burns them to death. Why is their punishment so severe and why are their complaints categorized as being ra b’aznei Hashem - evil in the ear of G-d? Is the sin of the asafsuf who denigrated the miracle of the manna not far more serious? Yet, these ingrates have their desires fulfilled - or in reality, overfilled - while those who simply kvetched in general are burned to death!

Moshe’s reaction to the complaints about the lack of meat also seems to be out of proportion. When he returned from Sinai and found the nation dancing around the golden calf, he was angry. However, he did not try to abdicate from his role as leader of the people, asking G-d how he could be expected to satisfy the needs of the people. On the contrary, he demonstrated his leadership by eradicating those guilty of sin while at the same time pleading with G-d not to destroy the nation as a whole. But in the case of the asafsuf, on the other hand, we find no defense pleas or remonstrations that Hashem not strike down the nation. On the contrary, Moshe himself complains to G-d, asking why he has been given this unmanageable task of leadership.

It would seem that the sin of the misonenim is similar to the sin of the golden calf and is therefore considered - unlike other sins - to be evil in G-d’s ear and especially grievous. Man’s transgressions are most often driven by an inability to conquer a desire. They do not necessarily connote a rebellion against G-d, but a weakness that man cannot overcome. As serious as such sin might be, it is something that can be fixed and therefore does not necessarily raise G-d’s ire.

But then there are sins that are a result of man’s complacency and his desire to live life without G-d. He lacks nothing, has no desires but nevertheless complains. In truth, he understands that G-d has provided for his needs and that is what he resents most, for he realizes that he is now obligated. He kvetches because he is uncomfortable with his dependency, wishing as it were that G-d would simply leave him alone. This is the worst kind of rebellion against G-d - not because of the complaining, but because man seeks to separate himself from the Divine.

Note that the pasuk uses an expression that we rarely find. The kvetching of the misonenim is described as ra b’aznei Hashem - G-d's ears - rather than the familiar einei Hashem - G-d’s eyes. The difference between the eyes and the ears is that the former interprets what actually exists - you cannot see something that is invisible. Thus, when dealing with the tangible world, the Torah refers to einei Hashem as, for example, when describing the Divine providence present in Eretz Yisrael. However, aznei Hashem refers to what can be heard or learned from what has been said. The people thought that they were complaining, but G-d heard much more. He understood that their kvetching was an insidious form of rebellion.

Moshe, on the other hand, had a human perspective and did not hear that which was between the lines of the complaining people. On the contrary, in his opinion, those who desired meat and were nostalgic about how good it was back in Egypt, were almost beyond the pale and he did not know how he could possibly relate to them. Thus, he complained to Hashem, speculating how he could be expected to cope with a group of people who had absolutely no appreciation for the miracles that G-d had done for them.

THE NAZIR - SINNER OR SAINT?
Parashas Naso

Ish o ishah ki yafli l’ndor neder nazir ... if a man or woman shall take upon themselves a vow of nezirus (Bamidbar 6:2)

Rashi, quoting the Midrash, comments that the parashah of the nazir is juxtaposed to the parashah of sotah - the woman suspected of adultery - to teach us that one who sees a sotah in her state of disgrace [i.e., after she drinks the waters which prove her guilt] should swear off wine [i.e., accept the vow of nezirus], for it is wine that brought her to commit adultery.

The comment is somewhat difficult to understand, for the status of the nazir is enigmatic to say the least. On the one hand he [or she] is referred to as a kadosh - a holy or sanctified person - by virtue of his having undertaken a vow of isolation from the community. He is not to shave to demonstrate that he has no regard for social conventions. He is forbidden to come into contact with tumah to show that he is seeking a more spiritual kind of existence and desires kirvas Elokim - closeness to G-d - which is unattainable when one deals with ritual impurity [tumah]. He foreswears the fruit of the vine, for wine can be a substitute for spirituality [see commentary of Netziv to Shir ha-Shirim].

On the other hand, the nazir, at the end of his period of nezirus, must bring a korban chatos - a sin offering - for the Torah is critical of his having given up on society and on the pleasures that G-d has granted man in this world. Celibacy and living like a monk are not Jewish values, for G-d has commanded us to elevate the material into the spiritual. We recite a berachah before eating to show that we recognize that everything has G-dliness in it. We recite asher yatzar when we relieve ourselves to indicate that even the most mundane acts can have spiritual meaning.

My rebbi once explained that one can be both a kadosh - a holy person - and a choteh - a sinner - at the same time. The nazir, he explained, recognizes his weakness. He knows that unlike others, he does not have the fortitude or strength to resist sin. He therefore separates himself, sacrificing some of the good that G-d intended him. True this is a sin, but it comes from an honest, albeit mistaken personal assessment and is therefore atoneable. Every person can avoid sin, no matter how weak he thinks he is. Note that the nazir brings a chatos - a sacrifice that is offered for sins committed b’shogeg - inadvertently. Had accepting nezirus been a true sin, there would be no atonement, for sins committed b’meizid - with full intent - have no korban.

The Midrash comments that one who sees the sotah in her state of disgrace should foreswear wine. Note that the Midrash refers to her state of disgrace. If anything, the miraculous process of the sotah should be a source of strengthening a person. We have a situation where a man suspects his wife of adultery but has no means of proving whether or not she is guilty. The trust between them is tenuous at best and he therefore brings her to the kohen who is the only person who can determine the truth. Based on the results of her drinking the potion that the kohen provides, we will find out what really happened. If she is innocent then she will be blessed with children. But if she is guilty, her body will explode and all will know of her infidelity.

People are standing by, waiting to see what will transpire. The entire ceremony is degrading, especially if she is innocent of the charge. This is the point of sotah b’kilkulah - the sotah at her time of disgrace; not later when her stomach and loins have collapsed, but now when she stands before the kohen. Only she knows whether or not she has committed adultery. She can stop the entire process simply by admitting the truth. She will not have to drink the potion, she will not be subject to the death penalty because there are no witnesses. Her husband will divorce her, but she will remain alive.

But she says nothing, somehow believing that nothing will happen to her. One bystander, more sensitive than most, is cognizant of his own weakness. He understands how hard it is not to sin, he knows how weak he is. The others present see only the miracle. He sees how sin - or even the suspicion of sin - degrades man and he therefore decides that he can only save himself by accepting nezirus. Wine can bring man close to G-d by releasing the inhibitions that often prevent him from expressing his spirituality. But that same wine can also serve as a cover for the truth and it takes a kadosh - a person who is inherently holy - to realize what it does to him.