פרשת מטות
This week’s Parsha opens with the verses which deal with the laws of oaths that are taken. The Torah teaches us that if a woman takes a vow and her husband wishes to nullify that vow, for any reason, he may do so even without her knowledge. The verse concludes by telling us that if her husband indeed nullified her vow, God will forgive her. The Gemorah in Nazir clarifies that we are referring to a woman who made a vow not to eat a certain food, for example, and her husband nullified that vow, and she, without knowledge of his nullification, went and ate that food, God will forgive her for her transgression. The Gemorah continues to relate that whenever R’ Akiva reached this verse, he would always weep. He would say to himself regarding this case of a woman’s vow, “If she who intended to eat pork (forbidden food because of her vow), yet ended up eating steak (permitted food) still requires forgiveness, when a person intends to eat pork, and ultimately eats that pork, how much more so will they be punished?!
This Gemorah requires explanation. Usually when the Gemorah employs a “Kal V’echomer” argument, it is to elucidate a point which is difficult to grasp. Was it so difficult for R’ Akiva to comprehend the problems involved with consuming pork? Or was it so arduous for R’ Akiva to come up with the idea that doing an Issur with intent is more serious then doing one without intent? Furthermore, this Gemorah is difficult for a different reason. The Gemorah states that the woman is punished because she thought she was eating forbidden food (based on her vow) and she didn’t know that the food she was consuming was really permitted (because her husband nullified the vow). Yet we know that God punishes the non-Jews for their thoughts, whereas the Jews only get punished for their actions and not for their thoughts. Why then does this lady require forgiveness if, at the end of the day, she did nothing wrong?
R’ Shach deals with this problem by asserting a very interesting premise. R’ Shach says that when a person wishes to consume food, it must be with the motive to elevate himself spiritually and to serve God. When a person consumes forbidden food, he is punished two-fold. Aside for being punished for the actual sin, he is punished for the desire to get pleasure from the world not for God’s sake, and for not elevating himself with that consumption. R’ Shach concludes by saying that this is the reason for the woman’s punishment. Although she consumed no forbidden food, because her vow had already been annulled, nevertheless, because she thought what she was doing was forbidden, it is impossible that her intent was to grow spiritually from the food.
With this explanation, we can now understand what the Kal Vechomer that R’ Akiva was making. If a person who ate permitted food with the intent to sin is punished, how much more so is one punished if they transgressed not only the Issur of consumption, but even the separate Issur of eating without intent for growth! I would just like to draw attention to the principle which emerges from R’ Shach’s words. It seems clear that R’ Shach is teaching us how careful a person must be with how he eats, even the permitted foods. I.e. how much he eats, what his intent is, and the level of nutrition that is contained in the food he chooses.
My father in law, R’ Elimelech, offers an alternative possibility. He says that although it is true that Jews are not punished for thought, this is only referring to thoughts which passed through his head only transiently. But a Jew who has serious thoughts which he intends to carry out, for these he is indeed punished. When a person consumes food which they thought was forbidden, although these victuals were truthfully permissible, because he thought they weren’t, and he went so far as to carry out his intent, for this he must be punished. This is why the lady who thought she was eating forbidden food truly requires forgiveness, “וה’ יסלח לה” .
At this point, I would like to demonstrate how thought is not only important enough to be held culpable, but it is in fact the primary function of every Jew. We find that Rabenu Bachya, in Parshas Masei, brings down in order to explain why one who kills accidentally only gets exiled and not a more severe punishment, “The primary function of a man is his mind, and it is the focal point of all of his Mitzvos, and alternatively, the cause for all of his sins.” R’ Bachaya is teaching us that what goes on in our head is the chief component that God looks at when judging us!
Similarly we know the Rambam in his book “Guide to the perplexed” Chapter 8 article 3 quotes the well-known Gemorah יומא כ”ט which says that the thought of sin is greater then the sin itself. The Rambam explains that when a person sins because he follows his animalistic instincts this is considered normal and while still a heinous crime, doesn’t affect his inner self. But when a person commits a premeditated sin, he damages his core, his mind. This is unconscionable and even worse, irreparable. We find from the Rambam that a person’s mind is really the essential component in their being, and the body and actions of a person are only a tertiary function of the mind.
With this explanation, we can now understand why R’ Akiva became so emotional when he reached this particular verse in the Torah. R’ Akiva understood from this verse how essential thought is in the service of God, and how it is even more fundamental then action. When he came to this realization, he immediately understood the terrifying implications of it and the tremendous responsibility that one has to control their thoughts. We all know how difficult this can be to do and this is why R’ Akiva wept so copiously at this juncture in the Torah.
I would just like to conclude with the encouraging words of R’ Tzadok HaCohen. R’ Tzadok explains the dynamics of the tricky science of controlling one’s mind. We know the Gemorah says that being in command of one’s mind is one of the three sins which no one is saved from daily. Yet R’ Tzadok says that although everyone has thoughts of sin constantly, a person can strive to make sure that those thoughts don’t descend into his heart. How does he do this? When the inevitable thoughts of sin enters his mind, he must immediately remove them by replacing them with permitted thoughts in order to make sure they don’t take root in his conscience and ultimately bring him to sin. R’ Tzadok concludes by saying that this is all that the Torah expects from us and we must strive to fulfill these holy ideals.
May we merit to serve Hashem with all of our thoughts and all of our heart!