Salvation Is Free, Or Is It?

March 15, 2021 - Nisan 2, 5781

Three Scenarios of Forgiveness

Let us imagine a situation in which a person is brought to court before a judge for committing some sort of infraction. The judge looks the person up and down and then in the eye, and decides to waive his fee. The person gleefully leaves the courtroom with his spirit renewed with a great sense of appreciation for the judge and his mercy.

Let us now slightly adjust the situation by introducing another variable. Let us imagine a situation in which a person is brought to court before a judge for running a red light. As in the first case, the judge considers the situation and waives the offender's fee.

Let us now add another variable into the equation to see what happens. Let's take the example of the man who ran the red light, but in this case let's say that he struck another car and killed a family of four. As before he is brought into the courtroom to stand before the judge, and the judge waives his fee.

What is our intuitive reaction to each scenario?

In the first scenario we may be apt to feel appreciation and warmth toward the judge for what seems like undeserved mercy. This is an appropriate reaction when the person's infraction affects only him. However, when we consider the second scenario, in which the person's action was potentially dangerous to somebody other than himself, we may be more cautious when applying mercy. In the third situation, in which the person killed four other people due to negligence, we may consider applying mercy to be a gross perversion of justice. The application of mercy must be determined by the outcome of the event(s).

Is It Really Merciful to Forgive?

The very definition of mercy is to show favor to someone undeserving. Merriam Webster's defines mercy as "compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power" and "lenient or compassionate treatment." Note that we are not speaking about the judge's right to waive the fee, but whether or not it would bring about the best possible good.

Waiving a fee can only be considered in relation to the offense committed. In the second case above, waiving the fee may be favorable to the offender, but depending on his attitude it will have one of two different effects. If the offender is appreciative of the judge's mercy, it may prompt him to be more careful and to avoid running red lights in the future. If the offender is crass and not appreciative, he may have learned nothing from the experience and may continue to drive dangerously.

Mercy as well has a ripple effect on those observing the case. When people see that the judge unequivocally waives penalties associated with running red lights, they may think to themselves that if they ever get caught running a red light that this judge will be lenient with them as well. In turn this leads people to be less careful while running red lights, endangering themselves and others, culminating in an increased disregard for law and order.

Now let us consider another variable. Let's reason that this judge has earned a reputation for mercy in the public eye. In general the public is said to have a great love and admiration for this judge and therefore actively seek out to avoid committing offenses, such as running red lights. However, the entire set of possibilities available to most people will inevitably lead to committing other offenses, either big or small. In the complexity and dynamics of personal, social, and business interactions, people will find it impossible to avoid committing a range of offenses, even though they may admire this judge. It therefore becomes necessary to impose particular penalties to prevent the greatest amount of people possible from committing offenses. In fact, such penalties would not be punitive in nature, but would set in place to establish order and to prevent injury and death. The core motivation for these penalties is the judge's love for the citizens.

But we cannot overlook those individuals who are motivated to avoid offenses borne of admiration for the judge. Inevitably when such individuals commit offenses and are brought before the judge, he will consider their record and will exercise leniency with them in accordance with their past and with their attitude while in the courtroom. He acts in this way because of a conviction that they will be more cautious in the future, and so he trusts letting them go with either a light sentence or no sentence at all.

However, those crass individuals who have demonstrated apathy and recklessness must receive harsher sentencing in order to prevent them from persisting in their offenses, which harm them and the people around them. This is certainly true of people who show no remorse at all for their offenses, so calloused through repetition or a non-functioning conscience that they experience no regret or shame for their actions. The judge is both merciful and just, and exercising mercy to recalcitrant offenders is to exercise cruelty toward undeserving victims. The purpose of the judge's sentencing is to bring about the greatest sense of good for all involved; both the offender and all related parties, which in certain cases requires the suspension of mercy.

A Real Life Example

A good real life example of this is the case of Gary Ridgeway, known as the Green River Killer, who murdered 49 girls and women between the 1980s and 1990s.

In a video titled The Power of Forgiveness - Gary Ridgway, the father of one of the victims is seen responding to Ridgway in an unexpected manner:

A person capable of regret would have cried during the drawn-out and painful process of reading off a list of 48 names in succession of people that you killed. The well-placed Schindler's List music coupled with the image of a grown crying man does a good job in evincing an emotional response. However, over the ten-year course that this man murdered, raped, and dumped girls and women into the lake, did he stop to cry once? Did he consider for a moment the future that he was creating for himself, and the future that he was taking from these girls and women and their families? Did he think about repenting once or getting help, or was he happy enough concealing his illness and continuing in his revelry?

It was awfully nice of the father of the victim to apologize, but it is the prerogative of the wronged party to forgive, not of people in the periphery, even if they are closely related. It was unsettling to see this father become an accomplice with Rigdway in the murder of his daughter; Ridgway may have killed her body, but her father killed her memory, which is must worse. 

While this footage is heart-wrenching, we can not let emotions cloud our judgment; offering mercy to an individual guilty of repeated, heinous crimes demonstrating no intent or ability to stop a) permits evil to continue, which creates more victims, and b) perverts justice towards for the victims who have already been wronged, extending to their families and friends. Throughout his case, according to Seattlepi.com, Ridgway referred to "the young women he strangled and dumped along the now-notorious river or in wooded ravines..." "as garbage." The fate of the guilty party cannot take precedence over the fact of the innocent, and to do so would not be mercy.

Further, we should distinguish between the example above and the thing that we are trying to compare. In the case above, Ridgway was sentenced even though being forgiven by the parent of one of the victims. In the case of mercy through Jesus, the transgressor is released from sentencing entirely. Therefore the demonstration above is not really comparable, for the judge saw it appropriate to sentence Ridgway regardless of his being forgiven by a relative of one of the victims.

Some of the comments on this video express the type of attractive, yet incorrect, intuition. I wouldn't want the following people ever to be put in a position of presiding as a judge:

1. Christ and God puts a major emphasis on forgiveness and instructed their followers that true forgiveness is vital to a healthy spiritual life. True Christians are supposed to apply this notion in everyday life, other religions may say the same, others say otherwise.


2. That´s the hardest part of being Christian. This guy nailed it. It takes massive courage to do that.


3. Forgiveness is stronger than hate. Forgiveness heals, it liberates, its compassionate but most of all its a sign of Love. Love conquers all.

The following is the type of approach more correct for forgiveness:

I think most people reach a point, where forgiveness, empathy and compassion turn to anger, even if for a while. Especially when the compassion and empathy are not returned. I know a friend whose other friend of 15 years slept with his wife behind his back, in their home the first friend was paying mortgage for, for over a year. And it led to divorce and some serious blues for the first friend. And the cheating friend never apologized, he never showed remorse. How do you just forgive that? Ultimately, the forgiveness in my opinion comes after a long time of anger, internal struggle, etc. and it's done because the forgiving party realizes it will only benefit their mental health.

Conclusion

What we should strive to realize is that forgiveness and mercy are not the same thing. Forgiveness is important as an attitude of the victim and his family, and is central to mental health, but is a perversion of justice and a corrupting force if exercised towards serious and repeat offenders. It may help the recipient of mercy, and it may help you in getting over loss, but it doesn't help anybody else, and everybody else matters, too.

Mishlei says:

"He who vindicates the wicked and condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord." (17:15)

"It is not good to be partial to the wicked, to subvert the righteous in judgment." (18:5)

Let us remember King Solomon's words inspired by the ruach hakodesh:

---

Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven.

A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.

A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.

A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.

A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.

A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to be silent and a time to speak.

A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.

Koheles 3:1-8

---

What time is right to hate if not for those who have committed unspeakable evil on innocent people? Shall we render the above null and void?

When Life Gives you Lemons, Eat Locusts

September 9, 2020 - 19 Elul 5780

In the story of the Exodus the Egyptians get a bad rap, and rightfully so because they are so clearly the perpetrators of evil.

However, we occasionally can attest to the attempt of even evil people to bring order into chaos, to bring some good into the equation when all they see is bad.

The Midrash Shemos Rabbah 13:7 says that the Egyptians tried to catch the locusts in barrels during the eighth plague:

...and the Lord reversed a very strong west wind, why does it say that "not one locust remained?" Rabbi Yochanan said "Because the Egyptians rejoiced when the locusts came, saying 'Let us gather and fill up barrels with them.'

וַיּהֲפֹךְ ה' רוּחַ יָם, מַהוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אַרְבֶּה אֶחָד, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא אַרְבֶּה שָׂמְחוּ הַמִּצְרִיִּים, אָמְרוּ נִקְבֹּץ וּנְמַלֵּא מֵהֶם חָבִיּוֹת

Locusts were (and in some places are) a delicacy, and so the Egyptians saw an opportunity in the destructive onslaught of the locusts for some fine dining. And it may certainly be that this is a redeeming factor among the Egyptians, for although they brought great evil upon the Jews they at least sought to minimize their own suffering and to "turn lemons into lemonade." It attests to the human will to survive, which is part and parcel of what it means to be "made in the Image of God."

Further, we cannot completely ignore the attempts of even evil people with evil motivations to find construction within destruction, and we may even learn from them. For as we know, the Midrash says that although the people who built the Tower of Babel were, in their minds, declaring war on God, their one redeeming factor was their express unity with each other in this literally misdirected endeavor. To this end we may appreciate the attempts of the Egyptians to improve their dismal situation in any way they knew how. Contrast this with the behavior of the generation of Noach, who manipulated and cheated each other, for which God brought destruction upon the entire face of the earth in contrast to one lone edifice in the generation of Babel.

But therein lies the rub - it is not always appropriate to look for the good in the bad. This is specifically true when God is sending the bad for the purpose of inspiring repentance, which was one of the reasons for the ten plagues. So while it is generally true that one should look for whatever good he can find in whatever difficulties he experiences, sometimes the most appropriate action is to pause, think, and introspect as to what may be causing him to experience this particular set of hardships, and to plot out a plan of reconciliation and improvement.

The continutation of that Midrash is as follows:

The Holy One, Blessed is He, said, 'Evil ones! This plague that I brought upon you, and you rejoice in it,' He immediately reversed a very strong wind," this is an easterly wind. "And picked up the locusts." What does it mean that "not one locust remained?" Even those that were in their jars and barrels, which were pickled, flew away and went away, and God hardened Pharoah's heart.

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רְשָׁעִים בַּמַּכָּה שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי עֲלֵיכֶם בָּהּ אַתֶּם שְׂמֵחִים, מִיָּד וַיַּהֲפֹךְ ה' רוּחַ יָם חָזָק מְאֹד, זֶה רוּחַ מַעֲרָבִית. וַיִּשָֹּׂא אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה וגו', מַהוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אַרְבֶּה אֶחָד, אֲפִלּוּ מַה שֶּׁהָיוּ בַּקְּדֵירוֹת וּבֶחָבִיּוֹת מְלוּחוֹת פָּרְחוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם, וַיְחַזֵּק ה' אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה

And now the folly of the Egyptians becomes clear, as it says in Koheles (Ecclesiastes), "A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones." (Koheles 3:5) By their frenzied focus on gathering as many barrels of locusts as possible they missed the meaning of the experiences that was right in front of their faces - the call to teshuva, repentance.

The Pirkei Avos (Ethics of the Fathers) says,

"Ben Zoma says, 'Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it says (Psalms 119:99), 'From all my teachers I gained understanding...'"

בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר, אֵיזֶהוּ חָכָם, הַלּוֹמֵד מִכָּל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קיט) מִכָּל מְלַמְּדַי הִשְׂכַּלְתִּי כִּי עֵדְוֹתֶיךָ שִׂיחָה לִּי

Genesis 2 - What Really Happened on the Third Day?

July 19 2020 - Tammuz 27 5780

The Summary

1. Contradiction between Genesis 2:1 and Genesis 2:5
2. Rashi's resolution of the contradiction
3. The Rabman's refutation of Rashi's resolution
4. The Ramban's resolution
5. Practical application

The Contradiction

Genesis 2 seems to start off with a good old fashioned contradiction between two verses:

---

Now the heavens and the earth were completed and all their host. And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the seventh day from all His work that He did. (Genesis 2:1-2)

.וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם. וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה

---

Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil. (Genesis 2:5)

וְכֹ֣ל | שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכָל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה:

---

The former verse says that God completed creating everything by the seventh day (including the trees, which were created on the third day), but the latter verse says that the trees had not yet been created.

Back to the the topics

Rashi's Resolution

Rashi resolves the contradiction as follows:

... neither did any herb of the field yet grow: [I.e.,] had not yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written: “Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח - עדיין לא צמח, ובשלישי שכתוב ותוצא הארץ, על פתח הקרקע עמדו עד יום ששי: - כי לא המטיר: ומה טעם לא המטיר, לפי שאדם אין לעבוד את האדמה ואין מכיר בטובתם של גשמים, וכשבא אדם וידע שהם צורך לעולם התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים:

Back to the the topics

The Ramban's Refutation

The Ramban notes that Rashi seems to have overlooked the literal reading of the verse:

Neither did any herb of the field grow (Bereishit Rabbah), ibid Chulin 60 says "they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day" after it had rained. In my opinion this verse should be understood according to its literal meaning; on the third day the earth brought forth herbage and fruit-bearing tree in their places and to their types as they were commanded, and now the Torah says that there was nobody to till and sow and that they did not sprout until the mist rose from the ground to water it, and until Man was created to work the land and till and sow and guard it.

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה על דעת רבותינו (בבראשית רבה) עיין חולין ס בשלישי עמדו על פתח קרקע הארץ ובששי צמחו לאחר שהמטיר עליהם ועל דעתי כפי הפשט כי בשלישי הוציאה הארץ העשב ועץ הפרי בקומותם וצביונם כאשר צותה בהם ועכשיו יספר הכתוב כי אין נוטע וזורע מהם והיא לא תצמח עד אשר עלה אד ממנה והשקה אותה ונוצר .האדם העובד אותה לזרוע ולנטוע ולשמור

Back to the the topics

The Ramban's Resolution

The Ramban settles the contradiction with the following:

The explanation is as follows: the reason that the verse said "neither did any herb of the field yet grow" instead of "herb of the earth" is that the word field refers to the domain of Man's work. See Exodus 23:16 (... which you will sow in the field...), and Numbers 20:17 (... we will not pass through fields or vineyards...). This is the purpose of the world made after the six days of creation onward forever due to the mist the rain fell from the skies, which caused the earth to sprout forth its seeds.

וזהו טעם "שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח" שלא אמר "שיח האדמה" כי המקום הנעבד יקרא שדה אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה (שמות כג טז) לֹא נַעֲבֹר בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם (במדבר כ יז) וזהו תשמישו של עולם שנהיה מאחרי ששת ימי בראשית והלאה כל ימי עולם כי בסיבת האד ימטירו השמים ובסבתם הארץ זירועיה תצמיח:

In other words, both verses are true (Genesis 1 and Genesis 5). The word "earth" and "field" are two different domains. Earth is occupied by plants and animals, who do not need to pray for rain to receive it - it is a free gift. "Field" is a separate domain occupied by Man and is a sub-set of "earth." It connotes labor and indicates his need to pray for sustenance and can be understood by modern man as "the workplace." Genesis 1 tells us that the rain that fell on the third day was limited to the domain of the earth. God withheld the rain from the field until the 6th day when He created Man, who prayed for it.

Back to the the topics

The Application

The word "field" corresponds to our modern workplace, the way we make our livings. Note that Isaac went to pray in the field, indicating that our livelihood is associated with, and dependent on, our prayers. This may serve to argue against the idea that these two domains (work and spirituality) need to be mutually exclusive.

And Isaac went forth to pray in the field towards evening, and he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were approaching. (Genesis 24:63)

(בראשית כב:סג) וַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּ֥ה גְמַלִּ֖ים בָּאִֽים

Note that the word שִׂ֣יחַ means both "tree/herb" and "discussion," translated as "prayer" in Jewish sources.

Back to the the topics

Don't Meet the Neighbors

The concept of being influenced by the people around you and the society in which you live is a recurring theme in the Torah. Perhaps the first example of this is found in parasha Vayera where Avraham pleads on behalf of Sodom. The sinful nature of that community prevented the development of any righteous people, save for perhaps Lot and his nuclear family.

And Abraham approached and said, 'Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked? Perhaps there are fifty righteous men in the midst of the city; will You even destroy and not forgive the place for the sake of the fifty righteous men who are in its midst? Far be it from You to do a thing such as this, to put to death the righteous with the wicked so that the righteous should be like the wicked. Far be it from You! Will the Judge of the entire earth not perform justice?" And the Lord said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous men within the city, I will forgive the entire place for their sake.'" (Genesis 18:23-26)

Even after Avraham's heartfelt and eloquent beseeching to God on behalf of a community that probably didn't deserve it, alas it seems that it had fallen below the "unredeemable" threshold and was destined for destruction.

This theme is also active in the parsha of Korach, in which the jealous and zealous Levitical scholar mastermind managed to recruit a hefty 250 rabbinical authorities to confront Moshe Rabbeinu and (im)politely ask him to relinquish his position as head prophet.

Dothan and Aviram, who were not Levites, but from the tribe of Reuven, were among the people pulled into this rebellion. Rashi explains that the geographical proximity of their encampment to Korach's was the main reason for their aquiesence:

Since the tribe of Reuben was settled in the south when they camped, thus being neighbors of Kohath and his children who were also camped in the south, they joined with Korah in his rebellion. Woe to the wicked, and woe to his neighbor! (Numbers 16:1)

They should have run like Forrest.

Yeridas Hadoros

July 5, 2020 - 13 Tammuz 5780

Introduction

In Judaism there is a concept, or doctrine, known as yeridas hadoros, which roughly translates to “generational decline.” The concept of yeridas hadoros refers to the decline in humanity’s spiritual level over the passing of time. More specifically, it states that this decline began from the moment that the Torah was given and has continued, and will, until the Mashiach comes. The outcome of this process is the intensification of everything negative that you can think of attributed to human behavior and thought; the onset of idolatry, loss of moral direction, increased violence, and self-aggrandizement, etc. This decline occurs on both the social and personal level, affecting communities and individuals, and ultimately the entire human population. Moreover, there is no way to fully inoculate yourself against it, although steps can be taken to protect yourself against the effects in some capacity.

The Contradiction

The weekly portion of Noach starts with the verse:

These are the generations of Noah, Noah was a righteous man, he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God (Genesis 6:9).

.אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ (בראשית ו:ט)

The commentator, Rashi, focuses on the verse’s usage of the words “in this generations” to mean the following:

Some of our Sages interpret it [the words “in this generations”] favorably: How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. Others interpret it derogatorily: In comparison with his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered of any importance. [Sanhedrin 108a, Genesis Rabbah 30:9, Tanchuma Noach 5]

Rashi’s second opinion above (in which it is understood derogatorily) seems to violate the concept of yeridas hadoros in action. The verse states that Noach was a righteous man, righteous enough, for the record, to warrant preserving him and his family and the entirety of the world along with him. However, in a comparison between himself and Noach, this opinion states that he would not have amounted to anything. And yet, according to yeridas hadoros, Abraham, who lived a full ten generations after Noach, would have been a product of the negative influence of his day. It therefore seems impossible that Avraham could have been more righteous than Noach, which is a violation of our current understanding of yeridas hadoros.

To better understand this I have put together the following visual model of yeridas hadoros:

---

---

The descending rectangles represent generations, with the top and bottom of each representing the possible range of movement within a given generation. Notice that although Avraham may have been spiritually greater than Noach in an absolute sense, that the ceiling in Noach's generation was higher than in Avraham's. This means that technically speaking Noach could have become a greater tzaddik than Avraham.

The Resolution

It seems likely that this is what Rashi means when says, "How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous [than Abraham]." The influence of the righteous people in his generation would have pulled him to greater heights than he was able to reach on his own, and he would have surpassed Avraham.

This model also explains the converse opinion, namely how a person living in a later generation can become more righteous than a person who lived in a previous one. Notice that even though Noach was the most righteous person in his generation, that as long as he has not reached the ceiling of his generation it is possible for him to be less righteous than someone in a later generation, namely Abraham. This must be the correct way to understand Rashi’s second statement in light of the concept of yeridas hadoros. Further, because Rashi says that had they both lived in the same generation that Noach “would not have been considered of any importance,” Noach would probably appear much lower in his generation than the model above shows.

Summary

To summarize, this model seems to fully explain both of Rashi's views while complying with the demands of yeridas hadoros. The spiritual ceiling in Noach's generation was higher than in Avraham's, and the presence of other tzaddikim in Noach's generation could have led him to surpass Avraham. However, because Noach's generation was void of tzaddikim other than Noach, he was pulled down to a level lower than the greatest tzaddik of a later generation.

The phenomenon of negative influence is a recurring theme in the Torah.

Polytheism- Theological Fragmentation

July 3, 2020 - 11 Tammuz 5780

Polytheism is a more extreme version of theological refraction, and is more accurate to refer to it as theological fragmentation. The metaphor of the mirror was useful in describing the process of theological refraction, so here will use a similar metaphor of a prism to explain polytheism.

Light itself can be used as a metaphor for explaining how both polytheism and idolatry began. The light that emanates from the sun is described as white light, and its wavelength is the only one that the human eye can detect. When this light passes through an object that refracts light, such as a prism, it is fragmented into its wavelengths. The human eye naturally recognizes seven wavelengths (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet), but the total amount of wavelengths is much greater.

This process of the fragmentation of light is useful in understanding how polytheism works. In the Mishna Torah, the Rambam describes polytheism as having its roots in the universal recognition of the existence of the One True God. He in fact describes it as a process whereby individual, charismatic leaders first formulated a system of honoring God by venerating the elements of nature, such as the sun and the moon. This gradually devolved into systems that attributed divinity to the forces of nature and began worshiping them in-and-of themselves.

Theologically speaking, the fragmentation of light is similar to the process whereby the human mind fragments its concept of God into a host of deities and divine forms. One aspect of the majority of the idols and deities native to the disparate religions of the world is their often colorful and exotic nature. It is fitting, then, that the white light that in the metaphor represents God is broken down into a seemingly endless array of colorful gods and goddesses.

While on the subject of dispersed light, it is most fitting and almost uncanny that God chose the rainbow as the very sign by which He pledged to Noah (and humanity) never to destroy the earth again by Flood. Even more interesting is that the human eye detects seven colors in the rainbow, which seems to correlate with the Seven Laws of Noah that make up the universal laws designed for the entire human race. A rainbow is the product of the same light dispersion that we have discussed up until now, as if to say "You, humanity, dispersed Me into a host of deities as light is dispersed into a rainbow, and so I will use the rainbow as both a testament to this and a reminder to you that I will never destroy the earth again as I did in the Flood." The observance of these seven commandments ensures humanity's staying on the "straight and narrow." A rainbow road.

Eerily enough, in the past decade-or-so the rainbow has become a different sort of symbol, regressively reminiscent of one of the behaviors that led to the Flood. Foresight, anyone?

Another interesting aspect of this is that while fragmented light can apparently be re-merged into its original white form using two prisms, simply mixing the same colors that emerge as a result of fragmentation cannot. As any artist will tell you, the more colors you mix, the closer you get to black, not white. This means that the process cannot be reversed by combination, because attempting to do does not actually reunite the wavelengths. In line with our metaphor, we can thus say that combining all of the religions that emerged from this original fragmentation does not produce our original understanding of God, but instead leaves us with black. The color white is produced when an object refracts all light that hits it, and black is produced when it absorbs all of the colors. Therefore, white is produced by refracting light back to its source, while black is produced by absorbing and consuming everything into itself.

He Has Seen No Perversity in Israel

He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship. (Numbers 23:21)

לֹֽא־הִבִּ֥יט אָ֨וֶן֙ בְּיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹֽא־רָאָ֥ה עָמָ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהָיו֙ עִמּ֔וֹ וּתְרוּעַ֥ת מֶ֖לֶךְ בּֽוֹ (במדבר כג כא)

A very strange thing for God to say right after the Jews fell into the disgusting sin of worshiping Ba'al Pe'or en mass, and with such gusto among some of them!

The Nesivos Shalom notes this peculiarity, and even sharpens the point by quoting the Talmud:

Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is forgiving [vateran] of transgressions, his life will be relinquished [yivatru], as it is stated: “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

אמר ר' חנינא כל האומר הקב"ה ותרן הוא יותרו חייו שנאמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט

According to the Sefaria website, "In other words, God does not waive heavenly justice."

It certainly seems that God is waiving some serious heavenly justice right about now.

The Nesivos Shalom explains how God could have, can, and does look away from, grotesque behavior:

Even though an individual's evil inclination may overpower him and render him incapable of resisting, his heart is nevertheless broken within him and fills him with remorse. [This happens] because he knows that this transgression will push him away from God. Even while in the midst of committing the transgression, Hashem, his God, is with him and his heart is ripped to pieces. This is the type of sin from which The Holy, Blessed Be He looks away, for He knows all secrets; He knows that his heart is broken and defeated.

שגם זה שיצרא בישא מתגבר עליו ואינו יכול לעמוד בפניו במעשה, הרי גם אז לבו שבור בקרבו ומלא יסורי מצפון שיודע כי ע״י עבירה זו מתרחק מהקב״ה, וגם בעת המעשה העבירה ה׳ אלוקיו עמו ולבו נקרע לגזרים על זה, ועל חטא כזה לא הביט השי״ת, שיודע תעלומות יודע לבבו הנשבר הנדכא.

Even though many Jews (24,000) succumbed to the heinous sin of worshiping Ba'al Pe'or and all that it entailed, God still included the verse "He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel" in the Torah. Were it not for this explanation it would be hard to understand how this verse could possibly have been included here.

Public Sins

Background

I have taken this passage from the book Touching Heaven Touching Earth; Hassidic Humor and Wit published by Sadan Publishing House Ltd. in 1976. This amazing book is a compilation of chassidish stories compiled by Rabbi Shmuel Avidor HaCohen.

One of the short stories is called "Public Sins" and says the following:

"R. Mendel of Kotzk used to say: 'I have not succeeded in teaching my disciples never to sin, and only to perform good deeds. However, I have managed to make them different from other people. Most perform their good deeds in public and their transgressions in private, but my Hassidim perform their transgressions in public and their good deeds in private.'" [My emphasis added.]

Synposis

R. Mendel of Kotzk (also known by the appellation The Kotzker Rebbe, or The Kotzker) starts by admitting what he acknowledges to be a fault: "I have not succeeded in teaching my disciples never to sin..." The Kotzker, who was a righteous man, would have ideally liked if his Hassidim never sinned.

However, he quickly turns to an aspect of their imperfection, which, in a strange and unintentional way, demonstrates their elevated avoda:

• Most [people] perform their goods deeds in public - most people seek to outwardly demonstrate their righteousness. The purpose of this is to tell themselves and others that they are worthy of admiration.
• ...and their transgressions in private - yet behind closed doors they behave according to their true desires, an expression of their true self.
• ...but my Hassidim perform their transgressions in public - true, they are not free of transgressions.
• ... and their good deeds in private - yet behind closed doors they too behave according to their true desires, an expression of their true self. Because they receive no social recognition for their hidden behavior it is an expression of their innermost desires and is beloved by God.

Isaiah 29:15 says, "Woe to those who think deeply to hide counsel from the Lord, and their deeds are in the dark. And they said, 'Who sees us and who knows us?'"

During Shachris we say the following:

.לְעולָם יְהֵא אָדָם יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם בְּסֵּתֶר וּמודֶה עַל הָאֱמֶת וְדובֵר אֱמֶת בִּלְבָבו

May Man always fear Heaven in private and public and speak the truth in his heart.

Constructive vs. Destructive Criticism

The parsha of Korach introduces us to a member of the Jewish nation who sought to usurp Moshe Rabbeinu's position as leader. Under the guise of a call to equality among the entire nation, careful attention to his words indicates that he in fact was driven by jealousy and a twisted understanding of truth.

Nevertheless, his striking accusation contained an element of truth. "They assembled against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, 'You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord's assembly?'" (Bamidbar 16:3) The entire nation was holy, and God did reveal His Will to the whole nation en masse. As it says in Mekhilta D'Shira, "The Rabbis of the Talmud said, 'At the sea, the maidservant saw even what the prophet Ezekiel the son of Buzi did not see.'"

I must admit that I find myself temporarily wooed by Korach's emotionally-charged reasoning. However, I snap myself out of his hypnotic argument and consider the bigger picture.

For instance, in addition to the content of this accusation, the manner in which something is said and the words used make the difference between night and day. Take, for example, Yisro's (Jethro's) famous counsel to Moshe Rabbeinu: "Why do you sit by yourself, while all the people stand before you from morning till evening?'" (Shemos 18:14) Is it just me, or does it sound like Yisro is presenting a challenge to authority as well? Taking this verse in isolation from the context there is room to notice a similar challenge to Moshe Rabbeinu's leadership.

What Yisro's and Korach's points had in common was the need for Moshe Rabbeinu to divide and distribute his authority to the rest of the congregation. Where they differ, however is in their motivation: Yisro envisioned a judicial multi-tier system with Moshe Rabbeinu acting as the "supreme court." Korach envisioned deposing Moshe Rabbeinu and enacting a complete redistribution of his unique state to everybody in the nation. The difference is that Yisro's vision sought redistributing power in a constructive manner, whereas Korach's was destructive in nature.

This observation may be used in successfully navigating a number of social and professional scenarios. In our dealings with our families and friends, and in larger environments such as work, this difference can be used as a methodology of constructiveness. Do we seek to build up and engage all members of the whole, or do we seek to topple and liquidate the existing structures to forcefully replace them with our own expectations?