Myśl Żydowska do Pirke Awot 5:17

Purpose and function of the flags. 1) In order for even the most illustrious people to attain their objective in life, a mental image of their common purpose needs to remain constantly before their spiritual eye. 2) Ordinary people do not only need a mental image of their goals in order not to become distracted from them, but they require a visible symbol, illustration of such goals and purposes. The artist needs to concentrate on a model and to exclude peripheral vision so as to avoid the danger of distorting what he draws. The marksman needs to concentrate his entire field of vision exclusively on the target, if he does not want to miss. It is a fact that extremes are usually taboo in the philosophy of Judaism, and we have a string of scriptural quotations supporting the view that the golden mean is the way of life to be pursued. When concentrating on the image representing our purpose, the fact that peripheral vision is excluded, symbolises the exclusion of extremes either to the right or to the left. Whenever we polarise a particular activity, - if polarisation is for the sake of Heaven-, it becomes acceptable in G'ds eyes. Similarly, apparently negative forces, phenomena such as the angel of death, Satan, the yetzer hara, are necessary, because they fulfil a useful function and advance the cause of G'd. The Talmud Baba Batra 16, says that even Peninah's needling of her sister -in-law Chanah, was due to a constructive motivation, since it bestirred Chanah to pray for a child. (Samuel I chapter 1) Similarly, Satan, who subjected Job to all his afflictions served G'd in what he did, since otherwise Job would have appeared as more pious and devout than Abraham. (Job chapter 2) The result of employing such normally negative character traits is not a coarsening of one's personality, and does not turn us into slaves of these bad traits, but, on the contrary, it strengthens our mastery over the yetzer hara, evil impulses. This is the meaning of Baba Batra 16, saying that the angel of death kissed Chanah's feet. "He," i.e. the yetzer hara ended up as her slave, not vice versa. The fact that the angel of death=Satan= yetzer hara are identical, is proved by a string of scriptural quotations from the book of Job. Various statements in our Mishnah have to be understood in a similar vein. "Any quarrel which is for the sake of Heaven, will endure." (Avot 5,17) The meaning is that although the venue, i.e. quarrelling, is normally a forbidden venue, it does advance G'ds causes when it is employed for that purpose. (interpreting Torah) The Talmud Berachot 6, states "he who fixes a makom, spot, for his prayer, will be assisted by the G'd of Abraham. Beyond the halachic meaning, that one should have a regular spot from which to offer up prayer, the meaning is that he who concentrates on the one and only source, (makom is also a name for G'd) from which ultimately all prayers will be answered, will enjoy the help of the G'd of Abraham. When Solomon dedicated the Temple, he went to great lengths to emphasize that all prayers must be directed to the central spot, the holy of holies, the Western Wall. As we read "Here He stands behind our wall" (Song of Songs 2,9). This epitomizes what our sages had in mind when they said "anyone who fixes a spot for his prayer etc." The Kabbalists understand the aggadah that G'd has withheld the key of rain from His agents, as illustrating the idea that we must address ourselves to G'd directly for our needs. We must polarize our concentration on the source of our salvation to the exclusion of agents, assistants. Azzut, effrontery, can be a serious enough misdemeanour to result in the death penalty,- compare the Amalekite who bragged to David about having administered the coup de grace to a dying King Saul-. (Samuel II chapter 1) Halachically speaking, this act was not even culpable, since no one can be convicted of a capital crime on the basis of his own testimony. Besides, it was not even true. Nonetheless, David had the lad in question executed. The reason is that his brazenness in claiming to have killed the one whom G'd had anointed, was a conduct that deserved the death penalty. As David said to him, "your own mouth has convicted you." On the other hand, we find Yehudah ben Teyman exhorting us "be az like a leopard in fulfilling the mitzvot! (Avot, 5,23) This indicates that even normally despicable traits can on occasion be employed constructively. The whole of Psalm 20, underlines that when we concentrate on receiving aid from Jerusalem, Zion, the seat of the shechinah, we "will rise and find ourselves encouraged." Similarly, David was granted confidence when he faced Goliath. (Samuel 1,17,36). To sum up: exclusive concentration on the source of our salvation is necessary for successful completion of one's purpose. The crux of the matter is that both our observances and our studies should be lishmah, for the sake of the subject matter, for its avowed purpose. Rabbi Meir says that many attributes are conferred on the person whose preoccupation with Torah is lishmah (Avot 6,1). Since true love is based on the two people having many likes and dislikes in common, family members are apt to love one another because they have so much in common both by heredity and by common environment. True friendship also is based on this community of interests. When we act lishmah, we qualify for this community of purpose with our Creator, we become His partner, so to speak. If we do not act in this way,- though wicked people also often have much in common-, the nature of their self interest dictates a diversity of approach, competition etc. Therefore, their purposes will not be achieved in the long run. Similarly, even a Torah scholar who is motivated by selfish considerations will ultimately not achieve his goal, and does not qualify for the complimentary attributes listed by Rabbi Meir. The Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the worst kind of individual is he who studies Torah, and forsakes its path. He demonstrates thereby that whenever his goals seem attainable by other means, he neglects and abandons Torah. He is called nazuf, excommunicated. The Talmud Horiot 10, tells us that a sin committed for a pure motivation is morally superior to a mitzvah observed for unworthy motivations. The encampment of the children of Israel reflected a) the limitation placed on them at Mount Sinai, i.e. they were not to be too close to the shechinah .Therefore, the camp of the Levites as well as the camp of the priests was interposed between them and the tabernacle, b) Since they faced the tabernacle from all four directions, it made the tabernacle the central points towards which all thoughts and hopes were directed. Torah was given to Israel free of charge, just as fire, water and desert are free of charge. (Midrash Rabbah Numbers 1) Furthermore, the comparison with fire is to indicate that the "fire" of physical passions had to be sublimated by "fire" of moral and spiritual values offered by Torah. When the Jewish people saw the mountain afire without burning itself into a heap of ashes, that lesson was learned. The fire had become one of purification. Excess water in the bloodstream is apt to cool anyone's enthusiasm. It causes people to seek their fortunes by crossing the oceans. At the same time, excess fluid produces lethargy, laziness lack of enterprise. The desire for financial success (desert, earth, i.e. matter) is implanted within us as an antidote to lethargy caused by thinned out blood (watery). Just as all these three items are part of our basic make up, so the Torah has been made available free, naturally, without the need for an extraordinary effort on our part to secure its wisdom. Lo bashamayim hee, She is not in Heaven, i.e. difficult of access. Or, in the words of Maimonides, the more basic and vital our need for a life preserving element, the more readily available did G'd make such elements. He granted them indiscriminately. The Midrash relates that when Israel saw the angels and their flags, and realised their significance, they developed a desire for a similar means of preserving their concentration on the source of their welfare, i.e. G'd. They realised that without such a symbol to look at, they would not be able to sustain the lofty moral niveau they occupied at the time of the revelation. Creatures of the spiritual world are distinguished by their constancy. The weakness of creatures in this physical world of ours is their constant changeability. The Israelites had wanted to preserve as much of this constancy as possible. They sought to do this by concentrating on symbols that represented their moral purpose in this world. This is why they wanted flags. By counting the people on fixed dates, i.e. maintaining a degree of constancy, the basic changeability of human beings would be stabilised to a degree. Rosh Hashana, i.e. New Year's day, would be the date fixed to concentrate on their moral niveau. By counting people of a certain age group, excluding those who had reached the age of sixty, the annual variations in the total number of people counted would be kept to a minimum. This accounts for the fact that on several occasions, as much as 38 years apart, the Torah reports practically the same total number for all the tribes combined, excluding the tribe of Levi. The counts on the occasion when the half shekel levy was raised, and the count of the people when the tabernacle had been erected, comes out identically the same for the above mentioned reason.

However, there is a second group of people, those who lead a life totally lacking in direction and purpose, imposing no restraint on the bestial part of their nature. These people are described by Solomon (Proverbs 2,14) as "enjoying doing evil." Such people can cheer tightfistedness at the same time as they cheer wastefulness, as long as the objective of both is wicked and evil. Yotam in chapter nine of the book of Judges, describes these people when he lambasts the citizens of Shechem in the famous parable of the thornbush being elected as king of the trees. Although this category of people is united by a common denominator, they do not share unity of purpose and are therefore at odds with one another. Their apparent common purpose masks the diversity of their personal lust and depravity. The opposite is true when one observes apparent dissension among pious people, whose dissension does not concern fundamental objectives, but merely the methods to be employed in order to achieve their common objectives. Just as an oriental would honour a king by not appearing in the king's presence with his head uncovered, whereas an occidental would not appear before a king until he had first removed his headgear, the common denominator being that both desire to pay homage to the king, so pious Jews may sometimes disagree on the means of honouring G-d, but their disagreement stems from their desire to honour G-d. What unites them therefore, is far more formidable than what divides them. The opposite is true of wicked people, who are only interested in themselves, and whose union when there is such is merely organizational, not organic. Compare the discussion on “eylu ve-eylu divrey elokim chayim,” both versions are words of the living G-d and are true (Chagigah 3). This is why the Mishna in Avot 5,20 teaches that all disagreements which have as their objective the promotion of matters spiritual, will endure, meaning both parties involved will achieve their purpose. Hillel and Shammai's arguments were all centred on the desire to perform the will of G-d. This is also demonstrated in Joshua Chapter 22 after the tribes residing on the East bank of the Jordan had erected an altar. After it had become clear to the other tribes that their motivation had been pure, not divisive or idolatrous, not only was civil war averted, but good relations were restored.

The Midrash on Psalms 55,16, describes Doag and Achitofel as examples of such apparent Torah scholars whose true colours did not come to light till later, though their hearts had always harboured their wickedness. When one observes the sudden death of such people,- David says,- it reveals that the evil essence had not lost its mastery over the characteristics acquired due to Torah study and absorption of its values. These people are punished by sudden death, since they did not use Torah to refine their characters, but abused Torah to advance their egotistical goals. Korach's argument was that since everybody was holy, no one should be a leader. On the contrary, if holiness is a way of emulating G'd in Heaven, everyone in Heaven is certainly not equal, there are certainly leaders there. Why then did Korach use such a patently specious argument? His argument makes no sense at all. If everybody had been granted a degree of prophetic vision at the time of the revelation, part of the reason had been to demonstrate Moses' superiority. It demonstrated how superior Moses' relationship with G'd had been. The people had even asked him to be their go between. Arguing in favour of a leaderless society was absurd then. Therefore, it is better to understand the line "for the entire congregation is holy" as a sarcastic reference to what is supposed to have taken place at Sinai. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 1,1, "and has not sat amongst the scoffers," considers that statement as referring to the sarcastic comments Korach had made about the Jewish people. His comment then would read like this: "Enough already! have you peddled the idea of prophecy to the extent where you have convinced everyone that he is holy? Does everyone think that just because he heard the opening lines of the Decalogue from G'ds own mouth that they are prophets already? If this is indeed the message you have peddled, then why are you arrogating to yourselves superior status? The arbitrary appointment of a High Priest then is completely unjustified!" Korach's mockery is directed at three pillars of our faith then. 1) Rav lachem, enough already, questions the concept of prophecy altogether. 2) U-vetocham hashem, questions the Divine Presence, the concept of hashgachah peratit.) Madua titnassu? questions the authenticity of Torat Moshe, the specific commandments recorded in the Torah. Moses' reply, after he had been "floored," i.e. vayipol al panav, he "fell" on his face, by this challenge, is perfectly appropriate. Concerning denial of G'ds special Providence, Moses said "tomorrow morning you will see an example of that very Providence." boker ve-yauda hashem etc. (16,5) (2) Concerning the challenge to his own standing as a prophet, he says "whomsoever He will choose, He will bring close to Himself." (3) Concerning mockery of the institution of prophecy, Moses said "whosoever is holy, He will bring close." (referring to his older brother Aaron whose status as a prophet had preceded his own chronologically.) In his second statement, Moses addressed himself to the underlying motive of Korach's complaint in a more subtle manner. Ha-me-at mikem kee hivdil, are you not sufficiently aggrieved that the elevated position the Torah has granted you as Levites, prevents you from effective land ownership in the land of Canaan, that you want to assume the even heavier burden of the priesthood?" Besides, since you challenge the validity of priestly functions per se, your specific complaint against Aaron surely must hide a personal motive? Why else bother with this detail? Therefore, Moses continued, "I am convinced that you are in effect rebelling against G'd," i.e. ha-noadim al hashem, (16,11) not against us. Though you pretend to challenge our authority, you are challenging G'ds authority. The above is in keeping with what our sages taught in Avot, that any feud which is not designed to advance the cause of Heaven will not endure. However, when the objective of the argument is to further the cause of Heaven, both parties to the argument will endure. (Avot,5, 17) Since it is a fact that in either argument one side must be wrong, the statement of our sages is puzzling. Aristotele teaches that we use the terms "true" and "false" when referring to concepts of the mind. When we refer to physical phenomena or their absence, however, we use the terms "good" and "bad" respectively. Thus a statement that a triangle has three corners would be described as "true," whereas the statement that a particular triangle has four corners would be described as "false." The terms "good" or "evil" cannot be applied to such statements. We feel however, that when a concept lacks a basis in fact, it can be said to be bad. The three categories (a) true or false, (b) good or bad, and (c) extant or non-existent, are all closely intertwined. Mentioning Moses as a party to Korach's quarrel is inconceivable, since Korach had based his whole philosophy on the denial of G'ds authority, as we have explained. Since Shammai and Hillel based their respective disagreements on common ground, their respective opinions will endure, eyloo ve-eyloo divrey elokim chayim, the words of either party have been inspired by the Living G'd. Korach, whose argument was based on sheker, a lie, will, of course, not endure. The importance of the eyloo ve-eyloo concept just mentioned, is best demonstrated in Bamidbar Rabba 19, when G'd is portrayed studying the laws of the red heifer, and quotes a halachic interpretation by Rabbi Eliezer. The fact is that that opinion never became halachically accepted by the sages. Nonetheless, G'd Himself is shown as quoting it. This proves the dictum that any argument that is designed to further the cause of Heaven will endure, i.e. that even the opinion that had been rejected will merit being considered at all times. Korach's attack on the institution of prophecy proceeded as follows. He dressed the elders of the Supreme Court in garments dyed completely in techeylet azure blue, and asked Moses if these garments required tzitzit, "fringes." To Moses' reply that they did indeed require these "fringes," he scoffed, saying "how can a single blue thread accomplish something that an entire garment fails to accomplish?" What Korach was alluding to is this. Since man, nature's choicest creature, having been created in G'ds image, is equipped with the ability to know good from evil, to know what is beneficial and what is harmful, surely whatever any so-called prophetic insight could add to this knowledge would be so trivial as to be of no consequence. Moses' reply pointed out that logic, as characterised by Aristotele's concept of the golden mean, was not an infallible method to arrive at objective truths. Judaism is based on a Heavenly assist, which is symbolized by the single blue thread of tzitzit acting as the reminder that our inspiration derives from heaven. Korach's second question dealt with that of a house full of sacred texts. He wanted to know if such a house required a mezuzah, the traditional scroll containing part of the keriyat shma. Moses explained that in order for such a house to be considered sanctified, a mezuzah would still be needed. Only two passages out of a total of two hundred and seventy five passages had the power to sanctify the house. Korach challenged the authenticity of this statement, thereby challenging the principle of G'ds special Providence for the Jewish people, the second principle of Jewish faith. Korach and his sympathizers had known in advance the answer they would receive. They felt that when a group of highly placed men presented a challenge, such a challenge would be more formidable, and would be more likely to attract G'ds attention. This underlined the fact that they spurned the notion that G'd would concern himself with the wants or needs of any individual. Jewish philosophy does not hold that the whole is superior to its constituent parts, but rather that the whole is upheld by the merit of each constituent part. The story of Noach, for whose sake the earth was saved, is ample proof of the value of the individual part vis a vis the whole. Proverbs 10,25 puts it thus: "and the righteous is the foundation of the universe." The two passages contained in the mezuzah make the point that when we listen to Divine instructions, we will benefit by the special Personal Providence, and particular attention will be paid to our needs, superseding the normal bounty provided by nature. (Deut. 11, 13-21) The land of Israel will receive such special attention on a year round basis. (verse 11) There are many other such promises. The third argument presented by Korach and company, was intended to inflame the people's sense of outrage against Moses and Aaron. The subject matter was the method used to purify the Levites. Numbers 8,7, states that removal of body hair is a prerequisite for such purification. When Moses, personally, had performed this rite on Korach, he being the senior ranking Levite, the people had no longer recognised Korach minus beard etc. When asked who had done this to him, Korach accused Moses of having abused him personally in this fashion, whereas at the same time Moses had adorned his brother Aaron in the finery of the High Priest's garments. By portraying Moses as high handed, Korach hoped to convince the people that Moses had acted of his own accord. The survival of Korach's sons who did not share in their father's rebellion, demonstrated better than anything that Divine Providence acted selectively by picking only the guilty for the meting out of punishment. By demonstrating that even the most plausible sounding argument had been discredited, since those who presented it had been killed by Divine and supernatural action, the "father knows best" quality of Torah legislation was vindicated. The third point that was to be made, was to show that whereas Korach had intended to downgrade Moses and Aaron in the eyes of the people, their action had boomeranged, producing the opposite result. The greater the stature of the challenger, the more enduring the esteem in which the intended victim is held, after he has succeeded in defeating the challenge. We see therefore, that the reason the Torah first listed all the fine attributes of Korach and his assembly was to alert us to the fact that once this challenge had been disposed of, the "establishment" as it were, had emerged greatly strengthened. The twenty four types of gifts that priests are entitled to, are legislated immediately after this affair, since the prestige of the priests was now at a high, and no one would object when the latter were also rewarded for the duties they performed on behalf of the entire nation.