Beyond Orthodox Conversion to Judaism

By Rav Moshe Sternbuch

MOSHE RABBEINU’S PROPHECY


“This is the thing which Hashem has commanded” (30:2).


What is the Torah conveying to us with this phrase? The second Article of Faith outlined by the Rambam in his introduction to Perek Cheilek is that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu is fundamentally different from that of all the prophets preceding and succeeding him. Moshe Rabbeinu came the closest possible to "seeing" Hashem, as it were, and for this reason we received the Torah from him. "This is the thing" refers to the aspaklaria me’irah (clear vision) which Moshe Rabbeinu, alone among all the prophets, had the privilege of experiencing.

ORAL POWER


“He shall not break (yachel; literally, desecrate) his word, he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (30:3)


Speech is the most important attribute of the human being, which distinguishes him from the animals. The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh comments that if someone sanctifies his speech and refrains from speaking profane words, Hashem helps him and will act on the basis of “all that proceeds out of his mouth” by fulfilling all his wishes.
The Ohr Hachaim adds that nothing matches the sanctity of Torah, and a mouth that utters words of Torah becomes sanctified like a kli shoreis (vessel in the Bais Hamikdosh). A person living with the awareness of the power of speech, and who has sanctified this most important organ, will not contemplate profaning it with forbidden speech such as lashon hara and leitzonus. This also gives us some insight into how the blessings uttered by the mouths of great personalities, who have spent their lives sanctifying their speech organ, can have such a powerful effect.

FEAR OF FIRE


“And Hashem will forgive her” (30:6).


Rashi quotes the Gemara (Nazir 23a) which states that this refers to a woman who made a vow to become a nazir and whose husband heard the vow and annulled it without her knowledge. She then transgressed her vow by drinking wine or coming into contact with a dead person. This woman requires forgiveness, even though, in reality, her vow had been annulled. The Gemara (Kiddushin 81b) says that Rabi Akiva cried when he reached this posuk, saying that if the Torah says that someone who intends to eat pork and inadvertently eats kosher meat requires atonement, then if someone intends to eat pork and in fact does so, how much more so does he require atonement.
The Torah on several occasions talks about atonement for inadvertent transgressions. What, then, was it about this posuk that moved Rabi Akiva to tears? Anyone committing a sin, aside from the damage caused by transgressing the word of Hashem, also sins through his very thoughts and desires to commit a sin, which in and of themselves are considered to be a great sin requiring forgiveness. The person who inadvertently ate kosher meat did not perform any sinful action, but still requires atonement for his evil intention to eat chazir.
Hence, as part of his atonement, it is not sufficient for him to just undertake not to eat any more chazir. Rather, he must uproot his desire to sin altogether to the point that he no longer feels any such desire. Just like a person instinctively fears fire and is afraid to even approach it, so should a person feel towards committing a sin or even coming close to doing so.


ANNUAL JUDGMENT


“He shall bear her iniquity” (30:16).


This refers to the opposite situation, in which a husband apparently annulled his wife's vow after having upheld it. He only tells his wife about the annulment, which in reality had no effect. The wife then acts as if her vow had actually been annulled. The posuk tells us that the husband bears complete responsibility for his wife's inadvertent sins committed as a result of his deceit. The Sifri adds that this teaches us that anyone who causes another person to stumble receives the punishment for that other person's actions.
Conversely, if someone assists or is instrumental in the performance of another person's mitzvos, it is considered as if he himself performed those mitzvos, and he has a share in their reward. This is yet another incentive for getting involved in outreach work.

Similarly, a person is judged every year on the day of his death. Although a person is judged immediately after he dies, this process is repeated on an annual basis. If the deceased caused other people to sin during his lifetime, he is judged every year for those actions and their ramifications since he has died. If he caused others to perform mitzvos and good deeds during his lifetime, his soul becomes elevated through his annual judgment due to all the actions performed in the meantime by those people, and by others as a result in a never-ending chain of events. The yahrtzeit of a tzaddik is considered to be a festive occasion (hilulah), because the assumption is that he only had a positive influence on other people when still alive, and we celebrate the further elevation of his soul due to all the actions performed since his death.


IMMORALITY AS A PHILOSOPHY


“Avenge the Bnei Yisroel of the Midiantes…arm yourselves with men” (Rashi: tzaddikim)from among you for the war” (31:2-3).

Although it was Moav that had caused the Jews to sin and Midian had merely provided advice, Moav had been motivated by a desire for immorality, as opposed to Midian, which believed wholeheartedly in the cause of desecrating the holiness of Hashem's nation and driving a wedge between them and Hashem.
The Brisker Rov zt”l opposed the cooperation between Agudas Yisroel and the Mizrachi in a United Religious Front for the purpose of the Knesset elections. He argued that since the Mizrachi espoused joint activity with irreligious or even antireligious elements, and due to its at best lukewarm attitude to Torah learning and the observance of certain mitzvos, any cooperation with that movement was out of the question. It was one thing to transgress, but quite another to have a policy advocating transgressions.

Rashi cites the Medrash Tanchumah that only tzaddikim were chosen to fight this war. This teaches us that when people seek to permit and justify immorality as a matter of principle, it is incumbent on any Torah-observant Jew to fight Hashem's war peacefully against those who wish to transgress His will. This applies to the legalization of immorality and, even more so, to protesting those who promote immorality and declare their pride in being immoral in the Palace of the King.


ACTION BEFORE INTELLECT


“A thousand of every tribe” (31:6).

The Medrash says that none of the tzaddikim who were sent to the war against Midian put on his tefillin shel rosh before his tefillin shel yad. The tefillin shel rosh symbolize the dedication of our minds to Hashem, whereas the tefillin shel yad symbolize our service of Hashem through active mitzvos. Moshe Rabbeinu was not interested in philosophers with a tenuous connection to Torah observance.
We, too, must keep the mitzvos because Hashem commanded us to, even if we do not comprehend the reasons for them. Only once we have become punctilious about our mitzvah observance should we start delving into their profound reasons and endeavor to develop our devotion to Hashem through those mitzvos.
For this reason, too, someone who puts on only a tefillin shel yad has fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillin, but someone puts on only a tefillin shel rosh has not. The emphasis is always on naaseh¸ the active unquestioning performance of mitzvos, before nishma, intellectualizing, and even before emotional devotion.
Moshe Rabbeinu wanted only first-rate tzaddikim who would perform the Divine commandment of avenging ourselves against Midian, without wondering about the ethical justification for destroying the men, women and boys of a whole nation. He wanted people who subjugated their intellect to the Divine will.


PROTESTING IMMORALITY

“To make atonement for our souls before Hashem” (31:50).

The Seforno states that this refers to atonement for not having protested those who sinned with Baal Peor. This seems difficult, since the Gemara (Shabbos 64a) states clearly that they had sinful thoughts which required atonement and were not only held responsible for failing to protest the sins of others.
However, there is no contradiction. If someone does not protest the sinful actions of others, it is a sign that he does not consider those actions to be so terrible. Such a person will also be likely to have sinful thoughts to perform those very same actions. Thus, the explanations of the Gemara and the Seforno in fact complement each other. In our day, it is incumbent upon us to protest vigorously any breaches of immorality leading to sinful thoughts, such as immodest clothing or the various media through which people can access the worst types of material.


CASH MENTALITY

“We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle” (32:16).

The members of the tribes of Gad and Reuven are criticized by the Medrash for being overly concerned with their money and property. “Who knows what will happen during the many years of conquests and settling the country?” they figured. Lacking sufficient bitachon, they wanted "cash" here and now. They preferred to make do with the territory on the other side of the Yardein, fearing the uncertainty of the future, and even though these territories did not have the spiritual advantages of Eretz Yisroel, they willingly waived the share that they were destined to receive in Eretz Yisroel.

Although this mentality may make perfect business sense, they were supposed to live on a higher level than that. If Hashem had promised them a portion in Eretz Yisroel, they should not have given that up due to unfounded fears about the future. Living in the present can be a sign of bitachon, but only if we do so because we trust in Hashem to provide for our needs in the future. If living in the present is accompanied by worry about the future, then that is the opposite of bitachon.

UNITY THROUGH SEPARATION

“And Moshe gave to the children of Gad and the children of Reuven and to half the tribe of Menashe” (32:33)./span>

The Moshav Zekeinim asks why Moshe gave the territory to half the tribe of Menashe, even though they did not request it. He answers that the land on the other side of the Yardein was very large and the tribes of Gad and Reuven did not require all of it. Menashe was the tribe chosen to inherit this territory together with the other two tribes because their forefather, Yosef, had caused his brothers to tear their clothes (Bereishis 44:13), and therefore Menashe's inheritance was split into two parts.

This teaches us the depths of Divine justice. Even though Yosef acted legitimately towards his brothers, nevertheless, since he was the source of their distress, he was punished for all future generations by having his tribe divided. By the nature of things, there would be a lot of interaction between the two parts of the tribe of Menashe. They would be unified socially and emotionally despite the natural separation of the Jordan River. Thus, this punishment served as an antidote to Yosef’s original sin, which stemmed from a lack of brotherly love.