The logic of the kal ve-chomer
, drawing a conclusion from a minor premise or more
lenient condition, to a major or stricter one: Our understanding of the latter is based upon
our understanding of the former, and vice versa. The positive teaches us about the
negative.
Executing the human desire to hate evil can only be fulfilled successfully, when it is
mediated by the good. Hatred of evil expressed directly, in an unmediated fashion, will
boomerang, harming the hater far more than the object of his hatred. For hatred expressed
without passing through the filter of the good strengthens man's evil side.
We must aim for hatred fueled by
dispassionate
rational awareness. Emotional
involvement endows hatred with a tangible badness. The sins must be stamped out, not
the sinners.
Amalek is the evil inclination. An incarnation
of the source of all evil. Just as the evil inclination can be made
subservient to the good one, so too can man choose to relate to evil
via his focus upon the good. Choosing to confront evil head on is
not only unproductive but also downright harmful. Good must be
enlisted to deal with it. Thus, HaKadosh Baruch Hu's obliteration of
Amalek results from man's initiative in stamping it out, an awakening of the lower realm
instigating the actions of the upper realm. By
grappling with the [evil] inclination.
Moses employed a kal
ve-chomer in order to determine that he must separate from his
wife (See Shabbat 87a) … What was the content of his derashah? He
performed a kal ve-chomer to elucidate his own status. He
declared: "If the Israelites with whom the Shekhinah only
spoke on one occasion, and He set an appointed time [thereof], were
commanded in the Torah "so be ready … do not come near a woman"[Ex
19:15], I, Moses, with whom the Shekhinah converses
constantly, and sets no affixed time, should all the more so [always
be ready - not come near a woman]." Moses employed a kal
ve-chomer. Therefore, Miriam's punishment for talking about
Moses was expressed through a kal ve-chomer. [Moses
prayed:] "O G-d, please, heal her!"[Ex 12:13] The Holy One, blessed
be He, taught him how to employ a kal ve-chomer: "If her
father were to spit in her face, would she not be ashamed for seven
days; kal va-chomer, even more so, when the
Shekhina [does so, she should be ashamed] for fourteen
days. However, the logical inference drawn by the kal
ve-chomer
cannot surpass the severity of
the original law; therefore, shut her out of the camp for seven days."(Sifre 12:14)
We may utilize what we know about the good to learn about evil
by employing the logic of the kal ve-chomer. For instance,
the Torah relates: "Behold, the children of Israel have not listened
to me, how then shall Pharoah heed me"(Ex 6:12). Rashi comments upon
this verse: "This is one of ten instances of kal va-chomer
in the Torah." The verse teaches us that Moses employed a kal
ve-chomer
comparing Pharoah to the Israelites in order to
substantiate his request that HaKadosh Baruch Hu punish him. If the Israelites have fallen
into the slimy deep as a result of their having descended to the forty-ninth gate of
spiritual impurity than how much greater should be Pharoah's punishment for he will
certainly not heed Moses as his wickedness has even caused HaKadosh Baruch Hu to
endow him with "uncircumcised lips".
Hashem warns Laban in a dream at night: "Beware of saying anything to Jacob either
good or bad"(Gen 31:24). A warning advising Laban to break all contact, to cease all
relations, with Jacob whether they stem from good or evil intentions. Laban's punishment
is being cut off from Jacob, even though he wished to uproot all that Jacob had worked
for and stood for, as the verse relates "An Aramean wished to obliterate my father"(Deut
26:5). This notwithstanding we are not enjoined to hate him as we are to hate Amalek.
For Laban wished "to uproot", to cut off; however, Amalek picked a fight with the
Israelites because it desired to plot against them while remaining adjacent, joined to
them. Like Esau, the wicked, Amalek's entire being is rooted in the verse "and his hand
grasped Esau's heel"(Gen 25:26).
It is well known that Esau hates Jacob; eternally, on any occasion, in any place, at any
time. Whether out of jealousy or out of disdain. This axiom has become common
knowledge; Esau is always adjoined to Jacob, to the point where Esau's entire being is
fed and nourished by this hatred. As if, Esau's very existence depends on it; for if he
ceased to hate, he would cease to exist.
The nation of Israel must employ the logic of
the kal ve-chomer
to learn from Esau's
eternal vigilance, his total devotion to his twisted passion. Jacob must cleave to the good
with devotion and eternal vigilance so that he can defend himself from Esau and provide
the antidote for the ill effects of his sting. For the poison of the serpent is the evil
inclination. The Gemara relates in Pesahim 53b:
For what reason did
Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah deliver themselves into the fiery
furnace in order to sanctify Hashem's name? They employed a kal
ve- chomer
comparing themselves to the frogs [in Egypt]: If the frogs which are not
commanded to sanctify Hashem's name, are described by the verse as "and they
shall come and enter your house … and ovens and kneading troughs"; When are
the kneading troughs found near the oven? When the oven is hot. We who are
commanded to sanctify Hashem's name should certainly do so.
In other words,
kal ve-chomer, speaking in relative terms, lends quality
a certain weight.
We must carry out a comparison that enhances our knowledge of the two components by
employing our intellect which can contrast the two in all-encompassing fashion. Our
deliberations cannot be fuelled by unmediated emotion that cannot but fail to comprise
the entire range of principles and values.
In the haftorah
for Parshat Zakhor, King Saul, who was a Benjaminite, is described in the
following verse: "And he was head and shoulders above the people"(1 Samuel 10:23).
The Gemara in Yoma 22b relates:
Why didn't Saul's royal line continue to reign? Because it had no skeletons in the
closet. For Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotsadak:
No one may be appointed communal administrator unless he has a monkey on his
back. So that if he becomes arrogant, we can say to him: "Turn around [and see
what's behind you]!"
Saul was descended from Rachel's children. She was wholly righteous so Saul could not
hope to defeat Amalek. For the same reason, Leah was destined for Esau specifically
because she possessed both Laban's essence and the ability to mend it within her. Saul
did not possess the ability to relate to evil via the absolute good that characterized him.
Likewise, we lack the ability to relate to Laban, who wished to uproot all that Jacob had
worked and stood for, and we have no need of him.
We cannot defeat Amalek until the Righteous Redeemer comes and renders halakhic
rulings to act as a counterweight to the well-known principle that Esau hates Jacob. For
the commandment to wipe out Amalek should only be understood from a halakhic
perspective. At that time, Israel will be bathed in the light of complete repentance,
scraped clean of its sins; only from this perspective can Israel relate to the evil which has
its source in the serpent, that is to say, in Amalek.
The Connection
Between Parshat Tetzaveh and Parshat Zakhor
Moses name is not mentioned explicitly in this Torah portion even though herein he is
crowned Commander-in-Chief. "You shall command,"(Ex 27:20) - not Me. "And they
will bring pure olive oil to you"(Ex 27:20) – to you. For the curse of a righteous man,
even when it is stated conditionally, has effect; Moses declared "but if not, erase me from
your book which You wrote"(Ex 33:32).
We must add that since Moses uttered this declaration as a sign of his absolute devotion
to the nation of Israel, he was worthy of implanting within them the injunction of
obliterating Amalek. The merit of his fiery love enabled them to perform out of love what
they had accepted out of awe. Only after reaching the level of that love which broadens
our horizons and encompasses Creation could they grapple with Haman and those like
him. For awe only diminishes our horizons. Joshua only managed to weaken the
Amalekites; he could not wipe them out once and for all. For the Jews had allowed their
grasp on Torah to weaken, and they were no longer operating upon the principle of love
which leads to complete attachment to G-d and even to sacrificing one's life. For only
through total devotion to G-d could they overcome such evil.
In Parshat
Tetzaveh the priestly garments are discussed in great detail. An
encounter between the holy and the mundane (chol) takes
place, completing each of them. During this process man fashions the
holy into garments. Out of all his surroundings, clothing provides
man with the most direct and intimate expression of himself.
Therefore, it is only natural that clothing be personally tailored
to fulfill its wearer's desires. In reaching this fit, man has a
partner, the Creator of the World, Himself. This partnership
testifies to man's acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, as man partners
with G-d, partners (not acts subserviently) by identifying with the
will of Hashem. The weights and measures used by the Torah on
matters relating to the Mishkan
, in particular, and the commandments, in
general, bring to realization G-d's meaning and actualize His presence in the world. The
divine presence is manifested exclusively in the exacting frameworks of man's
surroundings.
The
Laws of Nature - Subservient to G-d's Laws:
As the verse relates: "If you carefully heed the voice of the Lord, your G-d, doing what is
upright in his eyes, listening to His commandments and keeping all His laws – then I will
not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I am the
Lord your healer"(Ex 15:26). If you make Hashem's laws your own, you will no longer
be subservient to the laws of nature.
From this we learn that man needs limitations
leading him to a defined sense of belonging. To establish this he
requires discipline and boundaries; however, these do not interfere
with his need for autonomy. They simply preserve his freedom within
a certain framework. Freedom and Belonging
; Freedom within the context of Belonging; Freedom
as the contents of the framework.
Translated by
Rabbi Meshulam Gotlieb
www.MGtransEd.com
|
