Shelach: Challah as a Consequence of the Cheit ha'Meraglim

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by Naomi Mann in honor of Rabbi Moskowitz zt"l, whose shloshim is this week.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Shelach: Challah as a Consequence of the Cheit ha'Meraglim

The Cheit ha’Meraglim (Sin of the Spies) is recounted in Bamidbar Chapters 13 and 14. Chapter 15 interrupts the narrative to present a series of seemingly random and unrelated mitzvos. One of these is the mitzvah of hafrashas challah (separation of dough). We are obligated by Torah law in the Land of Israel to separate a portion of our dough “for Hashem” (Bamidbar 15:9) – that is, to give to the kohanim.

Sforno explains this sequencing of the chapters by positing that challah – indeed, all the mitzvos mentioned in Chapter 15 – only became necessary as a result of the Cheit ha’Meraglim. He writes:

After the Cheit ha’Meraglim, challah also became necessary in order for [the Israelites] to be worthy to receive blessing in their homes, as it is stated: “you shall give the first portion of your dough to the Kohen, to bring a blessing to rest upon your home” (Yechezkel 44:30).

Sforno’s comments raise two questions: (1) How does challah make us worthy to receive blessing in our homes? (2) Why did this necessity for challah only arise after the Cheit ha’Meraglim?

An answer to the first question is provided by the Sefer ha’Chinuch (Mitzvah #385):

At the root of this mitzvah lies the reason that since man’s sustenance is by food, and most of the world lives on bread, the Foundational Being wanted to make us meritorious through a constant mitzvah with our bread in order that blessing will dwell it in through the mitzvah and we will earn merit for our souls. As a result, the dough is nourishment for the body and nourishment for the soul. Additionally, [the purpose of the mitzvah] is so that the ministering servants of Hashem can live (i.e. be sustained) by it – those who are constantly engaged in His service, namely, the kohanim – without any toil at all. For with the terumah (i.e. the kohen’s portion) from the granary there is toil for them, to pass the grain through a sieve and to grind it, but here [in the case of challah] their allotted portion comes to them without difficulty at all.

The Ralbag (toeles #8) provides two similar explanations which differ slightly from the Sefer ha’Chinuch:

The first benefit that comes from [the mitzvah of challah] is to call attention to the fact that all good things come to us from Hashem; this is why He commanded that we give a portion to Hashem from the first of our dough in the Land of Israel, to teach us that Hashem gave us the Land which yields produce in abundance. The second benefit that comes from [this mitzvah] is common to all the priestly gifts, namely, that Hashem desires that the kohanim be free to be involved in Torah and to grasp its deepest ideas, so that they can teach His judgments to Jacob and His Torah to Israel; for this reason, He desired that their bread and water be provided in a dependable manner.

Although the major fault of the Israelites was their lack of trust in Hashem, they were also guilty of undervaluing the Land He intended to give them. This is clear from their outcry: “Why is Hashem bringing us into this Land … would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?” (Bamidbar 14:3), to which Yehoshua and Kalev responded: “the Land that we traversed to spy out is very, very good … it is a land flowing with milk and honey!” (ibid. 14:7-8). In other words, if the Israelites’ only problem was their fear that the inhabitants of the land would kill them, then Yehoshua’s and Kalev’s repeated assertions about the Land’s goodness would be irrelevant. Evidently, they did not adequately appreciate Hashem’s gift of the Land.

The mitzvah of challah is a reminder of the true value of the Land Hashem gave us. It reminds us that we depend upon Him for our physical sustenance, and it also reminds us of the purpose of our physical existence – to live a life devoted to His service. This necessary reminder makes us worthy of His blessings.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  

Devarim: Deserving Israel is Not Enough

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Disclaimer: this article is not intended to reflect any particular political stance on Israeli policy. 

Devarim: Deserving Israel is Not Enough 

Many Jews feel that we are entitled to take possession of the Land of Israel because it was promised to the Avos (i.e. Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov) as an inheritance to their offspring (i.e. us). While this is true, it is only half of the truth. The mere fact that the Land of Israel was promised to the Avos is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason to justify our conquest of it. There is another consideration which is explicitly stated in the contract made by Hashem when He promised Avraham the Land. 

But let us start with our parashah. Much of Parashas Devarim is a recap of Bnei Yisrael’s journey through the Wilderness. Chapter 1 recounts the first part of the journey, from Sinai until the Sin of the Spies. Chapter 2 skips ahead 39 years to the events that were detailed at end of Sefer Bamidbar, as Bnei Yisrael began their conquest of the nations that lived in and around Israel. Moshe Rabbeinu recalls Hashem’s instructions regarding our interactions with these nations, beginning with the children of Eisav who occupied the land of Seir: 

Hashem said to me, saying … “You shall command the people, saying: ‘You are passing through the boundary of your brothers, the children of Eisav, who dwell in Seir; they will fear you, but you should be very careful. You shall not provoke them, for I shall not give you of their land even the right to set foot, for I have given Mount Seir as an inheritance to the children of Eisav.” (Devarim 2:2-5) 

Next, Moshe recounts a similar set of instructions regarding the Moabites and their land: 

Hashem said to me: “You shall not distress Moav and you shall not provoke war with them, for I shall not give you an inheritance from their land, for the children of Lote have I given Ar as an inheritance.” (ibid. 2:9) 

Likewise, regarding the Ammonites and their land: 

Hashem spoke to me, saying: “This day you shall cross the border of Moav, at Ar, and you shall approach opposite the children of Ammon; you shall not distress them and you shall not provoke them, for I shall not give any of the land of the children of Ammon to you as an inheritance, for to the children of Lote have I given it as an inheritance.” (ibid. 2:17-19) 

Finally Bnei Yisrael reach a people and a land that they are commanded to conquer: 

“Rise up and cross Amon Brook; see! Into your hand have I delivered Sichon, king of Cheshbone, the Amorite, and his land; begin to possess it, and provoke war with him. This day I shall begin to place dread and fear of you on the peoples under the entire heaven, when they hear of your reputation, and they will tremble and be anxious before you.” (ibid. 2:24-25) 

At first glance one might think that Bnei Yisrael were enjoined to conquer Sichon’s land because, unlike the lands of Eisav, Moav, and Ammon, the land of the Amorites had not been apportioned to them as an inheritance, and was therefore “free” for the taking. The Ralbag [1] dispels this notion: 

Our inheritance of the Land [of Israel] requires two conditions: one is the merit of the Jews, and the second is the wickedness of those nations, that their iniquity must be “full,” as we explained regarding the statement: “for the iniquity [2] of the Amorite is not full” (Bereishis 15:16).

The Ralbag is referring to the condition explicitly stated by Hashem in the Bris Bein ha’Besarim (The Covenant Between the Parts) when He promised to Avraham that his descendants would return to inherit the Land of Israel four generations after their sojourn in Egypt: 

And He said to Avram: “Know with certainty that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not their own, and they will serve them, and they will oppress them for four hundred years. But also the nation that they will serve I shall judge, and afterwards they will leave with great wealth. As for you: you shall come to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And the fourth generation shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite shall not yet be full until then.”

The Chazkuni [3] understands this last clause to be an answer to a question that Avraham might have asked: “Why will my offspring need to wait for four generations to inherit the Land? Why can’t they inherit the Land immediately?” The answer is “for the iniquity of the Amorite shall not yet be full until then.” Rashi [4] explains the meaning of this stipulation: 

for the iniquity of the Amorite shall not yet be full [enough] to cast them out of their land until that time, because Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu does not punish a nation until its measure is full, as it is said, “according to her measure He contends with her” (Yeshayahu 27:8).

The Radak [5] elaborates: 

for the iniquity of the Amorite shall not yet be full until then – [this means that] the time for the punishment for the iniquity of the Amorite will not yet have arrived, for Hashem (blessed is He) prolongs His anger for the wicked, and there is a set time for everyone: there are some whom He punishes immediately, and others for whom He delays [punishment] for a long time – all in accordance with His wisdom. [In this pasuk] He tells [Avram]: “for the time of the Amorite’s [6] punishment has not yet been completed.”

Indeed, the Ramban [7] goes so far as to posit that this was one of Avraham’s concerns which prompted the Bris bein ha’Besarim in the first place. After initially being told by Hashem: “I am Hashem Who brought you out of Ur-Kasdim to give you this land to inherit it” (Bereishis 15:7), Avram asks: “My Lord, Hashem-Elokim, whereby shall I know that I am to inherit it?” (ibid. 15:8). It is impossible to say that Avram’s question stemmed from a lack of trust in Hashem, since we were told two pesukim earlier: “And he trust in Hashem, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (ibid. 15:6). What, then, was the basis of Avram’s question? Ramban answers: 

But Avraham wanted to know with a true knowledge that he would inherit it, and that his sin or the sin of his offspring wouldn’t cause [the promise to not be fulfilled], or perhaps the Canaanites would do teshuvah and [that which was written] would be fulfilled in them: “One moment I may speak concerning a nation or a kingdom, to destroy, demolish, or annihilate [it], but if that nation repents of its evil deed of which I had spoken, then I relent of the harm that I had planned to carry out against it” (Yirmiyahu 18:7).

In other words, Avram asked Hashem, “whereby shall I know that I am to inherit it?” because he was worried about three things: (1) his own sins would cause him to lose the merit by which Hashem’s promise would be fulfilled, (2) the sins of his offspring would cause them to lose the merit by which they would inherit the land, or (3) the Seven Canaanite nations currently occupying the land would do teshuvah, thereby making it impossible for Hashem to give the land to Avraham’s descendants, since it would be unjust to kick a righteous nation out of their land, even in order to give it to someone as deserving as Avraham! Ultimately, Hashem made the Bris Bein ha’Besarim to allay Avraham’s fears [8], but we see from the Ramban’s interpretation of Avraham’s concerns how powerful this principle of Divine justice is! 

The Ralbag invokes this Divine justice to explain why Bnei Yisrael were warned not to wage war with the children of Eisav, Moav, and Amon: 

For this reason you will find that the Torah warned [Bnei Yisrael] not to provoke war with the Children of Eisav, nor with the Children of Ammon and Moav, since He didn’t give them their land as an inheritance, because even though the members of these nations were wicked, their iniquity was not yet “full” [such that they deserved to be driven out of their land and deprived of their inheritance]. However, the iniquity of the Amorite was full, and it is for this reason that they dispossessed Sichon and Og [from their land].

In other words, although the pesukim made it seem that Hashem absolutely forbade Bnei Yisrael to take the lands of Eisav, Moav, and Ammon, the Ralbag learns that this was only because “their iniquity was not yet full.” The implication is that if their iniquity had been full, they would have suffered the same fate as the Amorites, despite having been given their land as an inheritance. 

All of this may seem like ancient history, but I believe that the principle of Divine justice reflected in these pesukim has a significant bearing on our present situation, if not in how we relate to the current non-Jewish occupants of the Land of Israel, than at least in how we view our God-given right to dispossess them. 

As I mentioned at the outset of this post, it is easy to feel that we, as the descendants of the Avos, have an absolute right to take our Land back from those who dwell there. But as we have seen, even after Hashem promised the Land to Avraham, He was still not willing to drive out Amorites and the other Canaanite nations immediately. Only when “their iniquity was full” would they deserve to be kicked out. Only at that point would we be right to claim what He gave us. To displace these nations before their iniquity is full would be unjust. 

Tishah b’Av is next week. We are deep within the period of time when we, as Jews, reflect on the fact that we were exiled from our Land by our enemies. Even today, when the State of Israel exists, we bemoan the fact that we are still in exile, insofar as our Land is occupied by the nations of the world, and Israel is not under Jewish sovereignty. It is easy for us to look at the current occupants of our home and feel that we’re just entitled to kick them out and reclaim what is ours, without considering our own merit or the injustice of driving out another nation. 

When we think about the complicated situation in Israel today, let us remember the two criteria required to take back our land: we must become righteous enough to deserve it, and those we dispossess from their homes must be wicked enough to deserve their fate. 

End Notes

[1] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim, Chapter 2: Toeles #13 

[2] In his actual commentary on Bereishis 15:16 the Ralbag translates “avon” as “punishment” rather than “iniquity,” but I’ve translated it as “iniquity” here to keep the terms consistent with the other meforshim I’ll be citing. 

[3] Rabbeinu Chezkia ben Manoach (Chazkuni), Commentary on Sefer Bereishis 15:16 

[4] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Bereishis 15:16 

[5] Rabbeinu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Bereishis 15:16 

[6] Many of the meforshim, including the Radak, explain that what is said of the Amorite applies to the other six Canaanite Nations as well, and that the Amorite is singled out because they were the most powerful. 

[7] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Bereishis 

[8] How, exactly, the Bris Bein ha’Besarim accomplished this is the subject of another article yet to be written.

Parashas Eikev: Protection from Beasts

Originally posted in July 2013. Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article. 

Artwork: Beastmaster Ascension, by  Alex Horley-Orlandelli

Parashas Eikev: Protection from Beasts

Parashas Eikev begins with Moshe Rabbeinu preparing Bnei Yisrael for the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. He compares the imminent defeat of the Canaanite nations to the events of Yetzias Mitzrayim: 

Perhaps you will say in your heart, "These nations are more numerous than I; how will I be able to drive them out?" Do not fear them! You shall remember what Hashem, your God, did to Paroh and to all of Mitzrayim. The great tests that your eyes saw, and the signs, the wonders, the strong hand, and the outstretched arm with which Hashem, your God, took you out - so shall Hashem, your God, do to all the peoples before whom you fear. (Devarim 7:17-19) 

It is clear that the conquest of Eretz Yisrael will be aided by hashgachah pratis (personal Divine supervision). That being said, what are we to make of Moshe's next statement? 

Hashem, your God, will thrust these nations from before you little by little; you will not be able to annihilate them quickly, lest the beasts of the field increase against you. 

Wait, what? Hashem is going to help Bnei Yisrael to miraculously defeat the mighty and numerous Canaanite nations, but He's going to "take it slow" due to the threat of wild animals? Just a few sentences earlier, Moshe reminded Bnei Yisrael of the miracles and wonders of Yetzias Mitzrayim, in which Hashem summoned hordes of wild animals to descend upon the Egyptians - and yet, when it comes time to help Bnei Yisrael settle the Land, the wild animals are a problem? Why doesn't Hashem just miraculously ward off the beasts of the field so that the Land can be conquered and settled in the shortest time possible? 

The answer to this question is the subject of a machlokess between Rashi and the Ralbag. Rashi [1] writes: 

"lest the beasts of the field increase against you": But isn't it true that if they perform the will of Hashem they will not have cause to fear beasts, for it says: "And the beast of the field will be at peace with you" (Iyov 5:23)? Rather, it was revealed before Him that they were going to sin. 

According to Rashi, Bnei Yisrael should have been on the level of righteousness to warrant hashgachic protection from the beasts of the field. However, Hashem knew that Bnei Yisrael were going to sin, and would not be on a high enough level to merit such protection. 

Ralbag [2] takes a completely different approach. He explains that this pasuk is teaching us a fundamental principle about God's intervention. He writes: 

This teaches us that even though Hashem is in control and can do whatever He wills and desires, He will nevertheless seek out the most suitable [natural] causes possible, and He will not create a miracle unless necessity dictates it, for He doesn't hate nature, since He is the One Who set it up. Thus, He will only go against [nature] at a time when it is necessary, and He will only undermine [nature] it in the most minimal manner possible. It is for this reason that it was said, "Hashem, your God, will thrust these nations from before you little by little; you will not be able to annihilate them quickly, lest the beasts of the field increase against you." Even though Hashem is able to destroy them quickly and to protect Yisrael from the beasts who increase upon them, He prefers not to do this, since it is possible to enable Yisrael to reach their goal in another way (i.e. by defeating the nations little by little). 

According to the Ralbag, Hashem is "reluctant" (so to speak) to interfere with the laws of nature. The universe and its laws are Hashem's creations. They carry out His will and reflect His glory. Sefer Tehilim is replete with references to this idea: "The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament tells of His handiwork" (Tehilim 19:2), "For You have gladdened me, Hashem, with Your deeds; at Your handiwork I sing glad song. How great are Your deeds, Hashem; exceedingly profound are Your thoughts" (ibid. 92:5-6), "How great are Your works, Hashem; with wisdom You made them all!” (ibid. 104:24). For this reason, Hashem will only intervene in the laws of nature when absolutely necessary, and that is why He didn't intervene to protect Bnei Yisrael from the beasts. 

This machlokess between Rashi and Ralbag reveals different assumptions about Hashem's role in the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Rashi maintains that Hashem would have protected Bnei Yisrael if they had been on a high enough level, whereas Ralbag maintains that He would not have protected them, no matter how righteous they were. 

What is the root of this machlokess? I have no idea. It might stem from their differing views on hashgachah pratis, or their different ideas about how miracles work, or their different theories of nevuah (prophecy), or their different ideas about the nature of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, or their different premises about God's knowledge, or a number of other possibilities. I can only speculate. 

But even though we might not be able to understand the conceptual basis of this machlokess, we can gain a general insight from the existence of such a machlokess: knowing how Hashem operates is not a simple matter. Some people feel comfortable making statements about how God operates - in their own lives, or in the fate of the Jewish nation. Every time I encounter a machlokess like this one, I become more and more convinced of what Yeshayahu ha'Navi said: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - says Hashem. As high as the heavens over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Yeshayahu 55:7-8). 

If Rashi and Ralbag can disagree on whether Hashem would protect Bnei Yisrael wild from animals while simultaneously helping them to miraculously conquer the mighty Canaanite nations, then average Jews like ourselves need to do a lot more learning before we make confident statements about Hashem's role in our everyday lives. 

End Notes

[1[ Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 7:22 

[2] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim: Parashas Eikev, 4th toeles

Parashas Mattos/Masei: Seduced by Particulars

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Horizon Canopy, by Michael Komarck

Parashas Mattos/Masei: Seduced by Particulars

Bnei Yisrael had just vanquished the Midianites and were preparing to finally enter Eretz Yisrael. However, not everyone is so keen about settling in Eretz Yisrael proper. The Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven approach Moshe Rabbeinu with a request: they would like to settle outside of Eretz Yisrael, across the Yarden, where the land is ideal for their abundant livestock.

They said, "If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants as a heritage; do not bring us across the Yarden" (Bamidbar 32:5).

How does Moshe take this? Not very well. He condemns the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven in no uncertain terms, even going so far as to compare them to the sinful generation of the Meraglim who angered Hashem and caused Bnei Yisrael to wander in the Wilderness for 40 years:

Moshe said to the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven, "Shall your brothers go out to battle while you settle here? Why do you dissuade the heart of Bnei Yisrael from crossing to the Land that Hashem has given them? This is what your fathers did, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the Land. They went up to the valley of Eshcol and saw the Land and they dissuaded the heart of Bnei Yisrael not to come to the Land that Hashem has given them. The wrath of Hashem burned on that day, and He swore saying, 'If these men who came up from Egypt - from the age of twenty years and above - will see the ground that I swore to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov ... for they have not followed Me fully ... The wrath of Hashem burned against Israel and He made them wander in the Wilderness for forty years, until the end of the entire generation that did evil in the eyes of Hashem. Behold! - you have risen up in place of your fathers, a society of sinful people, to add more to the burning wrath of Hashem against Israel. For if you will turn away from after Him, He will again let it rest in the Wilderness, and you will destroy this entire people (ibid. 32:6-15)

To an impartial reader, this might seem like an overreaction. Was the request made by Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven really as bad as Moshe makes it seem? Moreover, what are we supposed to learn from their cheit? 

As usual, the Ralbag provides a unique perspective on this cheit. He writes:

[From here we learn] a lesson in middos, namely, that it is not proper for a person to be seduced by the particulars to choose one thing over another, except after great deliberation. We see that because Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven had abundant livestock, they were seduced into choosing the land to the east, over the Yarden, since that was a good location for cattle. However, this caused them to later regret [their decision] after the land had been conquered, for they saw that this might cause their descendants to stray away from Hashem. This, in turn, caused them to build an [illegal] altar, as it is stated at the end of Sefer Yehoshua (Chapter 22) [which led to major problems for them]. Additionally, they would be more vulnerable to Israel's enemies. For this reason you will find that the first people to be exiled by the king of Assyria were these tribes. Moreover, the Moabites - whose land we took over from Sichon - were continually like a thorn which afflicted Israel, as we see from the events of Yiftach, the Giladi. 

According to the Ralbag, the main take-away from the cheit of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven is not about the particular decision to settle outside of Eretz Yisrael per se, but rather, it is an insight about decision-making in general. Their mistake was allowing themselves to be "seduced by the particulars" in their decision about where to settle. As a result of that seduction, they were blind to the harm they would be causing to themselves, their brethren, and their future descendants.

Some might find this lesson to be too obvious for the Ralbag to highlight. Indeed, according to Saadia Gaon, the entire Sefer Mishlei may be viewed as a guidebook to avoid making this very mistake. Shlomo ha'Melech sums up this idea himself, saying: "There is a path which is straight before a man, but at its end are paths of death" (Mishlei 14:12). Then again, Saadia Gaon would also say that although this idea might be clear and obvious "in the eyes of the intellect," that is not the case "in the eyes of the emotions." We are all prone to being blinded by our emotions and being "seduced by the particulars." It is for this reason that we need to review and reinforce this lesson as much as possible.

But it is important to note that the error of the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven did not occur on a personal level of decision-making, but on a societal level. It would seem that they had the best interests of their tribes and families in mind. They just weren't "thinking fourth-dimensionally" - that is to say, they weren't thinking about how their actions would affect future generations of Gadites and Reubenites. It is difficult enough guarding yourself against "seduction by the particulars" in your own lifetime, but it is even more difficult to do so when thinking about future generations. 

"Gad! Reuven! You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!"

This isn't the only instance where the Ralbag draws our attention to a poor decision made by a group of people to settle in a bad location. The Ralbag learns that this is the very reason why Hashem scattered the Dor ha'Haflagah (Generation of the Dispersion) by mixing up their language. The pesukim state:

The whole earth was of one language and of common principles. And it came to pass, when they migrated from the east, they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there (Bereishis 11:1-2). 

The mainstream view is that Hashem intervened because the society of the Dor ha'Haflagah was evil and corrupt, in one way or another. The Ralbag takes a radically different approach. He learns that Hashem intervened to save the human race from potential devastation. Ralbag writes:

Hashem saw that for all of mankind to be gathered in a single location would be detrimental for the continuity of the human species, for it is possible that a catastrophe would occur in that location - whether an earthquake that originated in the bowels of the earth, or a tornado that smashed mountains and broke stones, or by a meteor shower, or a flood, or other such catastrophes. If the entire human species were located in a single location on earth, there is a chance that they would be wiped out if that portion of the earth were destroyed. For this reason, it was necessary for mankind to be scattered throughout all parts of the earth, so that the species would last, and that if a disaster happened to one part, the species would be preserved through the other.

Thus, according to the Ralbag, the error of the Dor ha'Haflagah was similar to the error of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven: both groups were "seduced by the particulars" when choosing a location to make their home, and both groups were blind to the danger they posed to their offspring - a physical danger to the entire human race in one case, and a spiritual (and physical) danger to their tribes in the other case. 

At this point you might be wondering why I have chosen these two seemingly disparate incidents in Chumash as my focus in this blog post. Well, it just so happens that I was confronted with a similar situation in my own life this week. An article entitled The Really Big One was published a few days ago in The New Yorker. The article is an exposé on what is known as "the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami" - a seismic event of epic proportions which will inevitably happen sometime in the near future. Here is the picture painted by the author:

When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the west—losing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater ... The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.” 

In the Pacific Northwest, everything west of Interstate 5 covers some hundred and forty thousand square miles, including Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Eugene, Salem (the capital city of Oregon), Olympia (the capital of Washington), and some seven million people. When the next full-margin rupture happens, that region will suffer the worst natural disaster in the history of North America. Roughly three thousand people died in San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. Almost two thousand died in Hurricane Katrina. Almost three hundred died in Hurricane Sandy.FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured, and the agency expects that it will need to provide shelter for a million displaced people, and food and water for another two and a half million. “This is one time that I’m hoping all the science is wrong, and it won’t happen for another thousand years,” Murphy says.

Later on in the article, the author reports that "the odds of the big Cascadia earthquake happening in the next fifty years are roughly one in three. The odds of the very big one are roughly one in ten." Those odds are not good, to say the least. 

As you can imagine, this article caused somewhat of a commotion on the West Coast. Judging by the other articles I skimmed, some people accepted these predictions at face value; other experts reported that the science was correct, but said that the disaster scenarios weren't nearly as bad in all areas as this author made it out to be; others preferred to believe that this disaster was still along ways off - too far off to worry.

This article hit my emotions on a very personal level. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest. My family and many of my friends still live there. I, myself, have seriously considered moving there when I'm ready to settle down. That being said, you can imagine the conflict I felt upon reading this article. 

I immediately began thinking about these findings from a practical standpoint. I found this to be much trickier than I expected. As we go through life, we become more and more adept at making cost-benefit analyses and weighing the various pros and cons. But every once in a while, we are thrown a curve-ball consideration - such as this one - which is so unique that it becomes difficult to factor into our long-term planning. 

Shortly after reading this article, my mind went to the two excerpts from the Ralbag cited in this blog post. I wondered: Am I being seduced by the wonderful particulars of the Pacific Northwest? Am I rationalizing my desire to one day move here? Am I making the same mistake that the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven made when they thought that it was a good decision to settle on the other side of the Yarden? Am I exposing myself and my future progeny to physical danger in the same way as the Dor ha'Haflagah? 

For now, I believe that more investigation is in order before making any dramatic decisions. Nevertheless, I learned a valuable lesson from thinking about this article during the same week I thought about Bnei Gad, Bnei Reuven, and the Dor ha'Haflagah, namely, it is very difficult not to be seduced by the particulars when contemplating very long-term consequences which may or may not even come to pass during one's lifetime. Reading the Ralbag's lesson was one thing, but relating to it by considering this local, personal issue made that lesson much more real to me. 

This, in turn, made me realize how many of the problems facing the Jewish community are plagued by this same cheit of decision-making. Whether it's problems from within (e.g. the Jewish Day School tuition, the Shidduch crisis, the polarization of Jews to the extreme right or the extreme left) or the problems from without (e.g. U.S. relations, the Palestinians, Iran), it seems that "seduction by the particulars" inevitably exerts its sinister influence. And like the examples in Chumash, the problem is magnified by the fact we are forced to make decisions which affect us, but also shape the lives of future generations. 

I don't know what the solution is, but being the first step is always to recognize the problem, as the Ralbag did in his analysis of the events in our parashah. That is one of the many things I like about the Ralbag's approach to Torah she'bi'Chsav: not only does he bring out deep and lofty ideas in Torah and metaphysics, but he also extracts the humble practical lessons from the narrative. By contemplating and reviewing these lessons as they appear in Torah she'bi'Chsav, we can - with God's help become more adept at applying them to our everyday lives.