‫פרשת שלח לך‬
The end of our Parsha tells us of the M’koshesh Eitzim, the individual who gathered
wood on Shabbos and thus violated the m’lacha of M’amer. Rashi cites the Sifrei as
saying that this section does not merely recount a particular episode, rather it reflects
on the sad state of all of B’nei Yisrael-”B’ganusan shel Yisroel diber hakasuv, shelo
shamru Yisrael ela Shabbos rishona u’vishnia ba zeh v’chil’la”. The Posuk tells us of
the unfavorable condition of our ancestors since only the first Shabbos was observed
properly and by the time of the second Shabbos, this one came and profaned it.
This Midrash gives us pause to think. This event occurred on the second Shabbos
that we were required to observe. Thus, it was either before Mattan Torah, at the time
of the command of Shabbos in Parshas HaMan or it was after Mattan Torah. In any
case the placement of this tale seems to be incorrect. Even though Rashi and Ibn
Ezra argue as to the correct historical order of the M’raglim and Korach, there seems
to be no question that these occurrences were in the second year of the Midbar and
according to the Midrash the M’koshesh was in the first year! Why then is this
account not in its correct place?
Another issue with which we must deal concerns the implications of the actions of the
individual upon the entire K’lal. We are familiar with Chazal’s statement that if B’nei
Yisrael were to have observed two (some versions state “one”, and thus hold that this
episode was on the very first Shabbos) Shabbasos then the G’ula would immediately
arrive. Why, we must ask, should all suffer because of the misdeeds of the
individual? Why should the K’lal be penalized if one sins? Is it just that there should
be collective punishment-doesn’t that violate the basic rules of fairness?
Of course, the reason why we investigate Torah is to learn what fairness and justice
really are. By virtue of the fact that we explore the values implicit in the Mitzvos as
well as in the narratives that the Torah provides we establish what in fact are the true
values. As Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch writes, “Our task is not to read what we
think into the Torah but to read out from the Torah the Divine message.” If we are
told that the profanation of the Shabbos by one individual means that B’nei Yisroel
did not observe the Shabbos then we have a statement of the nature of the value of the
individual in K’lal Yisroel and his inherent belongingness to a K’lal that is not the
same when he is not there. Thus the Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim 2/4 that the
Beis Din has the right to make special Takanos and G’zeiros for the purpose of
“l’chazek es haDas v’la’asos s’yag”, to strengthen Torah observance (in a positive
sense) and to establish a preventative guard so that the Torah will not be violated.
Additionally, the Rambam writes that “beis din makin v’on’shin shelo k’din”, they
administer punishments not according to the regular rules of penalty to which the Beis
Din adheres. Rambam explains the rationale behind these “extra-formal” powers (all
of which have their sources in Shas) by commenting: “just as a physician will
amputate a hand or a foot so that the ill individual will live so
-2Beis Din instructs, at times, to violate some of the mitzvos for a limited amount of
time in order that all of them should remain vital. This is similar to what our early
Chachamim said, ‘violate one Shabbos (for the ill individual) in order that he will
observe many Shabbasos”. The Radbaz explains that this Mashal of the Rambam
(which is not mentioned in Chazal) can only be meaningful “if we envision all of the
Jewish People as being of one body, and even if they are physically separate and
discrete individuals, since their n’shamos were all “carved” from the same source they
are considered as ‘guf echad’ since the N’shama is primary.
Yet, we are perturbed. The G’u’la is the focus of so much of our life. Not only in
Sh’moneh Esrei, and the T’fila in general, do we pray for the Redemption, often we
really sense the absence of K’dusha in our lives and how such a feeling of closeness
to Ribbono Shel ‘Olam could be revived if only we had the more tangible sense of
Hashem’s presence that the G’ula could provide. How it could it be, then, with all of
our longing that we should be deprived of so much because of what one person did?
Why should we all suffer-does not the pasuk state, “Ish b’chet’o yamusu”-one is
punished for his sins, not for those of the other.
Perhaps in answer to that question the Torah chose to place Parshas M’koshes ‘Eitzim
between the section of M’raglim and that of Korach. We all know how devastating
these two events were to us. We all know of the forty years that were decreed upon us
as we were proven to be unworthy to enter Eretz Yisrael by our ill-mannered behavior
with the spies. We all know of the harm done to the very integrity of Torah and
M’sorah by Korach and those of his ilk who wished to proclaim, “kulam k’doshim”.
We are all holy and thus there can be no hierarchical status among ‘Am Yisrael,
thereby undermining the authority of Moshe Rabbenu ‘Alav HaShalom and that of all
of M’sorah. We have no doubt as to the devastating harm that was done by both
events.
The Torah places the M’koshesh in the same continuum as M’raglim and Korach’s
rebellion to tell us that in fact there is no difference between any of them. Korach’s
rebellion did not encompass all of B’nei Yisroel, yet we know that its ramifications
were national in their scope. The M’raglim had a wider focus as each of the Sh’vatim
sent its own representative, yet there is a clear difference between the offense of the
spies and that of the people who were disheartened by them. Nevertheless, both of
these events affected all of B’nei Yisroel.
M’koshesh is placed in the very same venue to teach us that Chilul Shabbos is no less
an affront to G-d and His Torah then the rejection of Eretz Yisrael (m’raglim) or the
rejection of Hashem’s chosen leaders (the rebellion of Korach). In all of these cases
basic principles are attacked and thus the foundations of the rationale of the existence
of B’nei Yisroel are also attacked.
Thus, the Torah is telling us that not only the major events of the history books are
essential for our understanding of the interplay between our behavior and Hashem’s
Hashgacha P’ratis, but the “minor” happenings are just as important. Perhaps it is for
this reason that the Torah chose to keep the identity of the M’koshesh hidden (see
-3Shabbos 96 where one opinion forbids uncovering that which the Torah has
unknown). The M’koshesh is Every Jew, having a intrinsic importance that impinges
upon all. It doesn’t matter if the M’Kosheh is prestigious or without significance, his
being as a Jew impacts upon us all, no less than the spies, no less than Korach.
We sometimes fall prey to discussions about “big” ‘aveiros and “small” ones, about
significant violations and those with relative unimportance. The few p’sukim of our
section remind us of the interdependence of each and every member of the K’lal and
the very high stakes that are attached to every action undertaken.
This is a message that behooves us to take with us as we learn Parshas Sh’lach L’cha.
Shabbat Shalom