Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Contradiction of Earned Reward Vs It's All a Gift

I try to have my learning organized and scheduled; things work more efficiently that way.  I also hate to be bored; I get all antsy and stuff.  Given that I strive to get to shul at least a few minutes before davening (running in, panting "ashrei" on the inhale, "yoshvei" on the exhale, "veisecha" on the inhale, "od" on the exhale, etc... is just not my idea of setting the right tone to greet the Creator).  That means I need to get there a few minutes early, and that means that I need something to do in those few minutes.  It has to be something I can start and finish in a (variable number of) few minutes.  During the week I often work on shnayim mikra v'echad targum, but on erev Shabbos (when I have a bit more time, typically) my "go to" sefer is Ta'alei Oros, which contains beautiful, succinct gems on the parsha.  The gem I saw last Friday night is still putting extra bounce in my step and sparkle in my eyes.

Rashi brings a medrash at the beginning of parshas Vayikra that has bothered me for years.  Every time I open a sefer that even might explain this Rashi, I go there first.  I have seen lots of p'shatim.  The best are good enough to explain the words, but left me feeling the real essence was just out of reach.  The Torah says, "adam ki yakriv"/when a person will bring an offering (vayikra 1:2).  The medrash comments on the unusual choice of word "adam" (as opposed to "ish", or just "ki yakriv"):
Just as Adam haRishon did not bring offerings from stolen property, since everything was his, you should also not bring from stolen property.
It's not bad enough that my first thought was "umm... Adam didn't couldn't bring stolen property; there was no one else from whom to steal!"... oh no, the medrash feels it actually needs to point that painfully obvious fact out to me!  Of course, the medrash said "because everything was his", whereas I would have said "because there was no one from whom to steal"; but what difference could that make?  All the difference in the world, as it turns out.

Let's take a step back.  How likely is it that a penitent is going to steal an animal to bring as a korban.  Does seem a bit counter-productive, no?  So where are you going to get a case of stolen goods being brought on the mizbei'ach that the Torah has to tell you not to do?  Chazal assured gambling (stay with me on this) because of "asmachta lo kanya" -- even though a person has agreed to give up his money if he loses the bet, he didn't really expect to lose and so his agreement is not genuine; hence, the one who takes the money has essentially stolen money in his hands.  The better, after all, as worked hard for his money and feels that it is his money.  He might use it to trade for something he wants more (a blender, for example), but if he doesn't get anything back, he feels he has been robbed.

Our medrash doesn't mean that someone will bring a stolen animal as a korban, it means that he will feel he has been robbed of his animal... and the mizbei'ach is the thief!  (cf. Sukkah 56b, last shtikle).  Adam haRishon -- davka because everything belonged to him and had been given to him; ie, he had not worked hard for it and there was plenty more where that came from -- didn't feel the slightest twinge of losing something when he brought a korban.  That's the attitude with which someone needs to bring a korban; he got it for free and there is plenty more where that came from.

Our constant avodah in this world is to put in full hishtadlus, all the while knowing that results are independent of that hishtadlus.


Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Sometimes a Food Loses Its Identity When It Loses Its Bracha; Sometimes It Doesn't

Let's start with a question: Why are We Allowed to Drink Coffee and Whiskey Made by Non-Jews?  Before you ask,"Why would I think that I shouldn't be able to drink whiskey and coffee made by non-Jews?", I'll tell you. Simple, we all know that Chazal made a decree -- known as בישול עכו''ם/bishul akim -- that particular foods cooked by non-Jews are forbidden.  There are basically two criteria that determines if a dish falls into this category:
Is not consumed raw.Fit for a royal banquet. Cooked carrots, therefore, are not a problem since they can be eaten raw (I actually prefer them that way).  Baked beans are find because the are not prestigious enough.  (For great synopsis of the laws, see the article on the Star-K site, FOOD FIT FOR A KING, by Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, shlita.)  There are lots of cool questions and details (baked potatoes are prestigious, does that make even potato chips and issue?) which are for another time.  Clearly, though, both coffee an…

Thought for the Day: Prayer II -- How?

Now that we know that the obligation to pray is nothing more (nor less!) than a divine decree, we are going to also need instructions from heaven on how to implement that decree.  I cannot stress enough how important it is to have instruction from heaven how to implement heavenly decrees.  One only needs to look at the shambles that one modern ism has made of the very important Torah principle of תיקון עולם/improving and fixing the world.  They have taken words out of context and used them to support their own nefarious schemes.  (To the point that Google Translate actually translates -- not transliterates -- תיקון עולם as Tikkun Olam.  Amelia Bedelia would be proud; we are not amused.

The Torah teaches us how to pray in two complementary fashions.  One is the way in which the concept is presented as an obligation, the other is by giving us examples of how to practically implement those instructions.

The obligation is introduced in the second paragraph of "sh'ma" -- וּלְ…

Thought for the Day: Our Job Is השתדלות/Endeavor with All One’s Resources, Not Results

Forrest Gump is a sweet movie from the last century about a relatively clueless -- though quite loveable -- fellow who triggers several history changing/making events of the 20th century.  He also amasses a considerable fortune due to fortuitous stock purchases and business investments.  A model for success, no?

No.  In every event, every stock transaction, and every business investment... our relatively clueless -- though quite loveable -- protagonist is completely passive and simply the beneficiary of good/dumb luck/karma/being at the right place at the right time.  It is not that he is a bad role model, nor a role model for something bad.  He is just not a role model.  Like an ice cube in a glass.  When the glass is empty, the cube rests on the bottom.  When the glass is filled with water, the ice cube bobs to the top. The ice cube is neither good nor bad; it just is.

I recently saw an incredible back story about events leading up to the (long overdue and very much appreciated) rel…