I saw that learning the shtickel torah below from the Noam Elimelech is a segulah for refuah. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, or whether it helps any more than reciting parshas ha'mon this past Tues helps with parnasa, but I figure at least you have a nice dvar Torah for shabbos and that's not a bad thing in itself. If it also helps those in need of refuah, mah tov u'mah na'im, but that's just icing on the cake.
Kol ha'machala asher samti b'Mitzrayim lo asim alecha ki ani Hashem rofecha. Rashi already is bothered by the question: if Hashem promises not to afflict us with any machalos, then what do we need the refuah for?
Next week we will read the aseres ha'dibros, and as we all know, the first commandment is Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim. Everybody asks: why is it that G-d "introduces" himself, if you will, as the one who redeemed us from Egypt instead of telling us that he is the creator of the universe?
The N.E. explains that G-d's greatest "desire" is to give over his goodness. G-d is the most perfect tov, and tov is not truly complete and perfect unless there is an element of being meitiv, of sharing that goodness with others. Ramchal writes that G-d created the world for that purpose alone, so that He can be meitiv. So viz a viz G-d, creation is not such a big chiddush. Had it said, "Anochi Hashem Elokecha the creator of heaven and earth," you would say pshita, mai kah mashma lan, of course G-d created everything because he is the greatest tov and therefore wants to be meitiv. (Compare with Moreh Nevuchim 2:33 and Derashos haRan derush 9, covered in this post).
Yetzias Mitzrayim is a different story altogether. As we read over the past two weeks, the Egyptians suffered one makkah after the next, culminating in makas bechoros and then finally Yam Suf. "Asher hotzeisicha..." is a chiddush, as what happened seems to contradict the quality of G-d being meitiv. Where is G-d's goodness in smacking around the Mitzryim? Kol ha'machala asher samti... lo asim -- Hashem does not bring machalos, mi'pi elyon lo yeitzei ra'ah. But we know Hashem did smite the Egyptians?
The answer is that olam ha'zeh, for the most part, is a zero sum world. It's either Egypt gets the good luck of an economy driven by slave labor, or Bnei Yisrael get their freedom -- either/or. What is meitiv to one party comes at the expense of the other. Hashem decided that being meitiv to Bn"Y is the best tov; punishing the Egyptians and forcing them to free Bn"Y is not a ra'ah, but is just a means to the end of the greater good.
Coming back the the pasuk we started with: Kol ha'machala asher samti... lo asim, Hashem will not bring bad into the world. If you see bad happening, then remember, "Ani Hashem rofecha," I, Hashem, am just there to make you better, to be meitiv to Klal Yisrael. Sometimes there has to be suffering for the sake of the greater good, and the greater good is always that which benefits Klal Yisrael in the end.
כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך כי אני ה' רופאך. רש"י ז"ל הקשה בודאי כאשר לא ישים למה לרפואה? ונראה לפרש דהנה כתיב "אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים", ומקשים למה לא אמר אשר בראתי שמים וארץ, שלפי הנראה זה חידוש יותר. אך נראה דבאמת זה חידוש יותר שהוציאנו מארץ מצרים, דהנה בריאת עולם היה מחמת שהשי"ת ב"ה רצה להטיב לברואים, ואין הבריאה חידוש נגד השי"ת כי טבעו להטיב, אבל יציאת מצרים שהכה השי"ת את מצרים במכות מופלאות, וזה נגד טבעית הבורא ב"ה כי "מפי עליון לא תצא הרעה", אך מחמת שזה היה הטבה לישראל מה שהכה את מצרים, ועיקר הטובה היה לישראל, עשה השי"ת נגד הטבעית להכות אותם, וזה חידוש יותר גדול. וזהו "כל המחלה לא אשים", אך איך הכה אותם הלא מפי עליון לא תצא הרע? לזה אמר "כי אני ה' רופאך", ונמצא היתה ההכאה הזאת הטבה לישראל, אבל להשים חלילה שום מחלה על ישראל זה בלתי אפשר, כי מה הטבה יבוא מזה. וק"ל.
-- "Rashi already is bothered by the question: if Hashem promises not to afflict us with any machalos, then what do we need the refuah for?"
ReplyDeleteit's a case of > lav ha'nitak l'aseh* < for Hashem Himself: 'I won't make you sick; if I do make you sick, I will heal you.'
the terutz of Rav Yochanan on Sanhedrin 101a, corresponding to Rashi's midrashic explanation at 15:26e -- 'if you obey, health; if you disobey, then illness that I will heal' -- seems undermined by Devarim 28:60, > v'davku bach <. the pasuk paints machala in Yisrael as a painfully real possibility [or an empty threat], contrary to the emboldened "bilti efshar" of Noam Elimelech {if "bad" is not "bad", maybe "good" is not "good"? maybe east is west and west is east? G-d has His reasons, and we (or the next group over) have the bruises to prove it!}.
*related, it stands to reason, to cases where G-d 'regrets' or 'reconsiders' something that He did or decreed...
-- "a zero sum world". Amalek's hand on the throne? only when that appendage gets the chop will Hashem be One, and His Name One: One One = win win !!