Friday, August 29, 2014

Parshas Shoftim - Guard Your Gates

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Shoftim

Guard Your Gates
By: Daniel Listhaus

שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הֹ אֱלקיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת הָעָם מִשְׁפַּט צֶדֶק

“Judges and officers shall you in all your gates [cities] -which Hashem, your G-d, gives you – for your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.”
-Shoftim 16:18

            Rashi[1] explains that this passuk (verse) is teaching us the necessity to have Batei Dinim (Jewish courts), as well as officers to enforce the rulings of the Batei Dinim, in each and every city. Although this is certainly the meaning of the passuk on a simple level, many meforshim (commentaries) are bothered by the choice of the singular form “l'cha” and “sh'arecha” (“to you [singular]” and “your [singular] gates”). If the Torah was speaking to the entire B'nei Yisroel and commanding them to institute a judicial system, the Torah should have used the plural forms, “lachem and “she'areichem”. Why does it instead use the singular form of “you”?
           
            The Sh'lah HaKadosh[2] writes that there is a deeper concept being hinted to in this passuk. Aside from the need to establish a judicial system that will rule according to halacha (Jewish law) and ensure that its rulings are implemented, there is a further responsibility that each person has as an individual. There are seven orifices in the face[3] – each one an entrance to the control center of the body. Thus, what passes through these entrances has the power to affect us in very real ways. When dealing with our relationship with the physical world, this concept is an easy one to grasp. We can all imagine our ears throbbing after hearing blaring off-key music, while we can also relate to a feeling of calmness and tranquility when listening to peaceful music or a sense of confidence when listening to encouraging words. Bacteria can cause ear infections, changes in atmospheric pressures can result in ears popping or even bleeding. Similarly, we have all experienced horrible stomachaches after eating spoiled food or even inhaling bad air, as well as the sensation of complete satisfaction after a wonderful meal. We have seen things which made us cry or perhaps faint, and we have seen things which made us laugh. We have smelled noxious scents which caused terrible head- and stomach-aches, as well as fragrances which put us into an immediate good mood. There is no doubt that indeed the orifices of the head have the potential to be the means of delivery for items which are both good and bad for us physically. For this reason, we try our hardest to figure out which ones we should allow into our system and which we would be happier without. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that these orifices also have the ability to transmit both positive and negative packages to our inner-self and affect us spiritually. Therefore, the question we must ask ourselves is: Are we as fastidious when it comes to deciding what to allow into our system which may effect our ruchniyus (spirituality), as we are when deciding not to eat spoiled food or listen to blasting off-key music?

            The more a person attached himself to the physical world, the more he feels its effect. Similarly the more in-tuned one is to the spiritual world, the more one will feel its effects. Unfortunately, we are so steeped in the physical world to the point where we are extremely sensitive to even the slightest discomforts. It is impossible for us to imagine what it would mean to survive a winter without heat or a summer without air-conditioning. We have accustomed our bodies to require the best of the best and when we do not get what we expect, we complain and experience a miserable time.

            However, the point which we are supposed to strive towards or at least think about is the fact that every person has the capacity to achieve that same level of connection the world of ruchniyus. There are countless stories of our gedolim (great Torah leaders) which paint the picture of individuals who were much more in-tuned to the spiritual world than the physical one. Whether it be the ability to feel a brewing “ra” (evil) in the air in certain places, or not feeling pain of a surgery because of one's involvement in learning Torah, the stories clearly illustrate that it is achievable to be so connected to the world of ruchniyus that levels of tahara (purity) and tumah (impurity) could be felt, or that the pain of not learning and the enjoyment of learning far surpasses the pain of a physical surgery.

            Although there is no doubt that most of us are not on such a level, that does not mean that we cannot take the first basic steps to at least step forward in the right direction. If we work on training ourselves to pay attention to what distracts us from growing spiritually then we will have a shot at preventing those things which, although perhaps intangible, are destructive to the world and inconducive to personal growth.

            If one reads the FCC's guidelines to what could be played on radio and television, one will find the following current documentation: “It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.”

            It is unfortunately amusingly hypocritical that indeed this is the current statute. It does not take a religious person or dictionary writer to realize that plenty of what is broadcast could be categorized as obscene, indecent, and profane. Yet it is shown, and there is nothing illegal about it and no violations are committed. This is because the definitions changed based on the standards of the population. This was not a change that occurred over night. Rather, small indecent breaches were made here and minor profanities added there, and they went under the FCC's radar. Eventually, with everyone seeing and hearing the same shows, people were not embarrassed to talk about the things they all saw or heard publicly broadcast. This continued to snowball to include more and more things which would have previously been viewed as disgusting, abominable, and unacceptable. The rules stayed the same, but with these small steps downhill, the definitions changed with the new norm and standard. Now, society has sunk to such a level where cursing, improper comments, lashon harrah (evil speech), looking at bad things and listening to such things is so normal and common that it is not surprising when even the most prestigious and prominent people do it.  Take a step back for a moment and review your day in fast play. How many curses did you hear? How many did you think or say? What did you see? What did you talk about? What did you listen to? Was it all really necessary? Was it conducive to growth or serve any purpose whatsoever, or did it just sink you lower to society's standards and adopted normalcies? Perhaps we did not feel negatively affected in the least but if we stop to think honestly to ourselves, without worrying of anyone else hearing, do we still not feel negatively affected? And even if we honestly still do not, could it perhaps be because of how out-of-touch we are with our spiritual wants and needs?

            The Ibn Ezra[4] writes that man is a microcosm of the world – an olam katan. As the Orchos Tzadikkim[5] points out, every aspect of the physical world is contained in one's body. The sun, the moon, fresh water, saltwater, grass, trees, rocks – all have a place on man's physical self. Moreover, as we have mentioned in the past, man is a blueprint of the Beis Hamikdash and the keilim (vessels) contained therein.[6] Even furthermore, man represents the 613 mitzvos of the Torah.[7] Indeed the physical world has the power built in to attach itself to spirituality, but that system simultaneously challenges us to not allow our spiritual selves to gravitate to the mundaneness of the physical world. It is therefore imperative that we select carefully what enters into our private world and Beis Hamikdash, as well as what we should permit to effect the quality of the mitzvos we do. The Gemara[8] states that just as Hashem fills the world, the neshama fills the body. Hashem breathed into Adam a neshama[9], and in doing so made man unique and elevated above all other creations. It is our duty to keep our neshamos in the pure state that it was given to us in, and therefore our responsibility to ensure that the things which pass through the gates of our body are only things conducive to helping our neshama grow. What do we allow ourselves to see, hear, or say? If these questions do not have valid answers, then we must do a better job in establishing our inner shoftim and shotrim (judges and officers). Who are these personal shoftim and shotrim we are expected to consult with? The Lev Eliyahu[10] writes that our seichel (intellect) is the shofet (judge) and our degree of yiras shamayim (fear of Heaven) is the shoter (enforcing officer). Relying on the FCC to administer and enforce such important deliveries to such essential gates to our standards is not enough. Even simply knowing what our rabbeim or da'as Torah would categorize as good or bad is not enough. Rather, one must think about it and implement it according to what he could do at first and then create a game plan for continued growth through re-securing the openings to the body's control panel. In order to accomplish this we must work on our yiras shamayim, because without that inner shoter, there is no hope. Only with true yiras shamayim could we trust ourselves when it comes to what we are feeding through these passages into the body.

            Later in the parsha, the Torah[11] discusses some of the laws regarding a Jewish king. The king cannot have too many horses, too many wives, or too much money. The Torah[12] then says that even the king himself, to whom the people have an obligation to fear and listen, is not permitted to display any haughtiness. The Ramban[13] comments that we see from here that it is forbidden for anyone to be haughty. After all, if even the king is not allowed to feel inherently better than others, then certainly regular people cannot express such lordliness. Rather, it is incumbent on each individual to understand his place in this world – to be an eved Hashem.
           
            The Orchos Tzadikkim[14] writes that Hashem says about one who is haughty, “The world is not big enough for both Me and him.”[15] After all, one who feels no sense of dependency on Hashem is lacking the most basic level of yiras shamayim (literally: fear of Heaven). Such a person essentially thinks of himself as a completely independent entity, and is therefore comparable to one who worships avodah zarah (idol worship). This is why Hashem says there is no room for this person in the world.

            The Orchos Tzadikkim further describes that when a person utilizes the middah (trait) of gaivah (haughtiness) in a bad way, one instinctively uses his body to demonstrate the middah. For example, this person will begin to look at others in a debasing way, choose not to listen to the cry of others, and comment about the stench of poor people.

            Ironically, despite Gaivah being a middah (trait) which tries to lift us haughtily over others, it is really like gravity to our neshamos – a constant force trying to push it as far to the ground as possible. Gaivah comes from involving oneself heavily in this world and getting to the point of thinking that he is in control of his own life. Anivus (humility) on the other hand is the recognition of Hashem’s involvement in the world and our role as avdei Hashem and bonim l'Hashem (servants and also children to Hashem)

            As we begin the month of Elul preparing for Rosh Hashanah, we must internalize what the “yom haras olam” (the birthday of the world) is all about. The Gemara[16] states that Hashem says, “On Rosh Hashanah say malchiyos[17] so that you can crown me as King over you.” Rosh Hashanah is certainly a time of din (judgment), but on a deeper level it is not merely recognizing that we are being judged, but rather to realize that it is Hashem who is the Judge and King of the entire universe. This is something which we could only realize once our gaivah is removed.

            May Hashem help us ready ourselves by growing in anivus and yiras shamayim so that we could establish proper shoftim and shotrim within ourselves and secure our necessary, but vulnerable gates in order that we should be properly prepared to declare Hashem as our King on Rosh Hashanah.




[1]  Devarim 16:18
[2] Sh'nei Luchos Habris: Parshas Shoftim: Derech Chaim Tochachos Mussar
[3] 2 Eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils of the nose, and 1 mouth.
[4] Shemos 25:40
[5] Sha'ar Yiras Shamayim
[6] See my d'var Torah on Parshas Terumah (titled “Mishkan Man”) based on the Kuzari (1:99)
[7] Man has 248 limbs and 365 tendons corresponding to the 248 mitzvos asei (positive commandments) and 365 mitzvos lo sa'asei (negative commandments).
[8] Berachos 10a
[9] Beraishis 2:7
[10] R' Eliyahu Lapion, Parshas Shoftim
[11] Devarim 17:16
[12] Devarim 17:20
[13] Ibid.
[14] Sha'ar HaGaivah
[15] Based on Tehillim 101:5
[16] Rosh Hashanah 16a
[17] A section in the Shemoneh Esreh which declares Hashem’s Kingship

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Parshas Re'eh - All You Need is One

Thoughts on The Parsha
Parshas Re'eh


All You Need is One
By: Daniel Listhaus

רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה

“See, I present before you today a blessing and a curse.”
-Re'eh 11:26

            When reading the first passuk (verse) of this week’s parsha, one may notice the inconsistent Hebrew grammar. The word “re’eh” (see) is written in the singular form, yet the word “lifneichem” (before you) is written in the plural form. Why does the Torah switch the form from singular to plural mid-sentence?

            The Kli Yakar[1] raises this question and explains the passuk with the following gemara. The Gemara[2] brings a Baraisa which states that a person should always perceive himself as being half-guilty and half-meritorious. If he performs a mitzvah, his is praiseworthy for having tipped the scale in his favor to the side of merit. If he however commits a single aveirah (sin), woe to him, for he has tipped his scale to the side of guilt.

            This first part of the Baraisa itself is a tremendous idea to think about and an important perspective to have. A person should always view himself as presently being precisely in the middle of the balance scale and think that his next action will define him as being either a tzaddik (righteous person) or a rasha (wicked person). In this way a person will lead a very productive life constantly choosing the path of one more good deed in order to tip the scale in his favor. Yet, the Baraisa does not stop here. The Baraisa continues to quote Rebbe Eliezer who points out that the world as a whole is also judged based on the deeds of the majority of the world’s population. Therefore, one should always view himself as being half-guilty and half-meritorious and the world as being exactly half guilty and half meritorious. It follows that when a person does a mitzvah not only has he tipped his own scale in his favor, but the world-scale as well. Unfortunately, the flip-side is true too that when one transgresses and commits a single aveirah, the perspective is that not only has he negatively tipped the scale for himself, but is also considered to have tipped the world-scale to the side of destruction.

            Based on this Gemara, the Kli Yakar writes that this is why the passuk chose the word re’eh and chose to put it in singular form before switching to plural. The Torah is conveying that each person should change his perspective and look within himself and the actions he chooses, for not only does it return to each individual, but has an effect on the entire world as well.

            This gemara indeed speaks loud and clear to many of us who indeed feel like we are in the middle and that as much as we try to do mitzvos and lead lives according to halacha (Jewish law), that we are still far from perfect and do plenty of aveiros whether purposely, accidentally, or out of ignorance. However, the difficulty with this gemara is what about those of us who know that we are more bad than good? For such a group one more mitzvah will not tip the scale and although perhaps it may not be utterly worthless, its value is probably not worth the effort. So why is the gemara telling every person that because he is precisely in the middle, his doing one mitzvah will not only tip the balance to him being a tzaddik, but will even have such an effect for the world?

            Interestingly, a similar question crosses the mind of many on Election Day. Oftentimes we get ourselves get caught up in what we could term as the “voter’s fallacy” – the perspective that one vote does not make a difference so what is the point in voting. After all, very few times in history was an election won by one vote, so is taking your time to spend on line at a nasty voting center really worth the value of your vote? This is a question that many ponder when Election Day rolls around and people are trying to justify their not wanting to go to vote.

             However the point seems valid. So why is it that one vote maters and how could we understand why the gemara tries to convince us that all we need is one mitzvah to tip the scale?

            There is a story told of a messenger who once came to a poor city and announced that the king was coming to visit in one year’s time. Immediately the city council got together and had a meeting to try to figure out what it would cost to put together a nice welcoming ceremony for the king when he would arrive. They calculated that they would be able to do some extra fundraising and use some of the money from the city’s emergency stash, however there was no way that they would be able to fit into their small budget wine to put out for the king’s arrival. After much thought, one of the council members had an idea. They set up a massive empty barrel in the center of town and ordered that each family in the city put in just one cup of their wine. Surely after a year the huge barrel would fill up and they would be prepared to welcome the king properly. Indeed, every day for that year there was a line in the town square with people pouring their cup of wine contribution into the barrel. Finally, the year came to an end and the day came of the king’s arrival. The king came to the small city, and after a beautiful welcome speech by the mayor, the king was given the honor of getting the first cup of wine. They held the kings goblet up high and poured into it from the barrel. However, to everyone’s shock and embarrassment, all that came out was pure clear water.

            What happened was that each person reasoned that his single cup of wine would not make any difference in the massive barrel. It would not be adding anything. Therefore, he might as well pour in a cup of water instead. Such a minute amount of water in such a large barrel of wine would not dilute the wine at all. The perspective each person had was that his single cup of wine does not make a difference. However, they missed the big picture. By them acting as they did, they were individually endorsing the perspective that one cup of water does not make a difference – even if each and every person believes so for himself.

            The lesson of the Kli Yakar is to rescue us from such a mindset. We are tasked with understanding that when we each “re’eh” – look at ourselves and our actions we must look at them from the perspective of being “lifneichem” – in front of all of B’nei Yisroel. One person’s single mitzvah is enough to tip a personal scale, the nation’s scale, and the world scale to the side of merit and therefore everyone is responsible to have this perspective.

            We must realize that at no point should we feel like it is too late with complete depression and despair. Rather, at any point we have the ability to pick ourselves up and imagine ourselves in the center of the balance scale with the belief that all we need is one mitzvah to tip not only our own scale to the side of merit, but the world scale as well. With this approach of looking within oneself and seeing the two paths before him and choosing the life of beracha, one has the ability to grow one step at a time.

            As the month of Elul approaches, this lesson from the gemara that the Kli Yakar brings, is an important one to internalize. The Yomim Noraim (Days of Awe, namely Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) often seem too foreign to us to appreciate or prepare for; and even basic teshuva (repentance) is so difficult to achieve when we look at the muck we have gotten ourselves into and how helpless we feel getting out of it. However, if we enter the month of Elul with a personal imaginary scale with ourselves placed as perfectly center on the balance scale and that all it takes is one mitzvah to tilt it in our favor, that small repeated decision could go a long way.

            May Hashem help us individually and communally grow in Torah and mitzvos during this z’man so we could enter and experience the yomim noraim as a meritorious nation.






[1] Devarim 11:26
[2] Kiddushin 40b

Photo Credit: http://blog.memberclicks.com/bid/251450/Striking-the-work-life-balance

Parshas Re'eh - Baseless Beliefs

Thoughts on The Parsha
Parshas Re'eh


Baseless Beliefs
By: Daniel Listhaus

אֵת כָּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ

“The entire matter that I command you, you shall guard it to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.”
-Re'eh 13:1

            Rashi[1] explains that when the Torah here commands us not to add to the mitzvos, it means that we are prohibited from adding to the details of the mitzvos themselves, such as bringing a fifth species on Succos with the lulav or adding in a fourth beracha (blessing) to birkas kohanim (the blessing that the kohanim give which is divided into three parts). Presumably we could assume that Rashi would similarly explain that when the passuk (verse) says not to subtract from the mitzvos it means not to, for example, bring three species on Succos or recite only two berachos of birkas kohanim.

            The question we must ask, though, is what compelled Rashi to explain the passuk in this way? Certainly a more obvious explanation of the Torah would be that Hashem gave us 613 mitzvos and we are not allowed to add or subtract from those mitzvos? The words of the passuk sound like they are talking to the person who wants to stand up and declare a new mitzva which would benefit society, to which the Torah is telling him that it is forbidden to add mitzvos. So, why does Rashi explain the passuk as not adding or subtracting to the details of each particular mitzva?

            The S'forno[2] also does not seem to understand the passuk at face value. Rather, when the Torah writes not to add to the mitzvos, the S'forno comments, “Do not add to the mitzvos because perhaps you will be adding something which is disgusting in the eyes of Hashem. For example, perhaps you may decide to add a new form of worshiping Hashem such as burning children, which is disgusting in the eyes of Hashem.”

            This S'forno seems a bit extreme. He is explaining that the Torah was afraid of people making up their own ways to serve Hashem – such as burning children in fire. Is this really a concern? The S'forno is not dealing with someone looking to serve avodah zarah (idols), but rather an orthodox Jew abiding to the 613 mitzvos but just not feeling it is enough so adds a 614th mitzvah. What would be so bad with someone choosing to serve Hashem in his own personal way? How is the S'forno addressing this by taking it to an extreme?

            The S'forno continues to explain that when the Torah says not to subtract from the mitzvos it means the following. Sometimes a person could look at a particular mitzva and say that the reason for the mitzva is not applicable and therefore the mitzva is no longer necessary. Sometimes such a claim is general – that the mitzva as a whole no longer applies, and sometimes it is a claim that an individual could make for himself, that for whatever reason the reason behind the mitzva does not apply to him and therefore he is exempt from the mitzva.

            The S'forno continues to mention that this was precisely the mistake that Shlomo HaMelech made. The passuk[3] states, regarding a Jewish king, “And he shall not have too many wives,[4] and his heart shall not turn astray...” The Medrash[5] describes that Shlomo learned this passuk and figured that it did not apply to him. After all, the passuk seems to be saying that the reason a king cannot have too many wives is because the Torah is concerned that it will cause his heart to go astray. Shlomo thought that because of his gift of abundant wisdom he was different from everyone else and therefore felt he could go ahead and marry additional wives.[6] However, as the S'forno writes, this was a big mistake. The Torah forbids us from subtracting mitzvos even if it seems to us that the reason is not applicable.

            This S'forno is also difficult to understand. Shlomo HaMelech read the Torah and its reason for not having too many wives. He made a personal calculation that it was not relevant to him and acted upon that feeling. What did he do wrong? The S'forno is saying that even if we see that the reason does not apply anymore, we should do it anyway. Why? If in fact the reason does not apply, what is the point of playing along and keeping unnecessary restrictions? If the S'forno would say that there is an external reason why one should keep the mitzva, such as not to confuse others to think the mitzva is completely non-existent, or in order that others should not think that such a person is specifically revolting against Hashem, then we could perhaps understand why it would be important to do a mitzva, despite its non-applicable reason. However, the S'forno does not give these answers as the explanation, but rather simply writes that even if it appears that the reason for the mitzva does not apply to you, you must do it anyway. Why is that so?

            In order to approach this, let us take a moment to think about the following. Imagine you were to walk into an ethics class at a university and are immediately swept into a series of thought provoking and interesting questions. You sit in the back and listen as the professor presents a famous question known as the Trolley Problem. There are many versions of the question but the basic gist is the following: There is a trolley out of control speeding down the tracks. Ahead on the tracks lay five people who are tied down, unable to move out of the way. You happen to be standing on the side of the tracks next to a lever. If you were to pull the lever, the trolley would be redirected onto a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person lying tied down on that track as well. Therefore, the two options you have are to either do nothing and allow the trolley to continue its course and kill the five people, or pull the lever and divert the trolley onto the other set of tracks where it will only kill the one person. The professor then turns to his class and challenges them: which option do you choose? As you remain observing in the back, you begin to witness the most fascinating debate amongst the students. One person stands up and declares that it is so obvious that you need to pull the lever. After all, how could you allow the five people to die for the sake of a single individual. Suddenly another member of the class jumps up and shouts back, “You mean you think it is better to actively kill someone? Better to just let nature take its course and allow the five people to die than for it to be on your hands that you actively killed the single person on the other track.” Another classmate then stands up and says, “Well I think it should matter who these people are. Perhaps the five people are anyways all sick and elderly people, while the individual on the track happens to be a baby.” Another student then stands up emotionally charged and says, “What difference should it make? Who are you to play the role of God? Maybe the healthy guy will die tomorrow and the sick, elderly people will live until 120!”

            As your head is bouncing back and forth digesting the various arguments and interjections by the professor pointing out the various defined schools of thought, you wonder to yourself what are all these ethics based on? The first student who stood up made a valid point: One should do what is best for the majority. However, without a doubt if you were to ask him why, he would have nothing to respond other than, “Because that is the correct thing to do. It is something that just feels right.” With this approach it is important to keep in mind that if one believes that a moral code is just based on gut feeling and emotions, then one has to be ready to accept the moral code of others based on their personal feelings and emotions. The response of “it just feels right” is arbitrary. Who says that what you think feels right is in fact right? For example, imagine someone who believes that if there is something a person wants for himself, he is ethically permitted to go any distance to get what he wants. Such a person could argue that if someone else has something he is jealous of and wants it, he has the right to demand it from him; and if he refuses, he could even kill for the item he desires. If one were to challenge this person and ask why such a mentality makes sense, he too could respond, “Because it is honestly just something that feels right to me. I was put in this world and it is my job to do whatever it takes to make myself happy.” Despite the two very different approaches to life, these two people have the same reason why they do what they do. Their response is incontestable and could be used by anyone to rationalize any action.

            One of the things we have to think about everyday is the fact that not only must we be grateful to Hashem for creating us, and not only must we thank Him for creating us as humans, we must also thank Him for the fact that He, as Creator of the world did not leave us here alone.[7] He gave us the Torah. The Torah is more than a history book, more than a scroll of rules, and more fundamental than a perspective on life. It is insight into Hashem Himself. Just like in order to optimize a board game, one must read the instruction pamphlet, so too when it comes to knowing how to live, think, and even things as personal as how to feel emotionally, the only way to act and respond correctly is through understanding what Hashem wants from us. This could only be done by someone who is close to Hashem, which is only possible by someone who has spent the time learning His Torah.

            It is known that there are two categories of mitzvosmishpatim and chukim. Mishpatim refer to the mitzvos which are easy for us to understand. For example, not to steal or kill are things which are obvious to us that they should not be done. Chukim refer to the mitzvos which we cannot begin to fully comprehend. The whole concept of tumah (impurity) and tahara (purity) and especially the applications of chukim such as parah adumah are more than just complex - they are ideas that are way incomprehensible to us.

            However, despite this difference between the two terms, it is important to keep in mind that in reality every single mitzva is a chok (singular for chukim). Even the mitzvos which make sense to us and we think we comprehend, are not things that we should do solely because they make sense to us, nor are they right or wrong based on our personal understanding or emotions. Rather things are only good or bad because Hashem declared them as such. For example, the fact that killing is wrong is not just because it feels wrong, rather it is because Hashem declared it as wrong. However, if there would be a time that the Torah would demand someone or a nation to be killed, whether we understand the reason or not, and whether we personally believe that death is deserved or not is completely irrelevant. Everything has its time and place. The person who studies the ways of Hashem through His Torah shel b'chsav (written Torah) and Torah shel ba'al peh understands on a much deeper level what makes things right and wrong using the tools of reason that Hashem gave us on Har Sinai to use.

            Perhaps now we could better appreciate Rashi and the S'forno's explanations on the passuk of not adding or subtracting to the Torah. As mentioned above, Rashi gave examples as to what the Torah means when it says that one could not add to the Torah. He wrote that one cannot add another species to the lulav, esrog, haddas and aravah, or add in a beracha to birkas kohanim. Perhaps Rashi chose this explanation as opposed to simply writing that the Torah gave 613 mitzvos and we cannot add to that number because that would not be completely true. Part of the Torah's system is to leave room for those in-tuned to what Hashem wants to be able to create safety precautions to protect the Torah or create other decrees as they see fit.

            The S'forno too is coming to explain that the Torah is teaching us the following. Even if someone thinks that the thing he is adding is enhancing his avodas Hashem, do not do it without consulting someone who has insight into the ways of Hashem, for perhaps he will be doing something disgusting in the eyes of Hashem such as burning children. The S'forno is not exaggerating; he is simply stating a fact. Indeed one who makes up way of serving Hashem, no matter how good it seems in his eyes, it is repulsive to Hashem. If it does not have roots in the Torah then it is completely baseless like the person who sacrifices children. Although you may think that the two are not even comparable, you must keep in mind that if you are willing to argue that what you feel is good avodas Hashem is valid, then you are also saying that whatever anyone else feels is good avodas Hashem is valid as well. And yes, that baseless argument could rationalize anything – even the burning of children.

            One cannot make up mitzvos based on what he feels is right and wrong. In the end of the day unless one is in-tuned to da'as elyon by thoroughly studying the Torah to the point that one is trained to think, so to speak, like Hashem, one has no right to declare what is good or bad. One cannot just say that because he feels something is right that therefore it must be the case. For, just like the trolly problem, every s'vara (logic) one way will have a counter s'vara against it by someone else who does not share the same feelings and therefore ends up with a completely different moral code. Rather, when it comes to the Torah we must keep in mind that even the mitzvos we think we know the reason for, we really do not and at some level every mitzva we do – even those as basic as not killing or being nice to one another – is a chok, a decree from Hashem. This was Shlomo's mistake. He saw that the Torah specified a reason for why a king should not marry too many wives and he took that at face value.

            As we enter into the month of Elul, may Hashem help us realize that His telling us in the Torah what to do and not to do is the only reason that anything becomes inherently good or evil, and that alone is the only solid base for a belief system with a valid moral code. With this in mind we will be zoche (merit) to a real teshuva (repentance) and a complete kapparah (atonement).




[1]    Devarim 13:1
[2]    Ibid.
[3]    Devarim 17:17
[4]    See Gemara Sanhedrin 21a. A  king cannot marry more than 18 wives.
[5]    Shemos Rabbah 6:1
[6]    He married 1000 wives!