VA’ESCHANAN – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – USING THE YETSER TOV FOR THE GOOD

Devarim, 6:5 “You shall love HaShem, your G-d, with all our heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources.” Rashi, 6:5, sv. With all your heart: With both of your inclinations. Va’eschanan features the first paragraph of the Shema, where we are told to serve HaShem with all our hearts. The word, heart in hebrew, is leiv, and ‘your heart’ is לבך which is normally with one ‘beis. However, in the Shema it is spelt with two beisim ((לבבך. Rashi explains that the phrase, ‘with all your heart’ refers to the two inclinations: the positive and the negative. The commentaries explain that Rashi is coming to answer why the Torah used two ‘beis’ on this occasion – the ‘beis’ alludes to the heart and the two ‘beisim’ allude to the two forces that determine the heart – the positive and negative inclinations. Many commentaries discuss what it means that we should serve HaShem with our yetser ra, however, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l also notes a difficulty with the fact that the Torah exhorts us to serve HaShem with our yetser tov. He asks why it was necessary to tell us to love HaShem with our yetser tov; surely that inclination automatically directs a person to doing good deeds. He answers that in fact this is not the case; were the yetser tov left to its own devices it will not necessarily direct a person to perform ratson HaShem. Without the guidance of the Torah as the ultimate source of morality, one may come to define what is good and evil according to his own logic, and thereby develop a warped sense of right and wrong. In this way, writes Rav Feinstein, the yetser tov can cause a person to do actions that go against the Torah’s definition of right and wrong. He gives the example of charity; the yetser tov directs a person to want to give money to others, however there are occasions when he may want to give to inappropriate causes. My Rebbe Rav Berkovits shlita, expands on this example, arguing that at times it is not right to give charity to a person. For example if it will only engender more dependence on others, or if the money will be used for unhealthy purposes, then it may not be correct to give in this form. In order to accurately perform ratson HaShem in this delicate issue a person must turn to the Torah’s words for guidance. This often means asking a competent Torah authority who can be trusted to transmit daas Torah. Another example that Rav Feinstein mentions is misplaced rachmanus (mercy). This includes feeling remorse for evil people; this is a flaw that has affected great people in Jewish history. Perhaps the foremost example is the great Shaul HaMelech. On HaShem’s command he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals. The gemara offers an explanation for Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer ; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life. Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation. The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous". As a result of his failure to listen to HaShem due to his feelings of mercy, he was punished with the loss of his Kingship. What were the consequences of this mistake? Agag begot offspring and one of his descendants was Haman. Thus Shaul’s act of ‘mercy’ nearly led to the destruction of the Jewish nation. These are just two examples of how even a person’s yetser tov can direct him away from ratson HaShem. A particularly relevant application today is in present day society when many disparate groups within Orthodoxy seem to preach highly different and often opposing messages in a number of areas, such as the roles of Torah learning, working, the use of technology and so on. How can one know when his particular belief is based on the Torah’s definition of morality or merely the personal leanings of his yetser tov ? There is no simple answer to this question, but as we mentioned above, the most sure way of discerning the truth is to turn to those people most well-versed in the Torah outlook – the Gedolim and talmidei chachamim who are most able to follow their guidance and clarify application of such guidance in specific cases. Without such direction a person is at risk of failing to follow the Torah’s exhortation to use his yetser tov in the way that the Torah intended. May we all merit to use both our inclinations to perform ratson HaShem.

DEFINING EVIL - PARSHAS ZACHOR

In the end of Parshas Ki Seitsei, the Torah commands us to remember the attack of Amalek against the Jewish people, when we were leaving Mitzrayim. This mitzvo is fulfilled by reading the portion that commands us with regard to this remembrance. Towards the end of the portion we are also commanded to wipe out the memory of Amalek - this means we must destroy any Amalek adult, child and animal. A person may find the command to destroy a whole nation difficult to understand.

Indeed this mitzvo troubled the righteous King, Shaul HaMelech when he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. Understanding the underlying mistake in this episode will help us answer the question above. The Prophet tells us that, on Hashem's command, Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul to wipe out the whole nation, including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals. The gemara offers an explanation as to Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer ; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life. Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation. The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous". A short time later, Shaul was pursuing David HaMelech as he felt David threatened Shaul's kingship. David took refuge with a group of Kohanim who lived in the city of Nov. Unaware of Shaul's enmity to David, they fed David and provided him with a sword. When Shaul heard about this, he ordered the murder of the whole city. At that time, another Bas Kol came out, saying, "do not be overly evil."

The Medrash makes a puzzling observation connecting these two incidents: "Anyone who is merciful in a situation where he should be cruel, eventually, he will be cruel in a situation where he should be merciful. The Medrash states clearly that it is inevitable that one who is inappropriately merciful will come to be cruel in an unsuitable manner. Why is this course of events so certain? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita explains that Shaul's underlying mistake was that he put his own natural emotions before the Torah's commands. Accordingly, in a situation where his natural sense of justice contradicted with a command to kill children, he chose his emotions ahead of detaching himself from his emotions in order to fulfill Hashem's word. However, in another situation, his emotions communicated to him a very different message; he perceived that David was a threat to his whole family, therefore he felt that anyone helping David was also a threat to his family and must be killed. Again, he placed his emotions before the Torah's instructions and ordered the ruthless murder of innocent people. Now we can understand the inexorable connection between Shaul's misplaced mercy and his inappropriate cruelty. A person who follows his emotions to the side of 'mercy' is nonetheless at the whim of his emotions and not morality as defined by the Torah. Therefore it is inevitable that on a separate occasion his emotions will pull him in a different direction and cause him to be overly cruel.

The account of Shaul’s failure to wipe out Amalek ended when Shmuel HaNavi personally struck down King Agag. The Ralbag brings out a remarkable point in this incident. Shmuel had Agag brought in front of him in chains. When Agag saw the righteous Shmuel, he exclaimed: “sar mar hamaves”. The Ralbag understands that Agag was saying that the bitterness of death had now gone away. This is because when he saw Shmuel he recognized his attributes of kindness and mercy, and thus he presumed that Shmuel would show mercy upon him. However, Shmuel quickly corrected Agag, telling him that he deserved to die, and he subsequently killed him. Shmuel was a merciful person because, in general, the Torah encourages the trait of mercy. However, on this occasion, Shmuel knew that mercy was inappropriate and, in this instance, the seemingly ‘cruel’ act of killing was the moral course of action because that was HaShem‘s will.

These incidents help us recognize that one cannot define morality according to his own subjective feelings and beliefs. When a person acts in such a way, he can begin to justify all kinds of evil actions. Indeed this is a common trend in secular society. People that do not believe in an objective morality feel free to define what constitutes ‘murder‘, for example. Thus, they judge that killing unborn fetuses or terminally ill people are valid courses of action. The Torah Jew recognizes that all human attempts to define morality are subject to terrible misuse. The only valid way of defining morality is by following the Torah's guidelines. Indeed morality, like everything else in the universe, was created and defined by HaShem. Accordingly, when a person finds it difficult to understand the moral nature of a Mitzvo in the Torah, this does not mean that the Mtizvo is immoral chas v’Shalom. Rather, it means that the person is following his own natural emotions and inclinations. The Torah encourages emotional expression, but only after a person has channeled his emotions through the prism of Torah. Then, he can shift his emotions to be in line with Torah morality.

With such an understanding, we realize that if HaShem commands us to destroy an entire nation, then that is the moral course of action. Indeed it is commendable to try to understand why the Torah makes such a command, and with some contemplation as to what Amalek represent, it is not difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the foundation is to recognize that the Torah conception of morality is the only valid one.

DEFINING EVIL - PARSHAS ZACHOR

In the end of Parshas Ki Seitsei, the Torah commands us to remember the attack of Amalek against the Jewish people, when we were leaving Mitzrayim. This mitzvo is fulfilled by reading the portion that commands us with regard to this remembrance. Towards the end of the portion we are also commanded to wipe out the memory of Amalek - this means we must destroy any Amalek adult, child and animal.[1] A person may find the command to destroy a whole nation difficult to understand.

Indeed this mitzvo troubled the righteous King, Shaul HaMelech when he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. Understanding the underlying mistake in this episode will help us answer the question above. The Prophet tells us that, on Hashem's command, Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul to wipe out the whole nation, including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals.[2] The gemara offers an explanation as to Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer[3]; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa[4] - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life.[5] Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation.[6] The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous".[7] A short time later, Shaul was pursuing David HaMelech as he felt David threatened Shaul's kingship. David took refuge with a group of Kohanim who lived in the city of Nov. Unaware of Shaul's enmity to David, they fed David and provided him with a sword.[8] When Shaul heard about this, he ordered the murder of the whole city. At that time, another Bas Kol came out, saying, "do not be overly evil."

The Medrash makes a puzzling observation connecting these two incidents: "Anyone who is merciful in a situation where he should be cruel, eventually, he will be cruel in a situation where he should be merciful.[9] The Medrash states clearly that it is inevitable that one who is inappropriately merciful will come to be cruel in an unsuitable manner. Why is this course of events so certain? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita explains that Shaul's underlying mistake was that he put his own natural emotions before the Torah's commands.[10] Accordingly, in a situation where his natural sense of justice contradicted with a command to kill children, he chose his emotions ahead of detaching himself from his emotions in order to fulfill Hashem's word. However, in another situation, his emotions communicated to him a very different message; he perceived that David was a threat to his whole family, therefore he felt that anyone helping David was also a threat to his family and must be killed. Again, he placed his emotions before the Torah's instructions and ordered the ruthless murder of innocent people. Now we can understand the inexorable connection between Shaul's misplaced mercy and his inappropriate cruelty. A person who follows his emotions to the side of 'mercy' is nonetheless at the whim of his emotions and not morality as defined by the Torah. Therefore it is inevitable that on a separate occasion his emotions will pull him in a different direction and cause him to be overly cruel.

The account of Shaul’s failure to wipe out Amalek ended when Shmuel HaNavi personally struck down King Agag. The Ralbag brings out a remarkable point in this incident. Shmuel had Agag brought in front of him in chains. When Agag saw the righteous Shmuel, he exclaimed: “sar mar hamaves”.[11] The Ralbag understands that Agag was saying that the bitterness of death had now gone away. This is because when he saw Shmuel he recognized his attributes of kindness and mercy, and thus he presumed that Shmuel would show mercy upon him. However, Shmuel quickly corrected Agag, telling him that he deserved to die, and he subsequently killed him. Shmuel was a merciful person because, in general, the Torah encourages the trait of mercy. However, on this occasion, Shmuel knew that mercy was inappropriate and, in this instance, the seemingly ‘cruel’ act of killing was the moral course of action because that was HaShem‘s will.

These incidents help us recognize that one cannot define morality according to his own subjective feelings and beliefs. When a person acts in such a way, he can begin to justify all kinds of evil actions. Indeed this is a common trend in secular society. People that do not believe in an objective morality feel free to define what constitutes ‘murder‘, for example. Thus, they judge that killing unborn fetuses or terminally ill people are valid courses of action. The Torah Jew recognizes that all human attempts to define morality are subject to terrible misuse. The only valid way of defining morality is by following the Torah's guidelines. Indeed morality, like everything else in the universe, was created and defined by HaShem. Accordingly, when a person finds it difficult to understand the moral nature of a Mitzvo in the Torah, this does not mean that the Mtizvo is immoral chas v’Shalom. Rather, it means that the person is following his own natural emotions and inclinations. The Torah encourages emotional expression, but only after a person has channeled his emotions through the prism of Torah. Then, he can shift his emotions to be in line with Torah morality.

With such an understanding, we realize that if HaShem commands us to destroy an entire nation, then that is the moral course of action. Indeed it is commendable to try to understand why the Torah makes such a command, and with some contemplation as to what Amalek represent, it is not difficult to understand.[12] Nonetheless, the foundation is to recognize that the Torah conception of morality is the only valid one.


[1] It should be pointed out that the Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvo 604) points out that we cannot technically fulfill this mitzvo because we cannot identify who is really an Amaleki. This is because the Assyrian King, Senchariv moved around all the nations to the extent that their true identity was lost.
[2] Shmuel 1, Ch.15.
[3] This is a kind of logical argument, which is best translated as "all the more so".
[4] Literally meaning, the 'calf with the broken neck'.
[5] See Parshas Shoftim, 21:1-9 for the details of this mitzvo.
[6] Yoma, 22b. There are a number of difficulties with this gemara, foremost amongst them of how Shaul could disregard Hashem's clear instructions to wipe out the whole nation. See Ben Yehoyada, Anaf Yosef, and Rif in Iyun Yaakov for approaches. In this essay, we will follow the simple meaning of the gemara, that Shaul felt it was immoral to wipe out the whole nation of Amalek.
[7] This is part of a verse from Kohelel, Ch.7.
[8] Shmuel 1, Ch.21.
[9] Koheles Rabbah, 7:33, 16. Medrash Tanchuma, Metsora, 1.
[10] It should be noted that Shaul HaMelech was a very great tzaddik, and, the sins of great people recorded in Tanach are always magnified so that we can relate to them.
[11] Shmuel 1, Ch.15:32.
[12] One way to help understand what Amalek represents it to equate them to the Nazis yemach shemam. By doing this, one would find a command to destroy them as being far more understandable.