Parshat Ki Tisa: Why did Moshe have to break the luchot?

We all have a certain episode in the Torah we struggle to understand, perhaps even to the extent that we just don’t get how it possibly occurred. For me, that is the story of the sin of the Golden Calf, the חטא העגל. The Jewish people had just witnessed the 10 plagues of Egypt with only the righteous proceeding to leave Egypt. Then those righteous witness the splitting of the sea, perhaps the greatest miracle where nature was totally overthrown. They are taken to the desert where Mon falls and all of their needs are taken care of. I am thinking that these people must have been closer to Hashem than any Jews in all of time. They then proceed to worship the Gold Calf? Really? I would like to think if I were there, that wouldn’t have happened to me; but it did happen to them. It happened to every Jewish male. How could it be?

I hate to keep you hanging, but I am going to delay sharing my approach to answering this until the week before Purim, where we can find a hint to understand this. For this week, I ask a different question about this episode. I understand that Moshe was angry with the Jewish people and that he would want to teach them a lesson, but why smash the luchot only to have to return to Har Sinai to get a second set? Why not just make this a positive teachable moment? Why not explain to the Jews where they went wrong?

The sefer Shaarei Yosher answers this based on a passage in the Gemara, that says there was a special quality in the first luchot; that had someone learned the words of those first luchot, he would remember it forever. There was no such thing as forgetting the Torah of the first luchot. When Moshe saw the Jews worshipping the calf, he understood that although it seemed great to be able to learn and remember the Torah forever, there was a very dangerous  aspect to this as well. He understood  it would be possible for a person to know the entire Torah by heart and yet be infused with evil. It would have been possible to be a perfect Torah scholar and yet not follow the ways of the Torah.

It is for this reason Moshe decided it was better to destroy the 1st luchot entirely and work to create a 2nd set that would be different.  The original luchot were made by Hashem and thus had a potentially everlasting quality. But the 2nd luchot were made by Moshe in a way that could only last if certain conditions were met. We see the Torah describes Moshe creating the 2nd luchot as פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים, meaning Moshe had to make them himself. This is a message to each of us: We have to create our own Torah. We have to make our Torah and write Hashem’s name on it, meaning that learning Torah and accepting the Torah are one; both require accepting to do the mitzvoth unconditionally. In other words, if we do not accept to keep the torah and mitzvoth, then even our learning of the Torah will not last. Unlike the first luchot that had this eternal ability for a person to learn it and remember it forever, even if he didn’t keep the mitzvot, our second luchot require us to do both: learn Torah and accept to do all of the mitzvot as best as we can.

I believe  this message is important for all of us. Unfortunately, there are many people who separate the learning of  Torah from the observance of Torah. Moshe Rabeinu is teaching us that learning without doing is not only wrong, but it is better to smash that idea into pieces so we learn the correct Torah outlook of ללמוד ולעשות, learn to do.

Parshat Mishpatim: Ane Eye for an Eye

Parshat Mishpatim is full of various monetary and civil halachot. One of the more famous halachot is one that deals with altercations amongst two Jews; ( עין תחת עין (כא:כד, “An Eye for an Eye.” The Torah says if a person fights with a fellow Jew and knocks out his eye, meaning he blinds him, then we should take “an Eye for an Eye.” What does this mean? Does this mean we should blind the offender as a punishment for his actions? Who should blind him? The victim or the Jewish courts? Is this meant as revenge? I thought the Torah does not condone revenge...

Ironically, most people take this verse to mean that if I do something to damage you, I should be punished by having the same thing done to me. In other words, if I blind you, I should literally be blinded in return. In some extreme Arab countries, this is in fact the way they understand the verse. If you Google the phrase “an eye for an eye,” you will find some horrific stories of men being blinded for blinding others. Yet, Torah Shebeal Peh teaches us this is not what the Torah had in mind.  The Talmud explains this verse is not to be taken literally; it does not mean you take any physical retaliation, but rather the offender must pay monetary damages to the victim. The courts will have to determine the amount of money this will cost the victim in lost wages, medical expenses, etc. It is meant as restitution, not as revenge.

But there is one glaring question you are likely asking yourself:  If the Torah meant the offender must pay monetary restitution, why not just say that? Why use the phrase “An Eye for an Eye,” which creates the uncertainty of the Torah’s intent?

The Chazon Ishe zt”l explains that sometimes the Torah intends to teach us more about the morality that can be gleaned from a law, than from the actual law itself. In other words, the Torah here is trying to teach us something important about the morality of restitution. An example of this can be found in the Talmud, where a Jewish Beit Din which killed one person in 70 years  was considered a “deadly” court. So if a justice system is set in place and yet one execution in 70 years is considered a lot, then there must be something more to learn. The lesson is that we are supposed to learn something deeper, beyond the fact that there are death penalties for certain offenses. The deeper lesson is how precious one life is. Even the life of a murderer is precious, and so a court that executes more than one in seventy years is deadly. So too here, “an eye for an eye” is teaching us the lesson of damaging another individual. True, if you damage someone you must pay restitution, but the Torah uses the language “An Eye for an Eye” to teach a moral lesson about how serious it is to damage another person. The Torah, so to speak, uses an exaggerated language to help us understand just how serious it is to damage another person.

The apparent lesson to all of us is not to underestimate one’s capacity to damage another through our actions. This is true in a physical sense, but it also means being sensitive, and sometimes delicate, with the words we choose to use. Our words have the power to destroy and the power to build up. We must be mindful of our choice of words at all times. We must think before we speak.  It also means we have to be good role models; we must lead by example and use our words carefully and thoughtfully. “An Eye for an Eye” gets our attention; it sounds serious and real. Let us not forget that hurting another individual, whether it be physically, verbally or emotionally,  is not anything less than taking out their eye.