78 64
DECEMBER 16, 2021 | The Jewish Home OCTOBER 29, 2015 | The Jewish Home
From the Fire Parshas Vayechi
Bringing the Two Moshiachs Together By Rav Moshe Weinberger Adapted for publication by Binyomin Wolf
T
he Gemara in Kiddushin 81b says that when Rebbe Akiva read the pasuk (Bamidbar 30:13), “And Hashem will forgive her,” he would cry. In order to understand why that pasuk moved Rebbe Akiva, we must first understand the law of a woman who makes a vow to become a Nazira, who is forbidden to drink wine during her Nazirus period. If her husband annuls her Nazirus vow without her knowledge and she drinks wine, thinking at the time that it was forbidden, the pasuk says, “And Hashem will forgive her,” meaning that she needs atonement for her attempt to sin, even though she failed and did not actually sin. Whenever Rebbe Akiva read that pasuk, he would say, “If someone intends to eat pork but actually eats kosher meat, the Torah says that he needs atonement and forgiveness, then how much the more so does one require atonement when he intends to eat pork and succeeds in eating pork!” Similarly, Bilaam attempted to curse the Jewish people, and although Hashem transformed his curses into blessings, he was still considered a rasha, a wicked person. We see from this that even when someone doesn’t actually commit a sin, although he tried to, he is still considered guilty. Bad intentions do count, although a Bais Din cannot act on such a failed attempt to sin. Based on this principle, how can we understand Yosef’s attempt
to comfort his brother so that they would not feel guilty for selling him as a slave? He told them (Bereishis 50:20), “You planned to do bad to me, but Hashem planned it for good in order to give life to a great nation at present.” How is Yosef’s attempt to comfort the brothers valid? Hashem may have turned their “pork” into kosher meat, their Nazir wine into permitted wine, and their “curses” into blessings, but how does the fact that Hashem caused the sale of Yosef to work out for the good absolve the brothers of their evil intentions? The Ohr Hachaim, as explained by the Klei Chemda, explains that there is a difference between mitzvos bein adam l’makom and mitzvos bein adam l’chaveiro, interpersonal mitzvos and mitzvos between a person and Hashem. With respect to mitzvos between a person and Hashem, the primary aspect of the mitzvah is one’s intentions rather than the outcome. Hashem does not ask us to do mitzvos because He “needs” the outcome, the result of the mitzvah. His main concern is one’s loyalty in keeping the mitzvah or rebelliousness in defying Hashem’s command. In contrast, Hashem’s primary concern with regard to interpersonal mitzvos is the practical outcome, that people actually treat each other properly. Therefore, a woman who unsuccessfully attempted to violate her Nazirus vow still committed a sin when she believed that she was drinking
wine because her intent was to sin, and intent rather than the outcome is the most important element of mitzvos between a person and Hashem. In contrast, because the brothers’ sale of Yosef was an interpersonal sin, the main thing is the objective reality, the outcome. Yosef was telling his brothers that because Hashem worked everything out for his and everyone’s benefit, their bad intentions do not count because with regard to interpersonal mitzvos; the main thing is the outcome rather than the intention. That is why Yosef said (Bereishis 50:19), “Am I in place of G-d?” Yosef meant that because their attempted sin was against him, a human being, and not against G-d, they could look to the outcome, rather than their intentions, and understand that ultimately they were not blameworthy. The Ohr Hachaim and Klei Chemda’s explanation is beautiful, but we must still attempt to understand what this interaction between Yosef and teaches us today. Yosef and Yehuda, the leader of the brothers, are the paradigms for the two main forces throughout history: Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben Dovid. These two forces permeate all of Jewish history and our own individual lives. Moshiach ben Yosef means physical redemption and the practical cultivation and economic development of the land. Yehuda and Moshiach ben Dovid stand for spiri-
tual redemption and the rectification of the inner world of the Jewish people as a whole as well as each individual Jew. From this latter perspective, intent is everything. From Yosef’s perspective, however, because the main thing is the practical outcome, the brothers should not be blamed because everything worked out for the best regardless of their intentions since a whole nation was sustained as an ultimate result of the brothers’ sale of Yosef into Egypt. According to Yehuda, however, to whom the inner world of intent is the main thing (Bereishis 42:21), “Indeed, we are guilty” because they did not heed Yosef’s cries for mercy. In our own lives, neither extreme is healthy. We cannot go to the extreme of total concern for intentions without regard for the realities of practical life, nor can we be so focused on the bottom-line outcome that we begin to believe that “the ends justify the means” no matter what. The students of the Vilna Gaon and the students of the Baal Shem Tov teach us that the goal of the Jewish people and for ourselves as individuals is to join together the paths of Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben Dovid, the forces of practical-physical life and the spiritual-inner life, as the Navi says (Yechezkel 37:17) “and they shall become one in your hand.” This was Yosef’s goal in comforting his brothers, to bring
