The gemara asks why the Mishna needs to tell us that we read
the first parsha of eigel harishon with the targum – why would we think
not? Answers the gemara: the whole episode
is an embarrassment to Klal Yisrael, and therefore, one might have thought it
better to pass over it with no further explanation or embellishment. Kah mashma
lan that precisely because it is embarrassing it is read, as those involved
want to suffer that bit of embarrassment so that they can get a kapparah.
The Meshech Chochma makes the clever point that our not
extending the same reasoning to the parsha of eigel hasheni, to Aharon’s
explanation of what he had done, proves that Aharon was granted a complete
kapparah without needing the added embarrassment.
Be that as it may, I want to focus on a little comment of R’ Ya’akov Emden. The Yavet”z writes that we see from this
gemara that even the dead are capable of achieving kapparah. Those who worshipped the eigel are no longer
with us, but still, apparently they suffer embarrassment at having their
misdeeds recounted and through that can achieve forgiveness. (The Rama similarly writes that the reason we say yizkor
on Yom Kippur is because it is a day of kapprah for the dead as well as the
living.)
Is this really a proof?
My son’s rebbe in another context has said over a mashal from the Sh"lah: someone being prosecuted for a crime cannot
say in his/her defense that the culprit was a bunch of
other molecules, but since then their body has produced new skin, new blood
cells, etc. and they are now a different person. The meforshim ask how the oath administered
in Parshas Nitzavim as part of the bris between Hashem and Klal Yisrael is
binding on future generations – those generations haven’t been born yet and
haven’t given their consent? The answer
is that when we speak of Klal Yisrael, those future generations are like new
blood cells, new skin cells, etc. – the identity of Klal Yisrael remains
constant, even if the parts undergo change.
Here too, the way I understood the gemara is that the kapparah for the
cheit ha’eigel is not something being given to the dor ha’midbar, who are long
gone, but is being given to us, something we need, because we carry on their identity.
A rationale for וביום פקדי ופקדתי
ReplyDeleteyes, just saw your comment GU. I said something similar below but failed to do it as succinctly!
Delete> Here too, the way I understood the gemara is that the kapparah for the cheit ha’eigel is not something being given to the dor ha’midbar, who are long gone, but is being given to us, something we need, because we carry on their identity.
ReplyDeleteYes, I read it that way too. In fact the Torah itself teaches us that responsibility for cheit ha'egel in some sense carries over to future generations. See shmot 32:34 "u-v'yom pakdi ..." and Rashi there.
If one wants to be rationalist about it -- as I tend to be -- we can suggest that chet ha'egel illustrated our vulnerability to the temptation of avoda zara (which comes in many tempting flavors) even at moments of greatness, sadly. Hearing the story of chet ha'egel and feeling that boosha strengthens our resistance to such temptation and helps cure us from this spiritual malady.
This approach can also help explain how the embarrassment of dor hamidbar > 3000 years after their death could possibly be a z'chus for them. if one prefers to read it that way. If their embarrassing story still serves us effective mussar for their descendants, then dor hamidbar is indeed still making new contributions and earning new merit. This is similar to teaching over Torah that was originally taught by someone who passed away. It is also similar the notion that Miriam is pleased when we use the memory of her story to help avoid lashon hara, per Devarim 24:8-9.
I would just add that if I remember correctly Chazal equate ga'avah with avodah zarah. Embarassment = humility = the antithesis of that avodah zarah (as you wrote).
DeleteI was trying to explain that the dead are not effected by what we do, but we ourselves need kaparah since we are the same nation. Your last paragraph, unless I misunderstood, is saying that the dead get a kapparah by virtue of our deeds, which is a different idea (I don't disagree with the sevara, just did not think you need to come on to it to explain this gemara).
Yes, exactly right.
DeleteSee Pachad Yitzchok [Hutner] Pesach Ma'amar 33, where he notes that klal yisroel is an organic whole rather than a collection of individuals. Rather like a person not being just a collection of various cells.
ReplyDeleteThe part relevant to this discussion is that it is very clear in that ma'amar that this unity and whole is not just spatial but temporal. Thus, the concept of regenerated cells of the Sh'lah is not critical. We were there, in actuality. We were yotzai mimitzrayim, we were chotai at the egel...
I believe that some meforshim read this into Hashem's response to Iyov- that justice is not individual. A man can suffer because other men sinned. I believe it for two reasons, one of which is that I heard it from my old chavrusa and room mate Rabbi Breitowitz in his shiur available here: Part one is the following link, but I think he gets into this issue towards the end of part one.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqECx-zmkg
Maybe the idea of lo yumso avos al banim and banim al avos unless they follow in the same footsteps works the same way -- if you follow in the footsteps, then bra karei d'avuha and it is as if the father is still alive (through the son), and is punished accordingly. (As opposed to saying its just a new punishment on the ben).
DeleteWas the concept of regeneration of cells known in the lifetime of the 16th century Shelah?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAfter the story of Bilaam, talking asses are boring.
DeleteGratuitous rudeness is uncalled for.
DeleteI read your comment to be a sarcastic criticism of the Rebbi's application of the Shlah, because I thought that anyone reading it would realize that the Shlah said that we share an identity because we are all like limbs/parts/subparts of a great organism, and Chaim's son's Rebbi simply applied the concept to the unity of identity of an organism despite the renewal of its component cells. The Shlah didn't have to know about cells. He knew about the different limbs of a body.
ReplyDeleteYou're a fan of Titmus', and so I assumed you're not a distracted teenager. I also assumed that people who take pen names are not serious about what they write, and, being anonymous, wouldn't be hurt by an insult. If I misunderstood you, and you thought you were making a valid and constructive contribution, I apologize.
I guess part of it is that I couldn't care less about being insulted, even though my name and photo accompany what I write. If the insult is valid, I go back and think about my mistake. If it's not, then why on Earth would it bother me? I should realize there are some people out there, even males, who really do care about what others say about them.