For many a traditional Jewish family, the climax of the Seder Shel Pesach comes with the uplifting chant Dayeinu. We recount all the marvelous favors Hashem granted us as we departed from Mitzrayim, wandered through the Midbar, and eventually reached Eretz Yisrael. Each gift is in fact so gracious that we proclaim, Dayeinu, it would have been enough, presumably enough to have sufficient reason to thank Hashem.
Of course, for many a traditional Jewish family, the chanting of Dayeinu is a celebration of a different sort, the highly anticipated transition from the monotone of Sippur Yitzeas Mitzrayim to the fun and interactive palatal experience of the Yitzeah. Ironically, all the while, we chant, “...and had not fed us the Man, it would have been enough.” We may wonder, was it truly enough to bring us to a desert and not provide us with the bare essentials? For what then are we truly grateful? The questions on the Dayeinu are virtually endless, but invariably overlooked in the frenetic rush to wash up and eat.
Those questions will have to wait. But in the meantime, perhaps we can infer from this limited list of fifteen kindnesses that anything else granted from Hashem upon our exodus did not exclusively warrant thankfulness. For instance, the first thing we thank Hashem for is taking us out of Mitzrayim. What if Hashem had only redeemed us, what if He freed us from Paroh’s slavery and made us His slaves instead, but never removed us from the land itself? Apparently, it would not “have been enough for us.”
The Sifri somehow suggests otherwise, based on the following pasuk:
“And this Navi or the dreamer of this dream shall be put to death, for he has spoken a wayward remark on Hashem your G-d Who has taken you from the
Devarim, 13:6
Included within the concept of Yitzeah is the notion of Pidyon, for the removal of one nation from amongst another expresses Hashem’s acquisition and resulting authority over those people removed. Why then does the pasuk need to single out the act of Pidyon, ViHaPodichah Meieretz Mitzrayim, if it is already alluded to in the pasuk? Rashi, quoting the Sifri, answers that Hashem mentions His Pidyon exclusive of any other action to teach us that the Navi Sheker’s trap should have been avoided, even if Hashem had never taken us from Mitzrayim but had only acquired us as His servants. In other words, if the Navi Sheker tells us to go worship Avoda Zara, we should refuse because we are Hashem’s servants.
Such a concept squarely contradicts our inference from the Dayeinu. Do we or do we not owe a certain gratitude to HaKadosh Baruch Hu exclusively for His Pidyon in Mitzrayim? Furthermore, the Dayienu only suggests that we be thankful for Yitzeas Mitzrayim, but never that we actually keep Mitzvos; yet here, the Sifri seems to expect our fulfillment of the Lo Sa’asei of Avoda Zara long before Mattan Torah, even before Yitzeas Mitzrayim, regardless of whether we experience the Gevuros of Hashem or not!
At first glance, the pasuk seems no different than any other warning against Avoda Zara, but there must be something different about this warning, as indicated by the new term, Sarah.
“Sarah, a wayward remark.” [It is a noun,] something removed from the world, that never existed, nor was ever created, nor did [Hashem] ever command [the false prophet] to speak.
Rashi, Devarim 13:6
Until now, we have never regarded Avoda Zara as a Sarah, a removed object of sorts, and for good reason. The term “remove” implies that something once was and now no longer is. As Rashi explains, Avoda Zara never existed, nor was ever created, which is why we term it Zara, foreign, and not Sarah, removed, in the first place!
The Sforno provides a useful hint towards deciphering Rashi’s seemingly contradictory definition. The Sforno questions why this parasha appears altogether if the Torah’s immediately thereafter tells us anyone who attempts to draw us towards Avoda Zara must be put to death. He answers that these pasukim teach us a chidush. One might think the Navi Sheker avoids the severe capital punishment because he at least speaks in G-d’s name; nonetheless, because he speaks a Sarah about Hashem, he is put to death. In other words, the Sarah spoken is not one relating to the act of Avoda Zara, but rather relating to the notion that Hashem would tell us to worship Avoda Zara.
Rashi now makes sense. Avoda Zara never existed and was never created, and therefore Hashem never commanded it. So when the Navi Sheker performs a miracle and claims in G-d’s name that we should worship another entity, he is turning the words of G-d off their path, redirecting G-d’s Torah from its original source and into the nonexistent.
With this understanding we can also understand how we are bound – by the rules of logic – to the Mitzvah of Navi Sheker without ever having received the Torah. If Hashem redeems us from Mitzrayim, makes us His possession, then regardless of whether He ever leads us out of Mitzrayim, regardless of whether we ever owe Him our gratitude, we can be certain that He has not acquired us for some other god’s gain. Granted, if a Navi Sheker arrives, performs a miracle, and tells us, “I am a messenger from the great Ba’al, which has destroyed Hashem! You are now all subjects of Ba’al and must worship it,” we would have no logical reason not to believe him. Just because Hashem was stronger than Paroh would not prove that Ba’al isn’t stronger than Hashem. But if the Navi, in Hashem’s name, tells us to worship Ba’al, we would consider the Navi crazy! Why in the world would Hashem go through the trouble of redeeming us just to turn us over to some other god?!
The repercussions of the Navi Sheker may prove a bigger chiddush than those of the Meisis U’Medi’ach, but they still establish the foundation of our alligience to HaKadosh Barush Hu. These laws therefore act as the introduction to the expunging of wayward Jews. Though our allegiance to G-d may now be rooted in our acceptance of the Torah and in return for the miraculous favors performed along the journey there – Dayeinu – we must also never forget how Hashem first acquired us, as a conscious and rational awareness of our true Master.
No comments:
Post a Comment