Excerpt Browser

This page displays the full text of excerpts.  When viewing a single excerpt, its “Share,” “Switch Article,” and “Comment” functions are accessible.

NUMBERS — 16:26 depart

NUM219 A feeling of guilt for having failed to develop one's potential is a common source of discontent. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings are indeed doomed to a lifetime of discontent. Those who blame themselves may find ultimate contentment after a reassessment of their potential. An individual whose career falls short of his original expectation need not reproach himself if the disappointment is not due to his own neglect. All that we may expect of any individual is that he do his best, no more and no less. Discord, domestic or otherwise, is an irritant as grievous as pain. Fortunately one can do much to remove this cause of discontent. If his manner and character are at fault, he must make amends and change. If another party is at fault and his remonstrances are not heeded, he can physically remove himself from the source of discord. The Bible describes in great detail the discord sowed by Korah due to his jealousy of Moses. When all attempts at reconciliation failed, an order was issued to the people: "Depart from the tents of these wicked man" [this verse]. A physical departure may restore contentment.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUMBERS — 16:30 defiantly

NUM220 The tenth level is the severity of sins whose transgressors have no share in the World to Come. All of Hashem's creations were created to bring Him glory, as the pasuk says (Yeshayahu 43:7), "All who are called by My Name and whom I created for a My glory--I formed, even made [them]." Surely, reason dictates that one who desecrates [the Name of] Hashem and disparages His word has lost all hope [for his future]. Not only has he not fulfilled what is required of him from the beginning of his formation – to honor His Name and sanctify it – – but he has actively replaced it with the opposite and desecrated His Holy Name. The pasuk puts it as follows [this and next verse]: "The person who acts brazenly… He has shown his contempt for Hashem, and that person will be cut off from among his people, for he has disparaged Hashem's word and annulled His commandments; that person will be completely cut off, his sin will remain with him." This means that [even] after the person is cut off, "his sin will remain with him"--for death will not bring him atonement and he has no share in the World to Come. That is why here the pasuk says "his sin will remain with him," which is not mentioned regarding any other prohibition whose penalty is excision. The meaning of "the person who acts brazenly" is, for example, one who commits known sins in full public view, and one who divests himself of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, even when in private, for such a person is also acting brazenly. The matter of divesting the yoke of Heaven, concerns, for example, one who denies [the injunction against] eating meat that was not ritually slaughtered, or that of eating [forbidden] animal fats and blood, or the desecration of Yom Tov. Although he is not violating any of the other mitzvos, once he has divested himself of the yoke of one injunction, he has already rebelled against the Almighty. It is true that sometimes even the righteous succumb to a particular sin, but this is entirely the result of chance circumstances, as a result of one's yetzer prevailing over him, and he fills himself with self-acrimony, subsequently becoming very careful in this regard. But one who considers divesting himself of the yoke of any one injunction [with the intent of] transgressing it whenever he so desires is referred to as "an apostate regarding one matter." We have already explained this in the First Gate of The Gates of Repentance.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUMBERS — 16:32 swallowed

NUM221 The Talmud includes many fractious disputes, in which virtually anything could be questioned, but there were some limits to this general picture of uninhibited debate. When the Sanhedrin existed, rabbis could challenge decisions in debate, even vigorously, but in practice they had to conform to the Sanhedrin’s majority ruling. (Compare, for example, M. Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9.) Furthermore, there were rules of propriety concerning how the debates themselves should be held with colleagues, and, all the more so, with teachers or parents. B. Kiddushin 29a-b, 40b; later codified in, for example, Arukh Hashulhan, Yoreh De’ah 240:12.) So, for example, rabbinic sources strive to differentiate the high level of dissent to which the Rabbis were accustomed and which they thought healthy from that of the biblical figure Korah, whose rebellion the Torah condemns. Korah’s dissent the Rabbis said, was not “for the sake of Heaven” but rather for his own power and love her victory, whereas the disputes of Hillel and Shammai were for the sake of Heaven -- that is, to identify God's will. Because that was the case, rabbinic disputes will continue for all time, but Korah’s dispute died with him. (Numbers 16:1-35). Thus disputants must argue for the right reasons while following the practice determined by the majority. These rules were enforced, for rabbinic literature speaks of Jews whose mode of dissent led the community to exclude them. These include the min (sectarian) and the apikoros (heretic). In view of the wide latitude of rabbinic debate, one can understand why there is considerable discussion in classical and contemporary literature about exactly what these people held or did that made their modes of dissent unacceptable. Rashi (1040-1105), for example, said that one feature of admissible debate is that “Neither side of the conflict cites an argument from that or of another god, but only from the Torah of our God.” (Rashi on B. Hagigah 3b, s.v. “kulan.”) In addition to such individuals, there have been groups that splintered off from the Jewish people. These include Christians, Hebrew Christians (who existed from the first through the fifth centuries), Karaites (from the eighth century to the present), and Sabbetaians (in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth). Thus, with all their commitment to pluralism, rabbis throughout the centuries have drawn some clear lines defining acceptable method and content.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUMBERS — 17:3 sinned

NUM223 (Continued from [[LEV23]] Leviticus 2:6 break GATES 421-5). It is also possible to explain this pasuk [Leviticus 25:17] as follows: "Do not be a witness needlessly against your fellowman," to testify about him regarding transgressions that you yourself have fallen prey to, just as he has. For this reason he is referred to as his "fellowman." [I.e. his compatriot in sin]. This is borne out by what is subsequently says, "Do not say, 'As he has done to me I will do to him.'" [I.e., "Just as he revealed my sins, I will reveal his same sins" (Sha'arei Teshuvah Hameforash)]. Although it is a mitzvah to expose those who have sinned against their own souls [this verse] and charlatans, yet if the sinner's wickedness is comparable to his own and his sins are like the other [Job 35:8], he must not expose the sinner publicly, since his intention in exposing the sinner's secrets are not for the good, but to rejoice over another's misfortune. Secondly--how can one not be ashamed to refer to the other's faulty deeds, when he himself holds onto them! The pasuk says (Hosea 1:4), "I will avenge the blood of Yizre'el upon the house of Yehu" [Yehu was anointed king and charged by the prophet with destroying the house of Achav (II Melachim 9:6-9), which he did (ibid., 10:11,17). Even so, Hashem avenged this act because Yehu also became a wicked king. (The family of Achav is referred to as Yizre'el, the place where they lived.)]. Observe--although Yehu performed a mitzvah by destroying the house of Achav, he bore the sin of what he had done, since he too was filled with iniquity.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
1234
Back To Top