Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:52:14 GMT Reply-To: yhe-parsha@jer1.co.il Originator: yhe-parsha@jer1.co.il Sender: yhe-parsha@jer1.co.il Precedence: bulk From: Menachem Leibtag To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: SICHOT SUMMARIES / SHLACH X-Comment: Chumash shiur focusing on theme and structure by Menachem Leibtag YESHIVAT HAR-ETZION VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM) PROJECT ------------------------------------------------------- STUDENT SUMMARIES OF SICHOT DELIVERED BY THE ROSHEI YESHIVA To subscribe send e-mail to: listproc@jer1.co.il: subject:(leave blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text type: sub yhe-parsha Copyright (c) 1995 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved. _____________________________________________________________ SHABBAT PARASHAT SHELACH 5755 SICHOT OF RAV AHARON LICHTENSTEIN SHLIT"A LEIL SHABBAT: AS HEARD AND SUMMARIZED BY DAVID SILVERBERG "Cheit Ha'egel and Cheit Hameraglim" God accuses Benei Yisrael of "testing" Him ten times throughout their sojourn in the desert (Bemidbar 14:22). Although this verse makes no distinctions between any of these episodes, two out of these ten incidents were particularly severe. Only twice until this point did God want to annihilate His nation and create a new "am segula" - after cheit ha'egel (the sin of the Golden Calf), and after cheit hameraglim (the sin of the spies). In both instances, Moshe intervenes on the nation's behalf and succeeds in mitigating the punishment. Why did these transgressions provoke such fierce anger that God wished to eradicate Am Yisrael? If national destruction was the proposed response to these misdeeds, then apparently these sins violated the very purpose and destiny of Am Yisrael. When heralding the exodus from Egypt, God is very explicit as to His plan for the newly emancipated nation: "I will take you as My nation and I will be your God... And I will bring you unto the Land..." Benei Yisrael left Egypt with a binding commitment to become a nation worshipping God in Eretz Yisrael. They broke this twofold promise in two stages. With cheit ha'egel, they rejected the service of God in favor of the worship of a golden calf. Later, when the spies returned from their excursion into Eretz Yisrael, Benei Yisrael refused to live up to the second component of their covenant, to dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Psalm 106 underscores this interpretation of the two sins. Regarding cheit ha'egal, the Psalmist laments, "They forgot God who saved them, who performed great deeds in Egypt"(v.21),while regarding cheit hameraglim, he asserts "They rejected the desirable land"(v.24). Thus, through these two sins, Benei Yisrael negated the central purposes of their redemption from Egypt. Other factors common to these two events may have contributed to their severity. Both occurred at moments of particular significance in the shaping of Jewish history, moments which presented Am Yisrael the opportunity to reach its highest potential. The Jews fashioned the golden calf just forty days after God's revelation at Mount Sinai and the receiving of the Torah. Similarly, the wailing of cheit hameraglim occurred on the day the Jews were supposed to have embarked on their final journey into Israel. Furthermore, these two sins involved the failure of Jewish leadership. The calf was constructed by Aharon Hakohen himself. Although the Sages argue as to Aharon's reasoning, his involvement in cheit ha'egel suggests a lack of effective leadership. Similarly, the major instigators of cheit hameraglim were the nesi'im, the twelve tribal leaders. They were expected to lead and encourage Benei Yisrael to triumph over the Canaanite nations. Instead, they incited their followers to revolt against God and Moshe, resulting in another thirty-eight years of wandering in the desert. While the other eight "nisyonot" ("tests" of God) were unfortunate incidents of religious blunder, cheit ha'egel and cheit hameraglim had a lingering impact on Benei Yisrael. These events brought about a permanent change in the character of the Jewish nation, since they had rejected the two central components of their destiny. From then on, every punishment of Benei Yisrael would also contain part of the retribution for cheit ha'egel (see Shemot 32:34 and commentaries ad. loc.). Additionally, Moshe feared a repetition of cheit hameraglim in his dialogue with the two-and-a-half tribes (Bemidbar 32:8-15). From that fateful time and on, Am Yisrael faces the challenge of "chadesh yameinu kekedem," of renewing our dedication to the covenant of Yetzi'at Mitzrayim. ============================================================== SEUDAH SHELISHIT: AS HEARD AND SUMMARIZED BY ZEV JACOBSON "Et Devar Hashem Bazah" An individual who inadvertently transgresses the injunction against idolatry must bring a sacrifice to achieve atonement. "However, if a person commits [such an act of idolatry] high-handedly...he is blaspheming God and that person shall be cut off [spiritually] from among his people. Since he has treated God's word with contempt and violated His commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off [and] his sin shall remain upon him" (Bemidbar 15:29-30) The intentional sinner is "cut off" not only because of the severity of his action, but also because he sinned "beyad ramah," high-handedly. It is the spirit of open rebellion against God that leads to excision - karet - and not the physical motions of idol-worship alone. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 99a) lists a series of people who have "treated God's word with contempt" and are therefore punishable by karet, both in this world and in the World to Come. We can divide this list into sins relating to mitzvot and those relating to Torah. But it is difficult to understand why some of these are included. For example, one of the mitzva transgressions which engenders karet is "despising the festivals," which is interpreted as performing melakha on Chol Hamoed. Why is one punished so severely for transgressing a Rabbinic enactment? Once again, the distinction between act and motivation must be drawn. One who performs melakha on Chol Hamoed either fails to understand the significance of these days or else is aware of their holiness and flagrantly attempts to desecrate it. Both attitudes constitute a serious lapse in religious outlook. But the latter far surpasses the former in terms of "treating God's word with contempt." Moving to the list of transgressions relating to Torah, the Gemara continues: "Rabbi Meir says: 'He who learns Torah but does not teach it is called one who despises God's word'... Rabbi Natan says: 'This term refers also to one who has the opportunity to immerse himself in study but fails to do so.'" One cannot help being shocked and frightened by the words of these two sages. Neglect of Torah study and failure to teach are crimes that ultimately result in spiritual excision. Lack of commitment in these areas is tantamount to having contempt for God's word, placing one in the company of those who deny the validity and origin of the Torah (mentioned previously in the Gemara). One can, of course, find an escape route in the words of Rabbi Natan. One is guilty only if he has the opportunity to learn but fails to do so. Many people, however, feel they are forced by circumstances to choose a career other than chinukh; many also feel forced to live a lifestyle that does not afford the luxury of Torah study, not even for a few hours every week, and are, therefore, are blameless for not learning. Yet, while it is true that many factors which shape one's life are not within one's control, there is still a great deal that is dictated by one's own decisions. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Britain, tells of his first meeting with the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l. He had prepared a list of questions to ask the Rebbe, and introduced himself as a student of philosophy at the Cambridge University. But before he could begin asking his questions, the Rebbe asked him: "Tell me, what do you do for Yiddishkeit in Cambridge?" Taken aback, he answered: "Well, in the situation in which I find myself..." The Rebbe interrupted: "One does not find oneself in a situation; one puts oneself in a situation." One who has chosen a specific career or way of life that does not allow time or peace of mind to study cannot honestly claim to be a victim of circumstances. If one has opted for a standard of living that demands unceasing effort to maintain it, is the claim that "circumstances do not allow" acceptable? One for whom Torah study is not a top priority must ask: "Why?" Is it perhaps because the value and importance of study are not recognized, shoved aside in favor of other pursuits? Does the lack of commitment to study and teaching indicate a fundamental problem in one's religious outlook? Granted, there are mitigating factors, but everyone must confront this issue with honesty and integrity. And, of course, one should not adopt an "all-or-nothing" attitude. The same type of self-examination must be undertaken by one who learns, but does so half-heartedly. Limud Torah involves more than merely collecting information. It is a process that must permeate the fiber of one's being; one who is not immersed in his study of Torah would do well to consider the cause and thereby effect changes in attitude and behavior. The level of commitment one shows to actual study betrays one's loyalties. One who does not possess the courage to engage in self-examination and self-improvement, slow as the process may be, is in spiritual danger.