VaEschanan el Hashem… Rashi explains that the word "va’eschanan" hints to Moshe requesting that his request be granted as a mantas chinam, a free gift, rather than in the merit of his mitzvos.
The Midrash (Shmos, parsha 40) comments on the pasuk, “V’chanosi es asher achon…” as follows:
Hashem showed Moshe all the treasure houses in shamayim and he pointed out who each one was for. “Here’s the treasure chest for those who do mitzvos. Here’s the treasure chest for those who raise orphans..." and so on and so forth, until they got to the biggest treasure chest of all.
“Who's that for?” asked Moshe.
“The other treasures,” said Hashem, “Were given to those who earned them. But for those who have nothing, I give them a mantas chinam of my treasure chest.”
“V’chanosi es asher Echon” – Hashem gives away a mantas chinam.
What kind of system is this? A guy spends his life doing mitzvos, learning Torah, helping others, and he gets a smaller reward than the guy who has nothing!?
The Shem m’Shmuel explains in the name of his father, the Sochatchover, that for those who pride themselves on the mitzvos they have done, large or small, the reward is the fruits of those mitzvos, and there is a treasure chest of appropriate size. But for those who come to shamayim and despite all that they have done, feel that they have accomplished nothing – for after all is said an done, how much has anyone really accomplished in comparison to what we owe Hashem – for these people, Hashem sets aside the greatest treasure of all, his mantas chinam.
Moshe could have asked Hashem to go to Eretz Yisrael in the zechus of his Torah, his avodah, his leadership of Klal Yisrael. But Moshe realized that after all is said and done, it’s all mantas chinam.
What do you think of this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlAfVEqTB0
I believe this is one of the reasons you can't be makneh your cheilek in Olam Haba to someone. First of all, it would be a bear to figure out what kind of kinyan to make- sudar? Shtar? Kesef? Let's say it's like a debt, and you can do Maamad Shlashtan, the seller (the tzadik), the buyer, and the Ribono shel Olam, the debtor. But the Ribono shel Olam owes you nothing. There is no debt. The schar is just a matnas chinam. A certainly can't sell B's promise to give A a gift to C.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad, though. It would be great if you could buy someone's zechusim. Capitalism Triumphant!
are "those who pride themselves..."
ReplyDelete(b's prospective sellers?), those
for whom "a single moment of
repentence & good deeds in this
world is greater than all of the
world-to-come", & those who "feel
that they have accomplished
nothing"(b's prospective buyers?),
those for whom "a single moment of
bliss in the world-to-come is greater than all of the present world" (avos 4:17)?
The vort you quote is a very nice one, but your question can be answered differently. There is a kabbalistic doctrine of nehama de kissufa -- "bread of shame." There is something less than satisfying in getting something for nothing. In the olam ha emes, those who are rewarded through a matnas chinam will not feel the same satisfaction as those who earned it. (Maybe one can understand the possuk of yegiah kapecha ki tochal, ashrekha ve tov lach in the same way.)
ReplyDeleteTal does raise an important point. If it really all comes down to matnas chinam, why go through the whole schar veonesh thing? Of course, there is the notion of doing the mitzvos lo al manas lekabel pras, so perhaps for those who achieve that level, they can also achieve the reward that does not look to mete out measure for measure -- if done out of pure love, there is no longer a quid pro quo. A parent will give a child beyond what s/he has earned, so to speak, b/c of the love for the child. And a child who truly loves a parent would do what the parent wants without looking for rewards or asking -- as some kids do today -- what will you give me for it?
ReplyDeleteR' Chaim, I had hoped for your feedback on this post:
ReplyDeletehttp://vesomsechel.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-more-is-less.html
Nahama d'kisufa involves at least a tiny bit of ga'avah, and the idea that one actually earned one's schar does also.
ReplyDeleteThere is a level of ahava [= bitul haYesh] where the schar is the dveikus to Hashem, without any concept of having earned it. Indeed, at that level, the idea of actually giving something to the Omnipotent becomes absurd. KaGamul Alai Imo...
In essence, that ultimate schar is not the reward, but the corollary, of achieving that ultimate dveikus.
>>>In the olam ha emes, those who are rewarded through a matnas chinam will not feel the same satisfaction as those who earned it.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of not deserving even that which we receive as reward is found in the Chovos haLevavos.
Nahama d'kisufa is a psychological phenomenon. Those who attain the higher level of tzidkus of which Rashi speaks willingly accept the burden of such feelings in the face of their perception of gadlus haborei. Hashem in turn rewards them appropriately so they feel no shame/pain/dissatisfaction (See Ma'or vaShemesh on this week's parsha).
(Look at it this way -- saying Hashem can't give matnas chinam because it would leave a bad taste ignores the possibility that Hashem could just remove that psychological block as part of the reward.)
>>>Of course, there is the notion of doing the mitzvos lo al manas lekabel pras, so perhaps for those who achieve that level, they can also achieve the reward that does not look to mete out measure for measure -- if done out of pure love, there is no longer a quid pro quo
ReplyDeleteYes, this is exactly what Rashi means; I don't think this approach contadicts the SmS.
Great Unknown -- just saw your comment. I think you put it better than I did.
Rabbi M -- left you a comment there. Well said, but I think your words are a bracha l'vatalah. If we agree on the rules of the game, then we might debate whether a play is a good call, or what strategy/move is best, but we still share the same basis to arbitrate our claims and can communicate. When the very rules of the game are under debate, there is a communication breakdown -- how do you prove to the other side you are right when their assumptions about right/wrong are totally different than your own? (That's a very sad statement to make, isn't it?) Reductio ad absurdum only works if the other side recognized the absurdity.