Either Way

A large part of this week’s Sedra is devoted to the story of the Chet HaEgel and its aftermath. This event was not only a watershed moment for those who were involved, directly or peripherally, but for us as well—Chazal tell us that every punishment Klal Yisroel receives is in some way related to the Chet HaEgel. It is therefore useful, as we learn these Pessukim, to try and see what parts of this most egregious Aveira we can yet uproot.

Following the Pessukim that describe the Chet HaEgel, the Torah tells us that it was Hakadosh Baruch Hu Himself who informed Moshe Rabbeinu of the travesty: “Lech Red Ki Shiches Amcha.” Although the Tzivuy from Hashem, “Lech Red”, implied that Moshe should immediately go down to the Machaneh, Moshe first Davened on behalf of Klal Yisroel, imploring Hashem to withhold total destruction. Moshe was successful in his entities, as the Passuk tells us “Vayinachem Hashem Al Hara’ah Asher Diber La’asos L’Amo.” Only after securing the immediate safety of his flock, did Moshe turn to return to the camp. The next series of Pessukim are remarkable due to the actions they describe, but also in the way in which they do so.

The Torah tells us that Moshe took the Luchos HaEdus in his hands as he descended the mountain, and as the Torah tells us a few Pessukim later, when he realized exactly what was occurring, he threw the Luchos to the ground: “Vayashelch Miyadav Es HaLuchos Vayeshaber Ossam Tachas HaHar.” Certainly Moshe Rabbeinu did not act in an impulsive manner, breaking the Luchos out of anger, but rather there must have been a message, a lesson that wished to teach by doing so. Indded, Chazal tell us that although Moshe acted of his own accord, Hashem was in agreement with his actions, telling him “Yasher Kochacha Sheshibarta.” In addition, although Moshe is given new Luchos later in the Parsha, which were placed in the Aron Hakodesh, the Shivrei Luchos, the pieces of the broken Luchos, were to be found there as well. This too would indicate that there is an important message in the Sheviras Haluchos that is waiting to be decoded.

But perhaps more notable than the actual act of the Sheviras Haluchos, are the words that the Torah adds when telling us that Moshe took the Luchos with him as he went down from Har Sinai: “UShnei Luchos HaEdus B’Yado Luchos Kesuvim M’Shnei Averehem Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim. In telling us that Moshe took the Luchos with him, the Torah adds that the words on the Luchos were written on both sides. The next Passuk tells us that the Luchos were Maseh Elokim and the words were engraved on the Luchos. As Rashi explains, the fact that the words on the Luchos were engraved, but could be read from either side, was a Nes that was possible because they were Maseh Elokim. It seems then, that the second Passuk, which tells us that they were engraved but also that they were Mseh Elokim, is really explaining the earlier words: “Luchos Kesuvim M’Shnei Averehem Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim.”

Why, at this moment, when Moshe takes the Luchos with him to address the events in the Machaneh, does the Torah choose to tell us about this feature of the Luchos? Why is it important, in middle of the Pessukim discussing a time of great turmoil, for the Torah to inform us about the Nes of “Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim”? Why not tell us this fact earlier, in Parshas Yisro or Mishpatim, when the Luchos are first mentioned?

Chizukni, as befits his Derech of the most Pashut Pshat, writes that the Torah tells us about the composition of the Luchos now, prior to the act of Sheviras Haluchos, because the fact that the Luchos were engraved from both sides meant that they were easier to break due to all the hollow space. While this approach helps us understand the placement of these Pessukim on one level, it would certainly seem that there is room for another explanation, perhaps rooted in the Drech of Drush.

Interestingly, the words Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim appear in Chazal in realation to the Yom Tov we just celebrated—Purim. Perhaps if we examine the Divrei Chazal in that instance we will be better able to explain these Pessukim.

When Esther found out that Mordechai was standing outside the gates of the palace, B’Levush Sak V’Efer, she sent him clothing, which he refused. At that point she sent Hasach to approach Mordechai about his behavior, and the Passuk describes Esther’s query with the “L’Daas Mah Zeh V’Al Mah Zeh”. The Gemara in Megillah offers a Drasha explaining this unique choice of words: “Shalucho Lo, Shema Avru Yisroel Al Chamisha Chumshei Torah D’Ksiv Bahen ‘Miseh U Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim’?” According to the Gemrah, Esther was asking Mordechai if the Gezeirah was the result of Klal Yisroel acting against the Torah, but she made specific reference to the words that describe the Luchos: “Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim.”

This Gemarah requires some explanation. Why, of all the characteristics of the Torah and of all the Pessukim that speak of it, did Esther choose the words “Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim” in her question to Mordechai. Clearly, she was asking if it was the actions of Klal Yisroel that led to the decree against them, but why mention the fact that the Luchos were written, B’Derech Nes, so that they could be read from either side? What did this have to do with the matter at hand?

The truth is that Chazal tell us why Klal Yisroel could have been destroyed at that time: because they were Neheneh from Seudas Achasverosh against Mordechai’s remonstrations. Esther must have known that the people were Nichshol in this Avierah, so what in fact was her question to Mordechai?

R’ Akiva Sofer z”l, in Daas Sofer, explains that Esther’s question was actually related to the motovations that led people to be Neheh from the Seudah. The Gemarah tells us that Achashverosh made a Cheshbon and proved that seventy years—the stated term of Galus Bavel—had passed, and the Geulah had not yet come. His Seudah was made to celebrate this apparent victory over the Jews. The fact that those same Jews chose to attend showed that they experienced Yiush—they gave up. Rather than trying to prove Achashverosh wrong, and show how his count was off, which it indeed was, they assumed he was right, and that they would not be Zoche to return to Eretz Yisroel. They chose then to make themselves more like the nation amongst which they dwelled, rather than separate themselves as befit their stature, and they therefore willingly participated in the Seudah that actually celebrated their doom.

The Daas Sofer explains that this mindset was contrary to the lesson of “Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim.” The reason Luchos could be read from either side was to teach us that the Torah and its Mitzvos, represented by the Luchos, applies no matter our situation. Whether we find ourselves in Eretz Yisroel, close to the Shechina, or in Galus, we have the opportunity to live as Mikablei Torah and set ourselves aside from those who are not privy to our glorious heritage. Thus, Esther was asking Mordechai if perhaps the Gezeriah was due to the fact that Klal Yisroel gave up hope on the Geulah and chose to further entrench themselves in the Umos Haolam, in contravention to the Yesod of “Luchos Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim.”

With this idea in mind, perhaps we can understand the inclusion of these words at the time of the Chet HaEgel.

One of the most basic questions that is asked when it comes to the Chet HaEgel is how Klal Yisroel, who had just weeks before stood at Har Sinai, were able to come to such an unspeakable Aveira as the creation of an Egel Hazahav. The simeplest answer is that they too were affected by the pernicious nature of Yiush. They saw that Moshe, based on their Cheshbon, had not come down at the appointed time, and they gave up hope. They were aided in their despondency by a Ma’aseh Satan—the vision of the Mittah Shel Moshe, implying that their leader had passed on—but it was this sense of hopelessness that spurred them to the Aveirah of the Egel.

In this way, Bnei Yisroel at that time made the same mistake that their descendants would all those years later, in Shushan. They saw that their understanding of events was not to be, and rather than being Mechazek themselves to keep the Torah afloat, they turned to other means. Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim should have taught them that the Torah is applicable in any situation—no matter what, we can find a way to fulfil our Tafkid as the Am Hanivchar. Rather than giving up, they should have strengthened themselves, knowing that their reaction to this change in plans must be in accordance with the Dvar Hashem. Because they gave up, and fell to a mindset of Yiush, they were unable to do so.

Therefore, when he came down from the mountain and saw what was occurring, Moshe broke the Luchos, as if to show that the actions of Klal Yisroel indicated their lack of sensitivity to the dictates of Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim. When they found themselves in an unanticipated situation, they chose to move away from the Torah, rather than toward it, and in so doing exposed themselves to great calamity. The lesson of Sheviras Haluchos, then, is that we are responsible to live up to the ideal of Mizeh U’Mizeh Hem Kesuvim, the universal applicability of the Torah.

As we learn this Parsha, and reflect on the Yom Tov of Purim, we too can take this lesson. When we find ourselves in situations that are unexpected, and perhaps even bleak, we must take security in the fact that there is always a solution based in Torah and Mitzvos. The Luchos could be clearly read from any perspective, and can affect us in any circumstance—they were and always will be Mizeh U’Mizeh Kesuvim.