DIVREI TORAH ON PARSHAS CHUKAS
In its attempt to improve people’s perspectives, the Medrash (19/26) in this week’s Parsha, offers a beautiful description to highlight a human weakness. Lomo Nitno Torah Bamidbor, why was the Torah given in the desert, instead of in Eretz Yisroel? The Medrash answers that the Torah was given in the desert so that no Shevet (tribe) should be able to say that, since it was given on their land, they have more “rights” to it than the other Shevotim.
Why would people think that if the Torah had been given on one Shevet’s land, that there was something special about that Shevat? The relationship of the Torah, and it’s people, isn’t dependent on where it was given, but on who undertakes its message in their personal lives.
The Medrash highlights how, by exaggerating the importance of a trivial aspect of something important, people believe that they can purge themselves of guilt and/or responsibility. By believing that they have more inherent rights to the Torah, they don’t have to “bother” to embrace its message.
I’ve spoken to several non-, or minimally, religious people, who take pride in their connection to orthodox Judaism, because their father, or grandfather, was a Rabbi. I’ve spoken to many poor people who feel connected to wealth, because their neighbor, or friend, is wealthy. Somehow, it makes them a part of the wealthy community.
In addition to removing their responsibility to embrace a Torah lifestyle, finding trivial connections will cause people to live in their personal reality, and let them believe that something which isn’t “true” is true. The Sefer Chochmo U’mussor, urges people to live in reality as a part of their responsibility to live a Torah lifestyle. Without it, people can “go anywhere” and “do anything”.
Why would people think that if the Torah had been given on one Shevet’s land, that there was something special about that Shevat? The relationship of the Torah, and it’s people, isn’t dependent on where it was given, but on who undertakes its message in their personal lives.
The Medrash highlights how, by exaggerating the importance of a trivial aspect of something important, people believe that they can purge themselves of guilt and/or responsibility. By believing that they have more inherent rights to the Torah, they don’t have to “bother” to embrace its message.
I’ve spoken to several non-, or minimally, religious people, who take pride in their connection to orthodox Judaism, because their father, or grandfather, was a Rabbi. I’ve spoken to many poor people who feel connected to wealth, because their neighbor, or friend, is wealthy. Somehow, it makes them a part of the wealthy community.
In addition to removing their responsibility to embrace a Torah lifestyle, finding trivial connections will cause people to live in their personal reality, and let them believe that something which isn’t “true” is true. The Sefer Chochmo U’mussor, urges people to live in reality as a part of their responsibility to live a Torah lifestyle. Without it, people can “go anywhere” and “do anything”.
The author can be contacted at shmuelgluck@areivim.com
Moshe and Aharon weren’t allowed to enter Eretz Yisroel, because Moshe hit a rock instead of speaking to it. Rashi explains that the incident by the Slov (fowl), when Moshe Rabbeinu seemed to challenge Hashem’s ability to send Klal Yisroel enough meat to satisfy them, was a more severe transgression. However, since that incident happened privately (between Moshe and Hashem), and not in front of Klal Yisreol, there was no punishment recorded for that incident. Rashi is teaching us that Hashem’s reaction to our actions isn’t solely based on the action itself. There may be other factors involved. Below are some of them:
1) The effect of a person’s actions on others. For example, if someone stole money from another person, Hashem takes into consideration whether the victim was poor or wealthy. He will consider whether the victim suffered as a result of the action, and the extent of suffering. Hashem considers the immediate and the long term effects.
Many people consider the effect of their actions only when it makes them look good. If they contributed minimally to a cause, but it helped significantly, they’ll tell everyone, “look what happened because of us”. If they did something insignificant, and it negatively affected someone, they’ll excuse themselves by saying, “All we did was …”. Hashem is consistent, and always considers both the action and its effect.
2) The intent of the person when the action was done. S/he may have stolen because s/he was desperate for money. Although this isn’t a good excuse, the intent isn’t as bad as if s/he had stolen because s/he wanted the person to suffer, or because of a total disregard for the person.
3) The “level” of the person that did something wrong. A “good” person who steals, will be “looked at” more critically than a common thief. Hashem punishes Tzadikim more sharply than he does others.
4) The ripple effect of the actions. Stealing from someone who, as a result, chooses to steal from others, makes the first thief responsible for the second, even if the first is unaware of the second’s actions.
Of course, the same is true for people’s positive actions. The intent, and the overall effect, are all considered when Hashem gives rewards for the Mitzvohs that people do.
Reward and punishment is more complex than most people imagine. An awareness of what Hashem takes into account before giving a reward or punishment should motivate people to think more about their actions before they act.
1) The effect of a person’s actions on others. For example, if someone stole money from another person, Hashem takes into consideration whether the victim was poor or wealthy. He will consider whether the victim suffered as a result of the action, and the extent of suffering. Hashem considers the immediate and the long term effects.
Many people consider the effect of their actions only when it makes them look good. If they contributed minimally to a cause, but it helped significantly, they’ll tell everyone, “look what happened because of us”. If they did something insignificant, and it negatively affected someone, they’ll excuse themselves by saying, “All we did was …”. Hashem is consistent, and always considers both the action and its effect.
2) The intent of the person when the action was done. S/he may have stolen because s/he was desperate for money. Although this isn’t a good excuse, the intent isn’t as bad as if s/he had stolen because s/he wanted the person to suffer, or because of a total disregard for the person.
3) The “level” of the person that did something wrong. A “good” person who steals, will be “looked at” more critically than a common thief. Hashem punishes Tzadikim more sharply than he does others.
4) The ripple effect of the actions. Stealing from someone who, as a result, chooses to steal from others, makes the first thief responsible for the second, even if the first is unaware of the second’s actions.
Of course, the same is true for people’s positive actions. The intent, and the overall effect, are all considered when Hashem gives rewards for the Mitzvohs that people do.
Reward and punishment is more complex than most people imagine. An awareness of what Hashem takes into account before giving a reward or punishment should motivate people to think more about their actions before they act.
The author can be contacted at shmuelgluck@areivim.com
If you enjoyed or benefited from these divrei torah please consider making a donation to Areivim
© AREIVIM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reprinting these articles for commercial use without the express consent of Areivim is strictly prohibited. To request permission please contact the Areivim office at 845 371 2760 or info@areivim.com.
