Parshat Pinchas
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The first Brisker Rov, Rabbi Yushe Ber Soloveitchik (for whom the 20th century Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik – his great grandson – was named) asked a simple question.
When one studies the narratives of the Torah, there are four times when a case comes before Moshe where he has to turn to God for the halakhic answer*. These times are Pesach Sheni (Bamidbar 9), the daughters of Tzlafchad (Bamidbar 27), the blasphemer (Vayikra 24), and the wood gatherer on Shabbos (Bamidbar 15). It is interesting to note that there is debate as to the chronological order of these events, based on an assumption that the Torah is not automatically presented to us on chronological order and because sometimes tales are presented to us in the narrative thematically, connected to tales that are related to one another in their content, message or theme, but not based on their chronology.
Rabbi Soloveitchik asked, how is it that for two of these cases, Moshe essentially turned to God for an immediate answer, and in two of them he waited for a few days until God decided to give him the answer that had been evading him? Shouldn't he be looking for resolution as soon as possible in all cases?
He answers that there are two very different things going on in the cases for which Moshe sought an immediate answer than the ones that ended up following a 3-day waiting period.
In the cases of Tzlafchad’s daughters and those looking to bring the Korban Pesach, what drove them was a zeal to fulfill mitzvos. The daughters of Tzlafchad had a desire to live in and love the land of Canaan (Eretz Yisrael), and the Korban Pesach people did not want to miss out on this special mitzvah, which only comes around once a year. In these cases, Moshe was inspired to get an answer for them right away.
The other two cases involved someone who had done something against the Torah’s rules, and Moshe knew their repercussion would be death – it was just a question of which form of Misas Beis Din would be applicable.
Since in the cases of Tzlafchad’s daighters and Korban Pesach they were zerizin who were trying to be makdimin l’mitzvos, doing what they could to rush to fulfill a mitzvah properly, Moshe felt compelled to get them an answer as soon as possible. In the other two cases, Moshe felt no need to rush since rushing a “punishment” would only hasten their deaths. There is no mitzvah to rush something like that. He was happy to wait until God pronounced the judgment for each case in question.
An important lesson can be taken from this teaching as to how we relate to our fellow man. Motivation in actions should compel us to be helpful to others when appropriate and should, in other cases, cause us to wish to delay confrontation. Perhaps the delay may even give us the opportunity to be dan kl’kaf zechus (to judge favorably) if we might not have done so otherwise.
In all cases described, Moshe was unsure of the path forward, but he saw what was driving the people when the case came before him, and what seemed to be the most equitable solution. In the cases of Pesach and daughters, seeing them for who they were and what brought them to him (of their own accord) rather than their being brought to him for something they had done surely stood in their favor, as they wanted a particular outcome based on what they were experiencing. In both cases, the solution offered to them was quite equitable, reasonable, and fair.
I recall learning portions of Choshen Mishpat with Rabbi Moshe Tendler Z”L, and being rather surprised at some of the ways in which the Shulchan Arukh paints litigants in a court room as being understanding, submissive, following the rules, etc. I noted to Rabbi Tendler something to the effect of “I don’t see people conducting themselves this way, certainly not in a secular court, and in many cases not even when dealing with a Bet Din.” The way the Shulchah Arukh describes judges and the respect people are to have for the judges and their judgment seemed a little out to lunch, since it is rather atypical for someone who “loses” in court to be joyous and not to harbor ill will towards the co-litigant or the judges. And Rabbi Tendler told me, “The Shulchan Arukh assumes that Jewish people want to do the right thing and want to conduct themselves in a manner that is dictated by halakha.”
There is certainly a lot of truth to that in general, as people are careful to fulfill many aspects of ritual correctly. But I don’t know if it is true in practice when it comes to those who are on the losing side of a financial case in court. Many people may find it very difficult to walk away from losing, b’simcha, seeing the other litigant and the judges in a positive light.
And yet this is also the challenge that Moshe is sending us in demonstrating how to conduct oneself when one is unsure. When motivations are pure – seek for resolution ASAP. When motivations are not 100% pure, delay a little. Seek for compromise, seek to find a way that makes everyone happy, or at the very least content that a proper process was gone through to get to resolution. Ultimately, when someone is going to suffer, and suffering is something we’d like to delay as much as possible, we want to be aware of that outcome as a possibility and act with sensitivity to that reality.
May disputes, and clarifications in halakha, be met with proper resolution in a timely fashion, hopefully with all parties walking away feeling that justice was served and the word of God was followed.
___________
* There are other times when people point out a law to Moshe that he seems to have forgotten. For example, Aharon notes to Moshe that his sons should not be eating meat before their brothers are buried (Vayikra 10); the Rabbis tell us that Pinchas came along and killed Zimri when Moshe was standing around not knowing what to do (Bamidbar 24).
No comments:
Post a Comment