POISONOUS SELF-DELUSIONS
INTRODUCTION TO
PARASHA
POISONOUS
SELF-DELUSIONS
By Rabbi Yaakov
Beasley
A.
INTRODUCTION
The beginning of our parasha,
Parashat Nitzavim, provides the dramatic conclusion to Moshe Rabbeinu’s
listing of the blessings and curses that accompany the new covenant at Arvot
Moav. This covenant, Moshe informs
the Jewish people, is binding on all – not only those present, but on their
descendants and on all generations to come. Confronted with such a powerful claim,
it is no wonder that some members of the nation would attempt, even quietly, to
free themselves, even mentally, of the obligations that Moshe Rabbeinu placed
upon them. To these people, Moshe
states:
Lest there should be among you, man or
woman, family or tribe, whose heart turns away even this day from Hashem our
God, to go and serve these nations' gods; lest there be among you a root that
bears gall and wormwood;
And it shall come to pass, when he
hears the words of this curse, that he will bless himself in his heart, saying,
‘I shall have peace (ki) I am walking in my heart’s
stubbornness, the watered shall be swept away with the
dry.'
Hashem will not desire to forgive him,
but instead Hashem’s anger will be kindled against that man, and all the curses
written in this book shall lie upon him, and Hashem will blot out his name from
under heaven;
And Hashem shall single him out for
evil from all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses written in this
book of the law.
(Devarim
29:17-20)
The Ramban immediately identifies to
whom Moshe is addressing his warning:
[The Torah lists two groups of
individuals:] The one “whose heart
turns away even this day from Hashem our God” – who has already succumbed to
idolatry and steadfastly believes in it, and second, the “root that bears gall
and wormwood,” that will eventually produce noxious and bitter fruit. The latter refers to “him that is not
here day” (previously, v. 14), for the father is the root and the son the shoot
that grows forth from it.
The metaphor of the poisonous root
serves to impress upon the listeners the dangers found within evil thoughts;
even if the person may shrug them off, arguing that he has committed no
wrongdoing, Moshe argues that their eventual outcome will as surely lead the
person and his descendants to a bitter end, as if the person flagrantly sinned
at that moment.
B. WHAT
THOUGHTS LURK IN THE HEARTS OF MAN
What evil thoughts will lead the
person to ruin? What warrants his
self-congratulations and grants him a sense of security? We will bring a sampling of the
commentators' understanding of the metaphors in the
section:
The Ibn Ezra:
In my opinion, the word sefot
(“swept away”) means addition (see Yeshayahu 30:1). Accordingly, the verse means, “I shall
have peace, though I walk in my heart’s stubbornness, because I live in
the virtue of the saintliness of the righteous, for they are many, and I am but
one individual sinner." Therefore,
Moshe warns, “Hashem will not be willing to pardon him, but then Hashem’s anger
shall be kindled."
The Ramban:
When he hears others being the subject
of these curses he will bless himself in his thoughts and say in his heart: I will not be affected by all these
when I follow my heart’s desires.
Or perhaps, he means to say that he will not be affected by the curses
(‘I shall have peace’), because (not ‘though’) I do not accept the oath,
walking in the stubbornness of my heart all my life. However, he cannot sin with impunity and
escape Hashem’s anger, since he has willy-nilly entered into the Covenant with
all of the Jewish people.
The meaning of ‘the watered shall be
swept away with the dry’ is to add the sated to the still unsated … by following
the stubbornness of his heart, he will not be satisfied with the normal desires
of man, the ones man is (normally) thirsty for, but will hanker after abnormal
ones - the ones that normally man has no desire for but is sated with. The word le-ma’an here has no
idea of conscious purpose, but … simply reflects the automatic result and
consequence. The concept here is
that “because I follow the stubbornness of my heart the result will be that
satisfied (abnormal) desires will be added to the thirsty (normal)
ones.
The Akeidat Yitzchak:
He deludes himself with the
argument: Hashem only destroys and
punishes those who acknowledge the Torah but neglect in its observance. “I shall have peace” and need therefore
have no fear of the curses befalling me, for I walk in the stubbornness
of my heart to repudiate the whole basis of the Torah … and should you say that
misfortune will overtake me, surely I dwell in the midst of my people and I am
bound to share the same bounty and guardianship which Hashem deals out to my
fellow Jews.
This is the meaning of “the watered
shall be added with the dry” – A person has two adjoining fields, one “thirsty”
always needing water and the other “watered," always having enough. The thirsty or dry field is bound to get
the benefit of the watering of the adjoining field, even if the farmer does not
intend to water the thirsty or dry field.
This heretic thought similarly – though Hashem may not intend to bless
(watering) him with the bounty of His blessings, he must receive them,
willy-nilly enjoy them as part of the community which receives them. The phrase “I shall have peace” implies
two things: (1) the excluding himself from the community in respect of entering
into the covenant and curses, and (2) saving him from retribution because he is
part of the community.
We see that the commentators argue
over two points: the interpretation of the word ki (opening the
phrase ‘in my heart’s stubbornness’), and the understanding of the phrase ‘the
watered shall be swept away/added with the dry.' The Ibn Ezra understands
ki as though – possibly implying a subconscious acknowledgement
that the Torah is true. The Ramban
gives two interpretations of the word ki – when and because. In the first interpretation, no
rationale or motivation is given why this sinner chooses to ignore the
curses. Instead, he simply ignores
them. In the second reading, the
person already intellectualizes his refusal to keep the commandments. He rationalizes that since he has
disassociated himself from the community, he is therefore released from its
obligations.
The Akeidat Yitzchak interprets the
word ki as the Ramban, accepting that we are dealing with an
individual who believes that since he repudiates everything, he is not bound by
the curses. However, in his
interpretation of the phrase ‘the watered shall be swept away/added with the
dry,' the Akeidat Yitzchak is much closer to the Ibn Ezra. Unlike the Ramban’s psychological
interpretation of the nature of deviant behavior and unrestrained behavior,
which even the Ramban admits does not occur due to conscious forethought and
motive, the Akeidat Yitzchak’s metaphor of the two fields explains how people
justify their receiving blessing along with the community, despite not
fulfilling the obligations that binds the community
together.
C. THE
MODERN COMMENTATORS AND THE SINNER’S INTERNAL WORLD
In all of the above interpretations,
the commentators assume that the peace referred to by the individual meant
immunity from any retribution for his failure to observe the commandments. Commentators that are more recent
discuss a different form of peace – the inner peace and tranquility of one whose
conscience is undisturbed.
The Ketav
Ve-Ha-Kabbala
This refers to the person who is
thoroughly corrupt in fundamentals.
When he hears the words of this curse … he will say, “Truthfully, there
are many precepts which mystify me and which cause me nothing but struggle and
heart-searching. I observe them
only sporadically, because they are irrational and I am unable to grasp their
logic. Therefore, I shall only
observe those things that appeal to my reason and what my intellect will
accept. In this way, without inner
struggle, I shall have peace.
R. Shimshon Rafael
Hirsch
In Rabbinic Hebrew,
sharir (the root of the word ‘sharirut’ – stubbornness)
expresses firmness, legality. This
is the confirmation of his own heart.
He only goes in paths that are ratified, not by God, but by what his
heart recognizes as legal.
The Netziv
[The metaphor of a] ‘root that bears
gall and wormwood’ does not refer to a person who worships idols, but even more
corruptly and bitterly, he chooses not to worship anything at all. He rejects totally the idea that there
is justice and Divine providence, for he believes … that man is no more than an
animal, who is to follow the urgings of his heart. Unlike the person who worships idols, in
order to satiate his lusts, but does not force his beliefs on others, the person
who bears such corrupt ideas cannot help but attempt to spread his vile heresies
to justify his own behavior.
What distinguishes the later
commentators’ interpretations is their common emphasis on the internal world of
the sinner that Moshe Rabbeinu was addressing. Echoing within their words are the winds
of 19th century thought, during which all three lived, with whose
ideas they constantly wrestled. The
need for rational confirmation of the commandments, the establishment of the
individual’s judgment as a higher value than obedience to an all-powerful deity,
and the open expression of militant atheism (which is still evident today, based
on the bestseller lists) were all intellectual challenges that modernity brought
in its wake. As the timeless
expression of our faith, these commentators saw within the Torah’s words
guidance and direction for their turbulent times. Everyone aspires to some level of
tranquility and peace, whether from external consequences or intellectual
upheaval. However, as the
commentators point out, despite the best attempts by man to avoid the challenges
posed by the religious life, ultimately, a person must learn to grasp and
wrestle them.