Print This Post Print This Post

Being the Best that you can reach

Written by d fine

Parshas Chukas; Be the Best : Though much occurs in our sedra, we shall focus on one issue, that of Moshe’s sin – which prevented him and Aharon entering Israel.

Briefly, Miriam dies and there is a water shortage and public outcry. HaShem tells Moshe to speak to a rock to cause water to gush out of it. But Moshe hits the rock and is punished.

As one can imagine, there are various opinions as to exactly what the sin was; both regarding what Moshe was punished for and what his mistake/motivation was. I am only quoting one (see the Ramban and Ibn Ezra for greater detail). Rashi (20;12) says that what caused the punishment was a loss of a kal vachomer (an ‘a fortiori’) that would have been present had Moshe spoken to the rock. The Jews would have reasoned ‘if already a rock, which does not speak nor hear nor need sustenance, carries out the Word of HaShem (in providing water), how much more so should we who can speak, hear and need HaShem’s sustenance – carry out His Words.’ Three questions can be asked on this kal vachomer

. Firstly, why should the fact that we speak, hear, and need HaShem’s sustenance make us have a greater need to carry out HaShem’s words? T

he kal vachomer rests on the assumption that these faculties will make us more likely to carry out HaShem’s will – but why is the opposite not true; a rock will never disobey HaShem since it never has the physical ability to do so? The next question is why was the kal vachomer lost once

Moshe hit the rock – still, a rock which does not hear, speak, nor need HaShem’s sustenance did carry out HaShem’s words in giving water?

Lastly, Moshe was not let into the Land of Israel, the spiritual and physical destination of the 40 years in the desert, for causing the lack of a kal vachomer? Why is that a major issue; tell the people afterwards ‘everyone should serve HaShem’ – what exactly was lost ?

Let’s suggest an answer (based on something in the name of R’ Orlofski)
The idea is that the kal vachomer was not lost – it was just downgraded. Bnei Yisrael could still say the same logic to themselves as if Moshe had spoken to the rock, but with one small change.

They would now have to add in a part; ‘if already a rock, which does not speak nor hear nor need sustenance, carries out the Word of HaShem (in providing water) with a bit of force applied how much more so should we – who can speak and hear and need HaShem’s sustenance – carry out His Words with a bit of force applied.’

Though the kal vachomer technically remains, it has essentially changed from being one promoting the service of HaShem via ahava – love – to one of forced yir’ah; fear. And serving HaShem out of love is higher. And Moshe could not just have corrected the problem by telling the Jews to ‘serve HaShem,’ since inner motivation to accomplish something is much more effective than that coming from someone else (gemarra Brachos), and the Bnei Yisrael’s ability to make the top-level ahava kal vachomer themselves was lost.

The lesson here is extremely powerful; Moshe essentially got punished not for doing something bad, but for not achieving the best kal vachomer that he could have done. Since our potential is so great, not achieving that greatness is deemed punishable, to an extent. This also explains the inclusion of the fact that we can hear, speak, and need sustenance from HaShem – since all these facets are used in the service of HaShem, and thus mean we have a greater potential and ability span to serve HaShem than something that does not speak, hear, or need sustenance from HaShem. This concept of becoming and achieving the best that one can, seems to be present in another concept in the Torah; that of a Nazir (who abstains from wine, amongst other things). A Nazir on the one hand is described as holy (Bamidbar 6;8), yet brings a sin offering.

What sin did he do? Since he abstained from physical things (wine) and did not use them to elevate the physical and serve HaShem. In fact, there is a dispute in the gemarra (Taanis 11a) based upon whether the correct definition of a nazir is a ‘sinner’ or ‘holy.’

But which one is it – is (s)he holy or has (s)he got the wrong idea of what the purpose of the physical world is? The answer is that both sides are perfectly correct. Yes, a nazir is holy because (s)he separates himself from physicality, but (s)he’s also (to an extent) a ’sinner’ because (s)he did not do the best thing; (s)he did not elevate the wine to the service of HaShem.

Again we see that despite accomplishing a high level, it’s the best level possible that we look for from a person; to the extent that he brings a sin offering for not achieving that greatness.
[Another expression of this idea is seen in the world of halacha. The gemarra sometimes ends a question as unresolved; ‘teiku’ – meaning that when Moshiach comes he’ll tell us the answer. The question is how do we fix halacha on this point in the meantime? The ‘rules of the Rif’ (22) by the korban nesanel says that there is a disagreement here between the Rambam and the Rif.

The Rambam holds that if it’s a rabbinic issue we act according to the lenient option, whilst a Torah issue will result in a stringent ruling.

The Rif, however, disagrees and holds that even rabbinic matters are given the stringent ruling. What’s behind this fundamental machlokes? The toafos re’em brings the Radbaz and Maharashdam who say that the Rambam and the Rif disagree on the nature of a ‘teiku,’ an unresolved question in the gemarra.

The Rambam holds that a teiku is when the gemarra has the full information available to it as to the halacha, and thus made an informed decision to say teiku – so it is a safek (doubt) and the normal rules of doubt apply.

The Rif, however, holds that a teiku means that the gemarra has not got enough information to resolve the question. Thus, since the teiku is caused by a lack of information, we cannot possibly be lenient in any case (it is essentially an uninformed decision, whilst Rambam holds it’s an informed decision and so we can be lenient in a Rabbinic issue). Why, though, according to the Rif, do we not have all the information available? The very fact that Moshiach can answer the problem shows us we are lacking information, says the toafas re’em. The question is, however, why should this mean that we have a lack of knowledge?

How can we be expected to reach the Moshiach’s prophetic level of knowledge to the extent that the gemarra’s level is deemed a lack of knowledge? The answer is that since man’s potential is so great, that level is not completely detached from us; it is part of our potential and thus it is deemed a lack of knowledge]
Thus, the Rambam (hil de’os 6;7) tells us that when one is sinning they are ‘sinning to themselves,’ (‘choteh al atzmo‘) since the loss in fulfilling that potential occurring at that moment is a sin to oneself – to who one really is deep inside and thus who one is meant to be. In a similar vein, Rav Desler explains Hillel’s statement of ‘im ani kan hakol kan’ – ‘if I’m here everyone is here’ that this is not an expression of haughtiness (we know Hillel was very modest), but rather an expression of truth: ‘Ani,’ he says, means ‘the real me’ – the real potential that one is and who they can be. If the real, actualised ‘ani’ is here, then that’s all that is necessary – such can be the potential of an individual.
The last point illustrates the importance of recognising one’s potential. When Pharoah’s daughter rescued baby Moshe from his floating cradle in the Nile river, a miracle occurred; her arm reached longer than it naturally would. Rav Hutner asks why she stretched her hand out in the first place if it was too far to reach? For such is the potential of a person that when HaShem helps, everything is possible. [And gemarra megillah says that the daughter of Pharoah ended up marrying Calev; ‘the one who rebelled against idolatry marries the one who rebelled against the spies’ bad reports.’]
Have a great potential-filling Shabbes,

Leave a Comment