Snakebite

Kapital 49 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach L’Bnei Korach Mizmor”, and is the last in the series of six Perakim attributed to this group, whom Rashi earlier identifies as the sons of Korach—Asir, Elkana, and Aviasaf. Rashi explains that the three were originally caught up in their father’s scheme but separated themselves when the Machlokes erupted. Because of this, when the earth swallowed up the Adas Korach, a shelf emerged on which they rested rather than descending into Gehinom. The Gemara in Sanhedrin explains that this is the meaning of the words “U’Bnei Korach Lo Meisu”: they were not left upon this earth, but they survived. The Gemara relates that they remained on the shelf singing Shira, and Rashi explains that this Shira became these Perakim of Tehillim.

Although there are other approaches to understanding the origins of these Perakim, and the identity of the “Bnei Korach” mentioned here, this Perek seems particularly suited to the approach of Rashi.

At its outset, Radak explains that this Mizmor is “Al Inyan Olam HaZeh V’Olam Haba’ah”, speaks about both this world and the next. Although this explanation seems nebulous, Rashi notes that the Perek is “Meyusad Al Bnei Adam HaBotchim B’Ashram”, based on those who rely on their material wealth. Similarly, Sforno explains that the Perek explains the difference between Histadlus in the area of Torah U’Maasmi Tovim and Hishtadlus in the physical realm. Based on the words of these Meforshim, we can understand that the theme of the Perek is the contrast between Chayei Olam and Chayei Sha’ah, between that which is fleeting and Nitzchius. It certainly seems appropriate that these words were written by the Bnei Korach as they found themselves in flux, suspended between this world and the next—who better to provide this insight than them?

The Pessukim themselves speak very plainly about these ideas, beginning with the urgency of their message: “Shemu Zos Kol HaAmim Hazinu Kol Yoshvei Chaled”. Metzudos explains that the words “Kol HaAmim” come to include all the nations because they, too, need to understand these truths. Further, these lessons are applicable to all, “Yachad Ani V’Evyon”, for we all need to properly prioritize our focus, regardless of economic status.

The overall crux of the Perek is expressed in two Pessukim: “Ach Lo Podeh Yifdeh Ish Lo Yiten L’Elokim Kafro”, Radak explains that after one passes from this world he cannot be redeemed by his brother’s money, for HKBH does not take ransom, “V’Yekar Pisyon Nafsham V’Chadal L’Olam”, for the value of ones Neshama is beyond material wealth.

The Pessukim point out the fallacy of material wealth: “Kirbam B’Temo L’Olam Mishkenoasam L’Dor V’Dor”, people assume that their homes will last forever, “Karu B’Shemosam Alei Adamos”, and so they call their land after their own names. This is, of course, foolish, as the Passuk specifically points out: “Zeh Darkam Kessil Lamo….”

The reality of the world is expressed plainly as well: “Al Tira Ki Yashir Ish Ki Yirbeh Kevod Biaso Ki Lo B’Moso Yikach Hakol…” When a person passes on from this world, he leaves his riches behind, taking none with him. If he has not lived his life properly, amassing wealth in Torah and Mitzvos, “Ad Netzach Lo Yireh Ohr”, he will never see the light of Olam Habah.

Considering the words and lessons of these Pessukim, it is no surprise that many have the Minhag to say this Perek as part of the Teffilos in a Bais Avel, when these matters are top of mind. As clear and unambiguous as the words of the Mizmor are, however, there is one Passuk that needs some explanation.

Towards the beginning of the Perek, a question is asked: “Lama Irah B’Yemei Rah?” what is the cause of my fear on the Yom Rah? The Passuk answers the question immediately: “Avon Akevai Yesubeni”. These words do not have a clear meaning as their literal meaning, “the sins of my heels surround me”, is little help.

Rashi, however, explains this Paassuk as follows: “Avon Akevai” refer to the the Aveiros “SheAdam Dash Bahem B’Akavev”, that people tread upon with little thought. This idea is based on the Chazal at the beginning of Parshas Ekev, which explains the words “V’Haya Ekev Teshmeun” in a similar way, as referring to “Mitzvos SheAdam Dash Bahen B’Akvehem”.

Accordingly, the Passuk us telling us that when the end of a person’s time here on earth arrives, what he has most to fear is the Aveiros Kallos, those “minor” or “small” Aveiros that he may have committed. Rashi adds that it will be these Aveiros that are “Marshios Osi BaDin”, end up condemning a person on his Yom HaDin.

How do we understand this Rashi? Why is it true that Aveiros that are Kallos, that a person is “Dash Bahem B’Akavev” are the ones that will stand most fiercely against him on the Yom Hadin? It would seem that the bigger Aveiros, so to speak, that a person may have done will play a larger role is his Din—why does the Passuk suggest otherwise? Also, why does the Passuk choose to speak about these Aveiros here? The purpose of this Perek is to draw a contrast between Chayei Olam and Chayei Sha’ah, why here does the Passuk choose to speak about the “Avon Akevai”?

In addition, there is a Medrash that seems to suggest that completely different meaning to the words “Avon Akevai Yesubeni”.

As we know, after the Chet of the Etz HaDaas, each of the parties involved in the story was given a punishment. The Nachas, who instigated the Chet, was told “Hu Yeshufcha Rosh V’Attah Teshufenu Ekev”. Hashem told the Nachash that man will always despise him, atttemping to step upon its head, while the Nachash will strike at our heels.

The Medrash Aggada on those words teaches: “Bzman SheBnei Adam Oskim BaTorah Ain Koach L’Nechashim L’Hazik Echad M’Yisroel”. Limud HaTorah protects us from the threat of the Nachash, but “Betelim M’Divrei Torah Noshech Akvam”, if we do not learn Torah, then the Nachash attacks our heels. The Medrash cites a proof for this from the words “Avon Akevai Yesubeni”, and continues, telling us that when this occurs, Klal Yisroel is threatened, as we see in this week’s Parsha, where HKBH sent snakes to attack Bnei Yisroel.

There are a few important points to address here.

First, the Medrash seems to suggest that the “Avon Akevai Yesubeni” is actually Limud HaTorah—that the answer to the question “Lama Irah B’Yemei Rah” is Bittul Torah, which leaves one susceptible to the Nachash. If this is the case, we must understand why the Passuk chooses to write about Limud HaTorah in this way: if the Aveirah that which one must be afraid will be Marshios Osi BaDin is Limud HaTorah, why use the words “Avon Akevai Yesubeni” which are such a roundabout way to refer to this Mitzvah? What is the implication of these words in the greater context of the Perek?

A more important question, however, relates to the final statement of the Medrsh, which connects Bittul Torah to the Nechashim which were sent against Bnei Yisroel in the Midbar, an episode spoken about in Parshas Chukas. This is difficult to understand, however, if we look at the Pessukim there.

The Torah tells us that Bnei Yisroel complained to Moshe Rabbienu about the Monn, which they called “Lechem HaKelolkel” and then: “VAyishlach Hashem Bam Es HaNechashim HaNesrafim VaYenashchu Es HaAm VaYamas Am Rav M’Yisroel.” Rashi, there, explains why the punishment chosen was the Nachas specifically: “Yavo Nachas Sehkol Haminin N’Tamin Lo Ta’am Echad V’Yifra M’Kefuei Tova Shedavar Echad Mishtaneh LAchem L’Kama Taamim.” Because Bnei Yisroel complained about the Monn—which had the ability to taste like anything they wished—they were punished by the snake, a creature that tastes only dust.

It seems, then, that the punishment brought against Bnei Yisroel at that time was directly Midah K’Neged Middah, in response to their complaints about the Monn. Why, then, does the Medrash suggest that this punishment was due to Bittul Torah? What might be the connection between the story of the Nechashim and this Aveirah, a link that seems to be established by the Medrash?

Perhaps if we answer this last question, we can then better understand the words “Avon Akevai Yesubeni” as well.

The truth is that there is a direct link between Limud HaTorah and the Monn, as the Mechilta in Parshas Beshalach tells us: “Lo Nitna Torah Ella L’Ochlei Monn Bilvad”. It was no coincidence that the Mikablei Torah subsisted on the Monn—this was necessarily the case: only the Ochlei HaMonn were capable of Kabblas HaTorah.

While this establishes a connection between Limud HaTorah and the Monn, we must of course understand why this was the case: why was the Monn a prerequisite for Kabbalas Hatorah?

The Mahram Brisk, a leading Rosh HaYeshiva in pre-war Hungry, in a Shabbos HaGadol Drasha, explains this Mechilta with penetrating insight.

The mark of a Ba’al Gaiva is that he is never satisfied with what he has, with his lot in life. Instead, he becomes obsessed with that which he doesn’t have—with that which he sees others enjoying, though he cannot. These thoughts consume him, for he cannot imagine having less than someone else, and he may even resort to unsavory tactics in order to fulfill these Taivos. This attitude prevents him from engaging in Limud HaTorah on a practical level because his pursuit of every Taiva will take up all his time, leaving little for Torah. More importantly, the Middah of Gaivah is antithetical to Torah in every way, as is stressed throughout Chazal.

It was for this reason that the Monn was given to the Mikablei HaTorah: because everyone ate the same food, and lived such a uniform lifestyle, there was little room for the Kinnah that would feed into the Middah of Gaiva. Instead, the Ochlei HaMonn because Shiflei Ruach, satisfied with what they had—a prerequisite for Kabbalas HaTorah. It was, therefore, the Monn that allowed them to become Mikablei HaTorah for it instilled within them the Middah of Shiflus.

We can now perhaps understand the Medrash Aggadah.

When Bnei Yisroel complained about the Monn, calling it Lechem HaKelkel, it showed that they did not understand its benefits. They disliked the uniformity that the Monn offered, ignoring the fact that it allowed them to have a greater Chelek in the Torah, and that’s why they were punished by the Nachash, “Shekol Haminin N’Tamin Lo Ta’am Echad”: they were protesting the uniformityof the Monn—which itself offered a great deal of variety without creating classes or division—and so they were punished by a creature that symbolizes the ultimate uniformity in Gashmi.

We do not have the Monn, but we can fall into the same trap, allowing our Taivos to overtake us, which prevents us from properly engaging in Limud HaTorah. The Medrash therefore warns us: “Betelim M’Divrei Torah Noshech Akvam”. If we become Baalei Gaiva, we will lose our ability to be Mekabel the Torah, and be susceptible to the threat of the Nachash.

Perhaps we can understand the words “Avon Akevai Yesubeni” based on this idea as well.

As we have seen, the message of this Perek is the imperative to choose Chayei Olam over Chayei Sha’ah, to focus not on what we do or don’t possess but on what we have accomplished in the realm of Ruchnias. This lesson of the Medrash is therefore quite appropriate to these words: chasing after our Taivos, and becoming Gassei Ruach, are the greatest impediments to growth in Ruchnias. It is these Middos that make us particularly susceptible to the Nachash, and certainly threaten our Olam Habaa.

The question asked by the Passuk, “Lama Irah B’Yemei Rah”, is therefore well answered by the words “Avon Akevai Yesubeni”, for in the end of the day the behaviors that open us up to the Nachash are the ones that we need fear will be “Marshios Osi BaDin”. Whether the Gaiva prevents us from Limud HaTorah, or causes us to trample Mitzvos in pursuit of our Taivos, these are the actions which we will rue B’Yom Rah. Instead, we must take the words of this Perek to heart, choosing to lead lives that will allow us to enjoy the eternal light.