Re'eh — Good Choices

רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה

מֵאֵלֶיהָ הָרָעָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה, וְהַטּוֹבָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה

The Pessukim of Parshas Re’eh continue the message that Moshe Rabbeinu gave over to Klal Yisroel in his final days, beginning with a general statement: רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה . Moshe relates that HKBH has put before us the בְּרָכָה and קְלָלָֽה, and then explains how our fate is determined: if we listen to the Mitzvos given by HKBH, we are Zoche to Bracha, and if not, וְסַרְתֶּם מִן־הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם, we face the opposite.

Rashi, on these words, explains when the moment of נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם took place: הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּהַר גְּרִזִּים וּבְהַר עֵיבָל. According to this Pshat, the בְּרָכוֹת and קְלָלוֹת that Moshe spoke of had not been given yet—they would be laid out later, after Bnei Yisroel crossed the Yarden, at הַר גְּרִזִּים and הַר עֵיבָל. At this poiunt, then, Moshe was foreshadowing the moment that the בְּרָכוֹת and קְלָלוֹת would be put before them.

The Medrash, however, offers a different understanding of these words.

The Passuk in Eicha says מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב, indicating that good and bad is not dictated מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן, and the Medrsh brings Drasha based on this Passuk: מִשֶּׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּסִינַי, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ הָרָעָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה, וְהַטּוֹבָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה. Since the time of Mattan Torah, טּוֹבָה came to the עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה, whereas the עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה received רָעָה. The words מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב teach us that these outcomes were reflexive, מֵאֵלֶיהָ , determined by a persons deeds and not directly by HKBH.

This Medrash seems to indicate that the words רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם refer to Mattan Torah: it was at that time that HKBH placed before us בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה because after that moment, הָרָעָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה, וְהַטּוֹבָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה.

While the Medrash helps us define the word הַיּוֹם, it is very difficult to understand on its own. This Drasha seems to indicate that something changed at the moment of Mattan Torah—before that the הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב were indeed determined מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן. If so, what changed? Why, once the Torah was given, was it true that only a person’s actions determined whether he would be subject to בְּרָכָה or קְלָלָה? Also, if this had been true מִשֶּׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּסִינַי, why was Moshe only telling us now, almost forty years later? What is the message of this Medrash?

These questions become somewhat more pressing based on the way another Mamar Chazal.

The Medrash in Eicha Rabba, on the words מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב points to the words רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם אֶת הַחַיִּים וְאֶת הַטּוֹב וְאֶת הַמָּוֶת וְאֶת הָרָע, which are similar to those in our Parsha but are found in Parshas Nitzvaim, and tells us that from the time those words were spoken, לֹא יָצָאת טוֹבָה לְעוֹשֵׂה רָעָה, וְרָעָה לְעוֹשֵׂה טוֹבָה. This Medrash seem to tell us that the change came later: it was only once HKBH said the words רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם אֶת הַחַיִּים וְאֶת הַטּוֹב that the world changed, but at that point, לֹא יָצָאת טוֹבָה לְעוֹשֵׂה רָעָה, וְרָעָה לְעוֹשֵׂה טוֹבָה, no good came upon עוֹשֵׂה רָעָה, and no bad upon the עוֹשֵׂה טוֹבָה.

This statement seems somewhat more extreme than the Medrash in Parashas Re’eh: the טוֹבָה that עוֹשֵׂה טוֹבָה are Zoche to is exclusive—no רָעָה will befall them—and the opposite is true of the עוֹשֵׂה רָעָה. Now, we know that our perception of טוֹבָה and רָעָה may not always be accurate, but the Medrash semms to be speaking practically: from the time that HKBH said רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם אֶת הַחַיִּים וְאֶת הַטּוֹב וְאֶת הַמָּוֶת וְאֶת הָרָע, no bad befell those who are עוֹשֵׂה טוֹבָה. Why? Putting aside the philosophical questions prompted by these Medrashim, we must understand their ultimate message—what does it mean that there was a moment in time in which a paradigm shift took place, and הָרָעָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה, וְהַטּוֹבָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה?

We must also resolve the apparent contradiction between the way the Memra is given over in the two Medrahsim. In both instances these words are attributed to R’ Elazar, but in Devarim Rabba the Medrash says that the change took place מִשֶּׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּסִינַי, while the Eicha Rabba tells us that it was later, when Hashem said רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם אֶת הַחַיִּים וְאֶת הַטּוֹב וְאֶת הַמָּוֶת וְאֶת הָרָע. How can we explain this apparent discrepancy?

It is also important to include the next part of the Medrash in our discussion.

The Medrash concludes with another Memra: וְלֹא עוֹד שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם שְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְנַסְתִּי לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין וְאָמַרְתִּי לָכֶם וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים. Not only did HKBH tell us the two paths that we may choose, בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה , but we are also told which one to choose, as the Passuk in Parshas Netzavim says, וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים. The Medrash refers to this as an act of לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין on the part of HKBH.

How are we to understand this? Why did HKBH have to tell us וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים? Would we not already have known that given the choice between בְּרָכָה and קְלָלָה, between חַיִּים and the opposite, we should choose חַיִּים? What is the Medrash telling us, and why is this considered an act of לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין ?

Interestingly, the Sifri here seems to address this question: שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹאִיל וְנָתַן הַמָּקוֹם לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁנֵי דְרָכִים, דֶּרֶךְ חַיִּים וְדֶרֶךְ מָוֶת, נֵלֵךְ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶם שֶׁנִּרְצֶה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים. Because we were indeed given two options, so to speak, one may have thought that we could choose whichever we want, and the Torah therefore told us וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים.

This Medrash is telling us that the words וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים were in fact necessary, because one may have thought that the choice is indeed ours to make. What does this mean? If a person indeed thought נֵלֵךְ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶם שֶׁנִּרְצֶה , why would the words וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים change his mind? The Torah is full of Mitzvos which instruct us how to act—the notion that we may choose a different path, the דֶרֶךְ מָוֶת, implies that we will not follow the Mitzvos. Why would the Mitzvah of וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים be different?

Before answering these questions, there is one, more general question that must be addressed. If the ultimate choice is between בְּרָכָה and קְלָלָה, or טּוֹבָה and רָעָה, why does the Torah tell us וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים? Why not tell us to choose בְּרָכָה , which will then lead to טּוֹבָה and חַיִּים ? Why did the Torah specifically tell us וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים?

The Panim Yafos, in this week's Parsha, points out a difference between the two Pessukim that follow the words רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה . First, the Torah tells us אֶת־הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ and then וְהַקְּלָלָה אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ. Why, asks the Panim Yafos, does the Torah use the word אֲשֶׁר with relation to the מִצְוֺת and not אִם? If we are indeed presented with a choice, than both options should be tentative, using the word אִם, as opposed to the more definitive אֲשֶׁר. What do the words אֶת־הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ teach us?

By way of an answer, he explains that the word אֲשֶׁר is tied to the words וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים that appear later. The Panim Yafos notes that these words seem extraneous, כִּי מִי לֹא יִבְחַר הַחַיִּים, who would not choose life? As we pointed out, given the choice between חַיִּים and the opposite, it would not seem necessary for the Torah to tell us which to opt for. Rather, explains the Panim Yafos, the Torah wishes to teach us an important lesson with these words: in order to make the correct choices, a person must internalize that the טּוֹב is חַיִּים and the רָע is מָּוֶת. We must understand and truly believe that the two are connected, that choosing טּוֹב leads to חַיִּים , and vice versa. We can reach this understanding, he explains, if we internalize the love that HKBH has for each of us, and the desire that the טוֹב וּמֵטִיב has for us to benefit from the ultimate הֲטָבָה.

To illustrate this, the Panim Yafos draws an important distinction.

A mentor or advisor who is not emotionally attached to his charge sometimes has an element of perverse motivation: if the one he is instructing does not listen to his advice, and fails, then it will be clear that the mentor was correct. On the other hand, if the student heeds his words and is successful, he will be quick to attribute it to his own skill as opposed to the good advice of his mentor. Therefore, the mentor will not actively encourage the student to take his advice, but rather just offer counsel and leave it to the recipient to make a choice.

The same is not true for HKBH. When Hashem gave us the Mitzvos, it was in the hopes that we would listen and therefore be Zoche to the בְּרָכוֹת, that we would be among the עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה that would be the recipients of the טּוֹבָה. The words וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים teach us that, unlike a human counselor, it is not the Ratzon Hashem that we fail and experience the reality of הָרָעָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה, thereby learning our lesson the hard way. The only intent is for us to receive הֲטָבָה, which can only come through the Torah and Mitzvos.

This is why the Torah says אֶת־הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ , explains the Panim Yafos. If the Passuk used the word אִם it would seem that HKBH is content for us to make a choice so that we may learn the pitfalls of our choices. This, however, is not the case—HKBH only wants us to experience חַיִּים , and the only way to do so is to be among the עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה. The words אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ therefore illustrate the certainty with which HKBH wishes for us to benefit.

With this in mind, we can understand the Medrashim and their message.

The Sifri is telling us that the purpose of the words וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים is to dissuade us of the notion that HKBH wants us to make a choice for ourselves. The idea that הוֹאִיל וְנָתַן הַמָּקוֹם לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁנֵי דְרָכִים, דֶּרֶךְ חַיִּים וְדֶרֶךְ מָוֶת, נֵלֵךְ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶם שֶׁנִּרְצֶה is predicated on a presumption that Hashem does not have a vested interest in our choice—the words וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים show that indeed Hashem only wants us to have טּוֹב.

This idea helps us understand the two Medrashim on the words רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה as well.

It was at Har Sinai, when we became the Am Hanivchar, that a paradigm shift occurred: wishing for us to have the ultimate הֲטָבָה, HKBH put a new reality into play. From then on, הַטּוֹבָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה, those who follow the Torah and Mitzvos would be Zoche to the בְּרָכוֹת. This, as the Medrash in Eicha Rabba tells us, is to the exclusion of רָע, but we must appreciate the Ratzon Hahsem in order to recognize it. If we understand the message of the words, וּבָחַרְתָּ בַחַיִּים , which indicate that Hashem only wants us to have טּוֹב, then we will see life trhoug the lens of לֹא יָצָאת טוֹבָה לְעוֹשֵׂה רָעָה, וְרָעָה לְעוֹשֵׂה טוֹבָה. If we understand this reality than we will fully internalize the fact that לֹא יָצָאת טוֹבָה לְעוֹשֵׂה רָעָה, even when it may seem otherwise.

Later, as we stood poised to enter Eretz Yisroel, this idea was reinforced by Moshe Rabbeinu. Here, in Parshas Re’eh, and then again later in Parshas Netzavim, Moshe reminded us that HKBH only wants the best for us, that HKBH hopes that we will make the choice that leads to חַיִּים , so that we maybe Zoche to all the בְּרָכוֹת.