Miller's Musings Parshas Pinchos: Zeal or no Zeal

בס''ד

Pinchos, the paradigm of zeal, steps into the fray when no one else seems willing to do so.  Seeing a prince amongst the Jewish people committing acts of depravity, he sees no other choice but to assassinate the two wrongdoers immediately, so as to preserve and restore the honour of Hashem.  As explained by Reb Eliyohu Miskovski, Hashem tells Moshe what has happened and in doing so refers to Pinchos as the one who was “zealous for his G-d”, which may lead us to wonder why Hashem refers to the action as specifically “ for his G-d”, rather than “for your G-d” or indeed “for Me”?

A Jewish life is full of moments that require rigid governance and teachings, dictating precisely how we should act, all providing meaning to even the most mundane of activities.  Yet there are times that necessitate us to react in a way that cannot be instructed but require the urge from within.  An act of zeal is just such an action and is entirely dependent on that person having the personal unadulterated, wholehearted desire to do what is right.  This is not something that can be taught for if most would do as, for example, Pinchos did, upon a command, it would not stem from such pure yearning for the honour of Hashem but from some other selfish motive.  His slaying of these people was referred to as being done “for his G-d” because it was only in his particular case, with his particular relationship with Hashem, that the choice he made be one that was commended and ultimately rewarded.

A zealot is not usually considered a positive description of a person.  It seems to imply one who acts beyond what is reasonable in a manner which is hasty and without judicious thought.  The message of Pinchos is that a true zealot is one who does what no one else will, not because they are taking things too far, but because their personal conviction compels them to do so.   This is something we can all strive for, to believe in something with such strength and passion that it is simply impossible for us to stand by and observe without protesting.  It must always of course be within the confines of the Torah’s view, but to act in a manner that reveals how sincerely we believe in something, is perhaps the greatest proof to our lives being more than just living, but one in which we genuinely look for meaning and fight for a purpose.  Indeed, to be a zealot may be the best evidence that we are truly alive. 

May we experience Shabbos with passion and zeal. 

לעילוי נשמת לאה בת אברהם

Miller's Musings Parshas Bolok: Yes, There is Such a Thing as Can't

בס''ד

When making an expensive purchase you would do well to read the warnings that come with it.  If you are lax in this area, you surely only have yourself to blame if things go awry.  So when Bilom fails to curse the Jewish people, it seems rather iniquitous for Bolok, his employer, to react with the furious anger he exhibits, when Bilom had from the onset forewarned him of his inability to go against the will of G-d.  Why then did Bolok react with such indignation to something he was made aware of when he instigated this assignment?

I’m sure we’ve all heard the assertion, “There’s no such thing as can’t”. In actuality, as explained by the Beis Halevi zt’l there are two types of ‘can’ts’. If someone is offered some money to go to their Rabbi and pull his beard, one hopes their response would be “I can’t”.   A similar response would be evoked if the goal would this time be to jump a twenty foot high wall, yet the difference between them is stark and critical.  In the first instance, it is indeed possible for him to perform this act, and perhaps a large enough wager could induce him to do so, it is just that given the effects that such an action would produce, he feels he cannot do it.  In the second case, no matter what incentives would be offered, he is simply unable to achieve that feat.  When Bilom declared that he can’t curse the Jews if G-d did not desire it should be so, Bolok understood it to be the first kind of ‘can’t’, which led to his ire after supplying sufficient funds to outweigh any personal inconvenience, when in actuality the ‘can’t’ was the second type.

Life is full of challenges.  It is why we are here.  Our response to those trials is more often than not hinged not on our ability to overcome them, but on our attitude to doing so.  So often we tell ourselves that we ‘can’t’ prevail over such overwhelming desires or influences, when in essence ‘I can’t’ is in actuality a case of ‘I won’t’.  Are we really unable to resist this temptation or is the thought of the pleasure to irresistible?  Can we really not say no or are we just scared of the social consequences of our non-compliance?  These are questions we must ask ourselves and require personal integrity and an introspective look for inner truth.  Ultimately we must question whether ‘I can’t’ is really ‘I won’t’.

May Shabbos infuse us with the desire to strive forward. 

לעילוי נשמת לאה בת אברהם

Miller's Musings Parshas Chukas: The Why and the What

 

בס''ד

Miller’s Musings חֻקַּת פרשת   

It is an indubitable fact that the Poro Aduma is one of the most inexplicable mitzvos in the Torah.  Why mixing the ashes of a burnt red cow with spring water and other seemingly random ingredients should affect such a change in a person, from being impure after touching a human corpse to being spiritually pure again, seems to defy logic and remain impenetrable.  In fact this mitzvo is chosen as the archetype of those mitzvos, chukim, that seem to transcend rationale reason, in which case we need to understand why it is that this particular mitzvo is chosen, when there are many others, such as sha’atnez, that are equally inscrutable

When we think of a chok we usually think of a mitzvo that seems arbitrary and random, when in truth our lives are also full of chukim, events and circumstances that seem to have no rhyme or reason.  There are many times we experience moments that run entirely opposed to our view of how the world should run and what is deserved or not.  The Red Heifer was brought as an antidote to someone’s contact with death and perhaps we could suggest that the reason it is used as the quintessential chok is to acknowledge that when it comes to our own existence there are things that we will never understand, the most unfathomable perhaps being death.    

Since time immemorial tragedy has befallen mankind, be it personal or collective.  To try to understand why it happens is an exercise in futility and something that will always be beyond a being whose grasp of the panorama of history is so constrained.  The death of a person creates a void in the world that leaves those in touch with it with a spiritual vacuum.  The manner in which it is healed is so perplexing, perhaps to tell us that it is ok that we don’t understand it.  This is how it is meant to be.  It takes something extraordinary, an incredible leap of faith, and perhaps a little humility, to restore our sense of acceptance of our place in the world.  This should in no way impinge upon our own humanity, our tremendous sympathy to those who have been so appallingly wronged, but we must also recognise our role is not to question why or how, but to question what we can do to make this world a better place for all within it. 

May Shabbos provide comfort and peace for all of us. 

לעילוי נשמת לאה בת אברהם

Miller's Musings Parshas Korach: Creation of Destruction

בס''ד

It’s not every day that a great chasm in the ground opens up and swallows a group of people alive.  When Moshe warns of its arrival as proof to the inaccuracy of the claims of Korach and his followers, he designates this phenomena as a “creation (that) Hashem will create”, seemingly for this one-off occurrence.  This however needs clarification, as we are told in Pirkei Ovos (Ethics of our Fathers) that this immense cavity in the earth was actually one of the entities brought into being on the first Erev Shabbos of the world’s existence.  So how can this be deemed a new creation?

One method to understanding this, brought by Reb Shimon Schwab zt’l, is in making a distinction between the actually physical reality of the pit, something which was formed soon after the dawn of time, and the event that took place, which contained within it something heretofore never having taken place.  There were of course many who, after their day of judgement, had entered the realm where punishment and purification takes place, but none who had done so, until now, whilst alive.  Korach and his cohort were the first to have endured such a fate, as witnessed by those in the Talmud who were said to hear their pleas from the abyss, and this was the new creation first fashioned at this time. 

If we can extract a message from this idea, perhaps it is in understanding the distinction between something being truly new and an altered version of something already in existence.   The manner in which they met their end may have been simply an altered version of what was already there, but it was still given the status of being a new creation.  In practice this is of relevance when there are those who seek to find new paths in Judaism.  There is a world of difference between finding new ways in which to convey the same eternal message of Hashem and modifying the message itself in order to fit in with our own biases and predilections.  Looking for new and exciting ways to present Judaism is acceptable and perhaps necessary, if they do not take us away from the timeless truths expressed in the Torah.  But if those ideas contradict and pervert the integrity of these messages, they are creations of destruction to the intentions of our Creator.

May your Shabbos be one that is true and pure. 

 

לעילוי נשמת לאה בת אברהם

Miller's Musings Parshas Shelach-Lecho: The Golden Sound

בס''ד

The tale of the spies entering Eretz Yisroel to bring back a report of the land bestowed to them by Hashem, is forever associated with ideas of duplicity, negative talk and false gossip.  Although this was true of the ten tribes who spoke ill, there were two, Colev and Yehoshua, who refused to conform to the schemes of the others.  Interestingly, although neither of these personalities participated in the slander against the land, it was only Colev who stands up and disputes the veracity of their deceit.  Yehoshua all the while remains entirely silent, curious behaviour indeed for a man that will subsequently lead this nation into the very land being defamed by his peers. 

Entering the unknown is of course always wrought with fears and doubts.  In the case of their looming entrance into Eretz Yisroel, the fear that most burdened the Jewish people arose from the prophecy that Moshe would die before they set foot in the land, with Yehoshua being his replacement.  Their faith in Moshe, his leadership and the miracles that had accompanied him throughout their journey, would cease once he has passed on.  How would they possibly face the daunting task of conquering the land without him!  It was this point that Colev stood up and contended with, reminding them that it was Hashem, and Hashem only, that was the source of all the wonders they had experienced.  For Colev to make this point was fine and appropriate.  The danger of Yehoshua disputing this notion of the relative irrelevance of Moshe in this regard, was that many may have perceived it as a form of subversion of Moshe’s rule and a clamour for honour for himself.

The need to express one’s own opinions is something that almost all of us feel.  When others state a point of view contrary to what we believe to be the reality, something inside us yearns to protest and set right was has been wronged.  Like everything in existence, there is a time for just that behaviour, but, like everything in existence, there is a time for abstention.  The faculty of remaining silent is an almost lost art today.  Yet there are moments where to speak up will bring nothing but damage to the situation.  To argue, when the one with the opposing view is firmly resolved never to change, may only bring more animosity and result in no positive effects and just because something is true, does not mean that it always must be said.  The key is of course the need to consider carefully before one speaks.  To remain silent and indifferent to that which is wrong is at times the greatest sin of all, but to speak and provoke harm, may be an equal evil.

May Shabbos be full of meaningful speech and sagacious silence. 

 

לעילוי נשמת לאה בת אברהם