Parshas Chukas/Balak



This is in the merit of my grandmother Esther bat Mazal. May she have a speedy and complete recovery.



A note: Comments within double brackets, [[abc]], are notes I write for myself. Readers should be encouraged to skip them.





Question:

God spoke to Moses, saying, 'Take the staff, and you and Aaron assemble the community. Speak to the cliff in their presence, and it will give forth its water. You will thus bring forth water from the cliff, and allow the community and their livestock to drink.' Moses took the staff from before God as he had been instructed. Moses and Aaron then assembled the congregation before the cliff. 'Listen now, you rebels!' shouted Moses. 'Shall we produce water for you from this cliff?' With that, Moses raised his hand, and struck the cliff twice with his staff. A huge amount of water gushed out, and the community and their animals were able to drink.

God said to Moses and Aaron, 'You did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you.' These are the Waters of Dispute (Mey Meribhah) where the Israelites disputed with God, and where He was [nevertheless] sanctified. (Numbers 20:7-13)



What did Aaron do wrong?







Free Will and Judging Others



Recounting Israel's journeys and conquests, the Torah states:



"[The Israelites] then went on and headed north toward the Bashan. At Edrei, Og king of the Bashan came out with all his people to engage [the Israelites] in battle. God said to Moses, 'Do not fear him. I have given him, along with all his people and territory, into your hand. I will do the same to him as I did to Sichon, king of the Amorites who lived in Cheshbon.'" (21:33-34)



Why should Moses be scared? If G-d wanted the Jews to win, the Jews would win. This must have been some unusual fear.



Rashi, basing himself on our Sages, fills the details in for us:



34. Do not fear him. Moses was afraid to fight [against Og] lest the merit of Abraham advocate for him, as it says, "The refugee came" [and informed Abraham that his nephew Lot had been captured] (Gen. 14:13) - this was Og who had escaped from the Rephaim, who were smitten by Chedorlaomer and his allies at Ashteroth Karnaim [in the War of the Four Kings and Five Kings detailed in Genesis 14], as it says, "only Og, the king of Bashan, was left of the remnant of the Rephaim" [Deuteronomy 3:11]. - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 24, Num. Rabbah 19:32]



Nechama Leibowitz comments on this "We are not here concerned with the identification by the Midrash of the survivor that came to tell Abraham of the plight of Lot, with Og, [Abraham lived some 400 years before the Exodus] but with the concept [that meritorious actions] may stand to the credit of even a wicked man" (Studies in Bamidbar, pages 269-270).



[[See Studies in Bamidbar, pages 74-78, and especially the quote from Professor Y. Heinemnann on page 76, and Studies in Bereshit, pages 271 and 273]]



Nechama cites with regards to this idea the rabbinic dictum "Judge every man favorably" (Ethics of the Fathers 1:6).



But we can ask, would it have been reasonable for Moses to think that the merit earned by informing Abraham of Lot's capture should protect Og after all this time and against all the merits of the Jews? The answer must of course be yes! Why should this be the case?



[[I remember Rav Soloveitchik saying I think in On Repetence, that small deeds are what count, but his example can be questioned because waiting 7 years is quite significant]]



I believe we can offer an answer based on Rav Dessler's remarkable insight in the nature of free will. What follows is my summery, with a few added ideas of my own, of Strive for Truth! Volume 2, pages 52-58, by Rav Eliyahu E. Dessler, translated by R. Aryeh Carmell (translation of the Hebrew Michtav MiEliyahu) (also available at http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=330):



Our free will and combat with our evil inclination is analogous to pre-modern warfare. When countries go to war, their armies clash at the battlefront. The front in fact is the only place where fighting takes, an army needs to expend only a little energy controlling territory behind their lines, and they do not have access to land past the front. However, this single point of conflict is not static; when one side wins, they push the front forward, away from their own territory and further deeper into their enemy's.



This single point of conflict is also true regarding free will. We all posses freedom of choice but our scope of choice is rather limited. When we exercise our free will and choose to conquer our evil inclination, we move forward on to new challenges and "one good deed leads to [another] good deed" (Ethics of the Fathers 4:2). If we neglect to choose, if we are lazy, our evil inclination makes the choice for us and we move backwards and "one sin leads to [another] sin" (Ethics of the Fathers 4:2). Of course, we always have free choice to reverse the process and regain lost ground or G-d forbids, give in to our desires and let them control us.



Where one's particular struggle happens to be depends greatly on his or her education and environment and one is neither held responsible for evil deeds nor accredited the good deeds that result from one's environment. A few examples: A girl born into a good family and raised well probably will not have a desire to steal but she might lie to get herself out of trouble; her struggle lies with admitting her mistakes and bearing the consequences. Take another girl born into a home of Torah observant Jews and raised well. She probably has no desire to eat pig but she might recite her prayers by rote and, despite the severity of the sin, she might be exactly like the first girl regarding gossip and rumors. Finally, take a boy raised on the street. It might be natural for him to grow up and live a life of crime. For him, the struggle might not be whether to murder a woman who has not paid extortions but rather, if he murders her slowly or makes her suffer. And if he pulls himself up to a level where he no longer murders but only steals, he has made a huge improvement!



It follows from all this that G-d does not look at where we are but where we are going. And it is human nature to stumble and fall "for the righteous falls seven times, but he stands up, while wicked ones stumble through evil" (Proverbs 24:16).



[[And presumably G-d also looks at how fast we are going]]



This entire approach fits very nicely with Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits' philosophy of halacha which I summarized last September. It can be found at http://tamimah.blogspot.com/2006/07/philosophy-of-halacha-originally.html .



[[What about doing mitzvos only because G-d commands? See R. Berkovits around page 117 and note 20 on 184 and Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky on Avos 1:4. Requires further thought.]]

[[One can certainly say that when one chooses to enter a good environment, say a yeshiva, that this is credited to him. The same would hold true for entering a bad environment.]]

[[See page 176 of On Repentance. I have a hunch that this dispute might be related to the mussar debate. Then again, I don't really understand Rav Soloveitchik, maybe their disagreement is much smaller. And he certainly acknowledges that sometimes it is the will and intellect that defeat the evil inclination on pages 203-204. Either way though, will seems to play a much larger role in Rav Soloveitchik's ideas, or maybe it is single choices rather than long progressions. Regarding page 176, this probably relates to Lonely Man of Faith page 36 (the redemptive steps) and self creation in Halakhic Man, pages 109,110, and onward.]]

[[If each mitzvah act changes us, then take example of boy, each time he murders, for him a natural act, he messes himself up ever more, yet his bechira point has not moved. Rav Dessler would probably answer that when one is at such a low level, murdering does not actually mess you up. This requires more thought]]



Based on this, we can answer why Moses thought Og's good deed would still protect him. Og was a sinner through and through. His little act of kindness represented a considerable step for him.



But if such a tiny deed was so out of character for Og that its performance earned him so much merit, and if one is only accredited for conscious decisions and one only makes decisions at a small point of free will, then how could Og, such a wicked king, perform the act to begin with?! I can think of two possible answers:



1. With much conscious effort, one can make choices that are beyond our immediate point of free will.

2. The previous assumption was wrong. Og was not nearly as evil as we thought.



[[Both answers might be correct]]

[[1. Perhaps this brings Rav Dessler more into lines of Rav Soloveitchik]]

[[2. And if he is wicked, one could say that all his merits are expended in this world. This also puts this explanation according to Rav Dessler in line with the Rambam quoted by Nechama on pages 270-271.]]

[[I remember hearing somewhere that the fugitive wanted to get Avraham killed in war. Based on this, one could derive the power of doing things for the wrong reasons, although this could have killed Avraham]]



According to the first answer, Og expended considerable effort and conquered his evil inclination and earned himself considerable merit and this merit might protect him.



Following the second answer, Og, not being so wicked, might have numerous merits from many good deeds which could protect him.



Either way, Moses had good reason to fear and, based on Rav Dessler's insight into free will, none of us can say where another is in G-d's eyes.



Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai