The other day, our son was
misbehaving. His poor behavior wasn’t particularly “over the top” horrible but
he was over tired, aggravated and becoming more and more petulant. Whatever he
was doing, I asked him once. He ignored me and went right on continuing his
poor behavior. I asked a second time, but still nothing. By the third request a
threat followed. Now his interest piqued and he was going to test me to find
out if I was going to carry out my threat.
The punishment was meted out and now he very quickly stopped whatever it
was he was doing, he very quickly apologized, and he very quickly tried to make
up for his wrongdoing. I was having none of it. I explained that I wasn’t angry
with him, but he was making matters worse.
I told him that it would be much better if he accepted the punishment,
and learn from this little episode. I
also told him I would have much more respect for him if he quietly accepted his
punishment as opposed to fighting about it, since acceptance would demonstrate
a degree of maturity.
This Shabbat we read from Parsha
Shelach Lecha. The Torah portion begins with the narrative of Moshe gathering
up twelve spies, one corresponding to each of the twelve tribes, and giving
them the mission. The spies are told to investigate the quality of the land –
fertile or barren, its inhabitants - warlike or peaceful, the nature of cities –fortified
or open? The spies go and investigate and return. Ten spies offer a negative
report and two, Caleb and Joshua, offer a positive report. B’nai Yisroel listen
to the ten spies with the negative report and fell utterly overwhelmed at the
prospect of entering into the land that Hashem promised them. Hysterical, the people beg to return to
Egypt. Hashem wants to wipe them all out immediately but Moshe defends the
people just like he did after the Golden Calf. So rather than wiping out an
entire people Hashem punishes B’nai Yisroel by prohibiting this generation from
entering into the land. Then Moshe begin teaching B’nai Yisroel laws specific
and premised upon settlement in the Canaan.
First Moshe teaches the Libation Offering as well as Challah. Next,
Moshe teaches the laws of public atonement of unintentional idolatry,
individual unintentional idolatry, intentional idolatry, a reminder about
violating Shabbat and finally the laws of Tzitzit.
However,
it is B’nai Yisroel’s behavior after the negative report and after the ensuing
riot that is so problematic on multiple levels. After
the initial plague and the Ten Spies are killed, B’nai Yisroel seems motivated
to apologize and to do Tshuva. In order to prove their sincerity, they embark
on a suicide mission without Moshe and the Ark and attempt to break camp and
start marching off to Eretz Canaan. More of them are killed. However, this time
it is the Amalekites and the Canaanites the kill B’nai Yisroel, not a plague. Why
doesn’t Hashem accept B’nai Yisroel’s apology? Was the apology and Tshuva (repentance)
sincere and heartfelt? What made them think to break camp without the Ark and
Moshe? Was their attempt to begin marching with Moshe and the Ark more out of
spite? Why didn’t they listen to Moshe when he told them that their foray would
fail? Does Hashem bear any responsibility because he didn’t accept B’nai
Yisroel’s Tshuva? The Or HaChaim (Chaim Ibn Attar-17th Moroccan
Rabbi/ Kabbalist/Talmudist, who migrated to Jerusalem) explains that B’nai
Yisroels’ claim of Chatanu – We sinned (Num. 14:30) is not sufficient
since they did not permit any time to elapse between apology and action. If it
was sincere, then after B’nai Yisroel states Chatanu, they would have accepted
their punishment and tried to better in the future. Instead the statement was
motivated not so much by sincere remorse but motivated their own desires and
regrets, regret at having forfeited their chance to enter into the land. The
apology and their attempt to march with Moshe and the Ark proved Hashem
correct: this generation would never be ready to enter into the land as they
are too spiritually damaged from slavery.
Thankfully our son listened. He
wisely understood that having his father’s respect was ultimately more
important than the immediate gratification that he was forced to forego due to
punishment. Sometimes “no “is not such a bad thing. Sometimes “no” is a sign of concern and care.
For slaves who had spent so much of their life being denied, “no” indicates
denial. The generation of slaves never will understand that. When our son
thought better of begging, and looked up and told me not to worry, that he wasn’t
angry and he understood that the punishment was for his behavior but he knew
that I still loved him; I knew that he had taken one more step in growing up.
No comments:
Post a Comment