Print This Post Print This Post

Yechezkal 31-36

Written by Anonymous

Yechezkal, Perakim 31-36

1) Perek Summaries

Perek 31: Prophecy referring to the Pharaoh of Egypt telling him not to be so haughty about his country’s might; take a lesson from Assyria’s haughtiness which led to their downfall.

Perek 32: Another one of those laments; this time for Pharaoh and Egypt – though Egypt’s allies get a mention too (namely Assyria, Elam, Meshech Tubal, Edom, and the princes of the North and Zidon).

Perek 33: HaShem conveys the job of a sentinel in war to Yechezkal, namely to warn the people of the impending advance of the enemy. Yechezkal is the people’s spiritual sentinel, and is to warn the people of their spiritual pitfalls. If he does not do this job properly, he is to be responsible for the sins. The rules of spiritual accounting are restated (we have had them in an earlier perek; perek 18) regarding the repentance of a wicked person and the rebelliousness of a (formerly) righteous person. HaShem cirticises the Bnei Yisrael for sitting back and relying on HaShem’s promise that HaShem would allow them to live in the Land.

Perek 34: The leaders of the people are criticised. HaShem says that He will have to replace these unfaithful leaders and instead He will be the leader of the people and conduct judgment. The perek ends with ‘good news;’ a future covenant of peace and prosperity.

Perek 35: Another prophecy against Edom; impending destruction and desolation because of its cruelty and vengefulness.

Perek 36: The future’s bright – there is future fertileness for the Land of Israel and its inhabitants will return. HaShem will replace our heart of stone with one of flesh; receptive to spirituality and the word of HaShem.

2) Dvar Torah

This week I would like to focus on two separate issues (I have time this week so why not?!). Here goes…

1) In perek 33, HaShem lambastes the people for relying on the promise made to Avraham that his descendants will inherit the Land of Israel in assuming that they would stay in the land. Why are they criticised; what’s wrong with such a reliance; after all, HaShem did promise this to Avraham Avinu? The simplest answer is that the people were relying on the promise and neglecting their spiritual duties. Thus, there is no problem relying on the promise per so, but it is the using of the promise as an excuse to neglect one’s religious duties that was the problem. Alternatively, the people thought that the promise was that Avraham’s descendants would never be exiled from the Land; that’s incorrect – the promise was that they would inherit the land (as its owners); something which does not obviate temporary exile. However, perhaps we can offer a different answer; an answer which will get marks for style/creativity, even though it might not be necessary, as they say. But the answer is a decent dvar torah in and of itself and has some useful bits of information anyway. The Beis Halevi asks a central question on a passage in our Pesach haggadas. We say that ‘if we had been left a minute longer in Egypt, we would not have been redeemed.’ However you explain this, there is a problem: HaShem promised Avraham Avinu that his descendants would go into slavery and be redeemed; so we had to have been redeemed either way. What difference does it make if we were in Egypt a minute longer; we would have still been redeemed because of the promise to Avraham? The Beis Halevi answers in fantastic fashion that HaShem promised Avraham that his descendants would be slaves and be redeemed – but if we would have stayed in Egypt any longer then we would have reached a level of spiritual depravity and baseness that we would have no longer been considered/recognisable as ‘descendants of Avraham’ – and so the promise would not have referred to us. Perhaps one can suggest that this too, is behind HaShem’s criticism of the people in perek 33 (Yechezkal) for relying on the promise to Avraham; the people did not realise that if they continued in their spiritual freefall then the promise would have no effect, for they would no longer be considered children of Avraham.

2) We have had quite a lot of perakim which punish other nations for their haughtiness; perek 31 and 35, to name but a few. This haughtiness (gaavah) seems to be the cause of their punishments. Indeed, Chazal tell us that gaavah is the central bad character trait, and its opposite (anavah) is the central good trait. What is so bad about gaavah? The Orchos Tzaddikim cites that HaShem says, referring to someone who has gaavah ‘Me and him cannot live in the same world.’ Why is this so; HaShem is infinite, so why would someone’s bad middos prevent HaShem from being in the world, so to speak. One can solve our mystery based on something Rav Moshe Shapira points out.
We have a middah (quality) of malchus; HaShem gave us the ability/power to decide to, as it were, crown Him as King (melech) or not. But as the Vilna Ga’on said, a melech must be accepted voluntarily and so this power must be something that we could reject. This is our freewill in this world. In the Rambam’s classic words (hilchos Teshuva 5:1) ‘permission/ ability was given to all of man, if he wants to turn himself to the good path and be righteous, the ability is in his hands. And if he wants to turn himself to the bad path and be wicked, the ability is in his hands.’ We have freewill to do mitzvos and reflect HaShem, thus crowing Him as King and giving back our middah of malchus to its Creator, whereby we become partners in this Kingship, so to speak. Alternatively, we can use our freewill and our middah of malchus to crown ourselves and our agendas, ignoring HaShem’s Malchus.
In other words, when we house gaavah, we are crowning ourselves as opposed to using ourselves to crown HaShem in this world. Thus, someone who has gaavah makes it as if him and HaShem cannot be in the same world; for they get in the way of expressing HaShem’s Presence in this world by focussing on themselves as opposed to HaShem. It’s important to be proud of one’s abilities and achievements – but one must know from Whom they came and that they should be channelled to positive spiritual use.

Leave a Comment