This past week's Torah portion contains a plethora of material for the ba'alei haMussar, starting from R' Chaim Shmulevitz's explanation of ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה and ending with the haftorah from Sefer Malachi. The midrash famously explains that Rivka's concerns about her pregnancy stemmed from the fact that her fetus would kick whenever she passed by a beis ha'knesses and whenever she would pass by a beis avoda zara. Upon discovering that she was carrying twins, and that one would be a tzaddik (kicking to come out at a beis ha'knesses) and the other a rasha (kicking to come out at the beis avoda zara) she was calmed down. This begs the obvious question - why was Rivka satisfied to know that one of her children was destined to become evil? R' Chaim Shmulevitz explained that initially Rivka did not know that she was carrying twins, thus she was distressed to have one child who will be a tzaddik-rasha, or to borrow the phrase employed by Eliyahu HaNavi, a פוסח על שתי סעיפים - someone sitting on both sides of the fence. It is better to have a Yaakov and an Esav, even though Esav will be a rasha, for at least a rasha can come to the realization that his ways are crooked and repent. A פוסח על שתי סעיפים, on the other hand, is a lost cause. A tzaddik-rasha will never realize that his ways are crooked, because in his eyes he is on the right path.
This commentary relies on one of the constant refrains of the ba'alei mussar, who placed an enormous emphasis on uncovering subconscious biases and uprooting them. (The concept of the פוסח על שתי סעיפים was not exclusive to the ba'alei mussar, a point that I briefly mention in my footnotes to Rabbi Yehuda Oppenheimer's translation of Emuna U'Bitachon, and which I intended to explore in detail, but didn't make it in time for publication.)
The concept of פוסח על שתי סעיפים appears, as well, numerous times throughout the Alter of Novardok's work, Madreigas HaAdam. This brings me to the topic of this post, whether or not it is permitted (or worthwhile) to sacrifice p'shat for the sake of inspiration. I have another article on this topic in the works, to be published before Pesach, which demonstrates that the Chazon Ish debated this very point with R' Yitzchak Isaac Sher (a product of Slabodka mussar).
The Alter of Novardok based the chapter Nekudas HaEmes on the following verse from Malachi:
שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם, ואמרתם במה נשוב וכו', ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע, בין עובד אלקים לאשר לא עבדו. (מלאכי ג)
"Return to me and I will return to you, and should you say, 'with what shall we return?'... And you will return and see what is between a righteous [person] and an evil [one], between a servant of God and one who does not serve Him."
The Alter of Novardok expounds upon this verse as follows:
"הנביא נותן לנו דרך העליה להגיע להשלמות האמתי, ראשית צריך האדם שמכיר הרע שבחיי האדם, ורוצה לנדב נפשו לעבודת השם, לשאל השאלה 'במה נשוב', ואחר כך יהיה מכשר להבין הדרך של 'ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע בין עובד אלקים לאשר לא עבדו'" (מדרגת האדם מאמר נקודת האמת פרק א')
"The prophet gives us the path to achieve the true completeness. First, a person must recognize the evil in one's life, and have a desire to devote his soul to service of God, to ask the question 'with what can we return', and only then is one prepared to understand the way of 'you will return and see the difference between the righteous and the evil one, between the servant of God and one who does not serve him.'" (Madreigas HaAdam, Nekudas HaEmes, Chapter 1)
The Alter goes on to employ the concept of פוסח על שתי סעיפים, and for the sake of compressing ten chapters into a blog post, the essence of what he says is that one must first recognize and resolve their internal contradictions by asking "with what can we return?", so as not to be "on both sides of the fence", before entering the realm of righteous service of God. (I will leave aside some of the more radical conclusions the Alter makes in chapters 1 and 4 for another time.)
However, while the general message of the Alter may be true, to paraphrase something I was told by my rebbe, Rav Chaim Ilson, while the yesod may be emes, it is certainly not p'shat in passuk, or in this case, pessukim.
The first thing to notice, is that the citation from Malachi 3 is actually two separate verses that have been put together. Not only are they not concurrent pessukim, they even appear in two different parshiyos. Here are the pessukim, in conext, with the two pessukim in bold:
(ז) למימי אבתיכם סרתם מחקי ולא שמרתם שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם אמר יקוק צבאות ואמרתם במה נשוב:(ח) היקבע אדם אלהים כי אתם קבעים אתי ואמרתם במה קבענוך המעשר והתרומה:(ט) במארה אתם נארים ואתי אתם קבעים הגוי כלו:(י) הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני נא בזאת אמר יקוק צבאות אם לא אפתח לכם את ארבות השמים והריקתי לכם ברכה עד בלי די:(יא) וגערתי לכם באכל ולא ישחת לכם את פרי האדמה ולא תשכל לכם הגפן בשדה אמר יקוק צבאות:(יב) ואשרו אתכם כל הגוים כי תהיו אתם ארץ חפץ אמר יקוק צבאות: ס(יג) חזקו עלי דבריכם אמר יקוק ואמרתם מה נדברנו עליך:(יד) אמרתם שוא עבד אלהים ומה בצע כי שמרנו משמרתו וכי הלכנו קדרנית מפני יקוק צבאות:(טו) ועתה אנחנו מאשרים זדים גם נבנו עשי רשעה גם בחנו אלהים וימלטו:(טז) אז נדברו יראי יקוק איש את רעהו ויקשב יקוק וישמע ויכתב ספר זכרון לפניו ליראי יקוק ולחשבי שמו:(יז) והיו לי אמר יקוק צבאות ליום אשר אני עשה סגלה וחמלתי עליהם כאשר יחמל איש על בנו העבד אתו:(יח) ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע בין עבד אלהים לאשר לא עבדו: ס
Furthermore, the question of במה נשוב, according to the Alter of Novardok, would seem to be a sincere attempt at resolving our inner contradictions, a prerequisite to full repentance. However, looking at the entire Sefer Malachi, starting with yesterday's haftorah, a different picture emerges. There are a number of במה questions throughout the sefer, and they do not seem to fit the explanation in Madreigas HaAdam. Here a few from the first chapter of Malachi, there are more in the second chapter as well.
(ב) אהבתי אתכם אמר יקוק ואמרתם במה אהבתנו הלוא אח עשו ליעקב נאם יקוק ואהב את יעקב
(ו) בן יכבד אב ועבד אדניו ואם אב אני איה כבודי ואם אדונים אני איה מוראי אמר יקוק צבאות לכם הכהנים בוזי שמי ואמרתם במה בזינו את שמך:(ז) מגישים על מזבחי לחם מגאל ואמרתם במה גאלנוך באמרכם שלחן יקוק נבזה הוא:
The picture you get from these verses is not a pretty one. Malachi is reprimanding K'lal Yisrael for their sins, despite the fact that God has shown them His love. All of these verses ask, rhetorically, "and if you will say, with what have I loved you...","and if you will ask, with what have we disgraced Your name...", "and if you will ask, with what have we disgusted you[r sacrifices]...".
Following the theme of the sefer, it seems more plausible to interpret במה נשוב as a feeble attempt to proclaim our innocence. After asking במה נשוב, God responds with a laundry list of sins that are awaiting repentance.
The fundamental concept of the Alter is certainly correct, it is only after recognizing what our sins are that we can repent and achieve the level of ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע. However, his interpretation of the words במה נשוב seems to contradict the actual theme of the passuk. Did the Alter of Novardok actually believe that his explanation was correct? Or was he simply using the wording of the passuk in a rhetorical fashion in order to inspire his students? If the latter, it was certainly an effective strategy, yet it begs the question, is it worth sacrificing p'shat for inspiration?
No comments:
Post a Comment