Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Torah Wasn't Given to Angels VS HaShem Doesn't Punish for Unavoidable Sins

"It's not fair!"  If you have ever been around two year olds, you've heard that more times than you can count.  If you've ever been two years old, you've said it more often than you can remember.  If you have the emotional maturity of a two year old, you've thought (and sometimes even said) that embarrassingly often in the last hour.  (Guilty, I am afraid...)

But just between you and me, we really do expect that the Creator of the World will treat us fairly; right?  I mean, He surely owes me that!  (Grumble, grumble, ok... fine... He doesn't really owe me anything, but, ya know... really He should...)  In point of fact, the Torah does treat us fairly.  The Torah never demands the impossible from us.  Chazal actually have two ways to express this idea.

On the one hand, אנוס רחמנא פטריה/the Torah absolves you of punishment for any unavoidable wrongdoing.  For example, Yehuda is having stomach issues and so can't put on תפילין one day; אנוס רחמנא פטריה and he won't be considered as among פושעי ישראל בגופן/those who sin wantonly against their body.  On the other hand, לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת/the Torah was not given to the ministering angels.  For example, a kohein is only allowed to wear the special, cool, kohein garments when he is actually to service in the Temple.  What about when he finishes his shift and is heading back to the dressing room?  He is no longer actively involved in Temple service, but the Torah does not demand he strips after throwing the last drop of blood for the day.  He can walk back to the changing room because לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת.

If Chazal used two expressions, then it means that two ideas are being expressed and there must be a practical difference.  As far as I can tell, לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת means that HaShem didn't make us humans that way, so that rule reveals to us the actual intent in the how the mitzvah is to be performed (or sin is to be avoided).  On the other hand, אנוס רחמנא פטריה means that something happened that -- all things being equal -- would not properly express the HaShem's Will, but all things are not equal and the Divine providence arranged for you to be in a situation where it was impossible to fulfill that Will.

That's fine for philosophy, but what's the practical difference?  On the negative/punishment side, they are the same; in neither case will one be punished for doing something that transgressed that boundary.  The difference is on the positive/reward side.  לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת means you still get full credit for the mitzvah performed/sin avoided; whereas אנוס רחמנא פטריה can't reward you for failure to comply.  In our example above, Yehuda is not punished for not putting on תפילין, but he is also not getting the reward for doing it.  If Big G'dalia Goomber promises little Shloimy a new CD for doing his homework and Fido the family dog eats the assignment before he can even start; than BGG doesn't owe LS that new CD.

The other way, though, does work.  For example, there is a mitzvah to protect the produce of the seventh year from being destroyed.  If someone cuts a wedge from a shmitta lemon for his iced tea, then surely some of the juice will get lost when he washes the knife.  No matter -- לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת -- the Torah expects you to eat shmitta produce, so natural and unavoidable waste does not detract from your observance of -- and reward for -- guarding shmitta produce.

If it was HaShem that gave me the mitzvah and the providence of HaShem that prevented me from doing the mitzvah, then why is it fair that I don't get the reward for doing my best?  Doesn't seem fair...  You are not the first to ask, you know.  Iyov (1:22) noted: יְהוָה נָתַן, וַיהוָה לָקָח and Iyov concluded: יְהִי שֵׁם יְהוָה, מְבֹרָךְ.  To paraphrase: HaShem gives and HaShem takes; why?  That's His business.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...