Evil is Good

Parshas V’Eschanan includes, among many other elements, six Pessukim that form the bedrock of Yiddishkeit: the first Parsha of Krias Shema. These words, which we say multiple times each day, are the foundation for everything we know and believe, the key to our existence.

One of the Mitzvos contained within these Pessukim is that of Ahavas Hahsem. The Torah tells us: “V’Ahavta Es Hashem Elokecha B’Chol Levavecha B’Chol Nafshecha U’Bichol Me’odecha.” Rashi, on these words, cites a Drasha brought in the Mishna in Meseches Brachos: “Bchol Levavcha, B’Shtei Yitzrecha”. Because the Passuk could have said “V’Ahavta…B’Lev” the word “B’Chol” seems exta, and Chazal therefore explain that this comes to include the Yetzer Harah as well as the Yetzer Tov.

There is, of course, a simple question that can be asked on this Drasha, which also appears in Sifri here: how does one use his Yetzer Harah to engender Ahavas Hashem? There are, of course, many answers to this question, but perhaps we can find new insight based on a Passuk in Tehillim in which Dovid Hamelech speaks about similar concepts.

Kapital 51 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Mizmor L’Dovid”, but the second Passuk tells us at what point in his life Dovid sang this Mizmor: “B’Bo Elav Nosson HaNavi K’Asher Bah El Bas Sheva”. Radak explains that when Nosson confronted Dovid Hamelech about the Ma’aseh Bas Sheva, Dovid said “Chatasi L’Hashem”, and it was after the Navi departed that he composed this Teffilah.

Accordingly, the Pessukim the Perek are based around the theme of Teshuva, with Dovid pleading that Hashem accept his: “Chaneni Hashem K’Chasdecha K’Rov Rachamecha Mechei Pisha’ai.” Dovid admits that he is aware of his missteps, “Ki Pisha’ai Ani Edah”, expressing true Charatah.

As the Perek continues, Dovid turns to the root of his, and all, Chataim: “Hen B’Avon Cholalti…”. Rashi explains that these words refer to the reality that a person is created of humans, with an inborn capacity for Aveirah. Interestingly, Rashi adds that the Medrashim that address these words do not fit into the context of the Perek—rather we must understand these words according to the Derech Hapshat.

The Pessukim continue in this vein, with Dovid asking HKBH to look away from his Chataim, and provide him with the tools to succeed. To that end, he pleads: “Lev Tahor Berah Li Elokim V’Ruach Nachon Chadesh B’Kirbi”. He asks HKBH to create for him a “Lev Tahor”, a pure heart, which the Meforshim explain will prevent him from future Chet. The word Lev is often used as a metaphor for choice, and so it may seem like poetic choice—Dovid asking HKBH to ensure that his heart makes the correct choices in the future—but Chazal indicate that the word is used rather intentionally.

The Gemara in Sukkah tells us that there are seven names for the Yetzer Harah, each of which is seen in a Paasuk. HKBH Himself refers to it as “Rah”, as it says in the PAssuk “Ki Yetzer Lev HaAdam Rah M’Neurav”. Moshe Rabbeinu called it “Orel”: “U’Maltem Es Orel Levavchem”. Dovid called it “Tamei”, as the Passuk says “Lev Tahor Berah Li Elokim.” The Gemara explains this statement: “Michlal D’Ikah Tamei”—from the fact that Dovid asked for a “Lev Tahor” there must be a “Lev Tamei”, which would be the Yetzer Harah. The Gemara continues, bringing other Pessukim that show how Shlomo Hamelech, and the Neviim Yeshaya, Yechezkel and Yoel each refer to the Yetzer Harah.

Clearly Chazal understood that the word Lev here is too be understood the same as in the Passuk in our Parsha: “Bchol Levavcha, B’Shtei Yitzrecha”. Dovid is also using the word Lev as a moniker for his Yetzer Tov, and by extension his Yetzer Harah.

If we look at the Gemara as a whole, however, an anomaly emerges: of all the “names” for the Yetzer Harah, only one is not mentioned outright in the Passuk. Only in the case of Dovid Hamelech do we understand what he called the Yetzer Harah based on how he refered to the Yetzer Tov: “Tahor Michlal D’Ikah Tamei”. Why is this? Why did the Gemarah choose a Limud that is inferred in this case?

In fact, if we think about it, the conclusion of the Gemara is itself questionable. Why does the fact that Dovid Hamlech asked for a “Lev Tahor” mean that there is another force, a “Lev Tamei” so to speak? Perhaps Dovid was asking for an added level of Tahara so that he may make the correct choices in the future—how can we understand the words “Tahor Michlal D’Ikah Tamei”?

Even the way in which Dovid chose to refer to the Yetzer Harah seems noteworthy. Tumah and Taharah are concepts that are spiritual in nature, but at the same time they are quite technical. While the reasons for different levels of Tumah are not immediately understandable, the Dinim of Tumah V’Tahara are quite logical—they follow a predictable pattern and set of rules. Why did Dovid choose this metaphor, Tumah and Tahara, to refer to his “Shtei Yetzarim”?

Perhaps we can answer these questions, and better understand the Passuk, if we indeed examine the use of the words Tahor to describe the Yetzer Hatov.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses whether Adam Harishon was allowed to eat animals while in Gan Eden. As a proof to that it was Muttar, the Gemara brings a Braisa which tells us that while Adam was in the Gan, the Malachei HaShares roasted meat and strained wine on his behalf—this would seem to indicate that Adam was allowed to eat the meat of animals. The Gemara then explains that this is not a proof, for the Malachim were preparing “Basar HaYored Min HaShamayim”, meat that descended from above.

The Gemara discusses this reality of this phenomenon and tells the story of Rav Shimon bar Chalafta who was confronted by lions as he traveled. In response to his Teffilos, two animal thighs came down from Shamayim, one of which the lions ate, satisfying their hunger and dispatching them from before R’ Shimon. One thigh remained, tells the Gemara, and R’ Shimon bar Chalafta took it to the Bais Medrash, asking if it was from a Behaima Tehora or Beheima Temeiah. The Chachamim responded that it must have been from a Behiama Tehora because “Ain Davar Tamei Yored Min HaShamayim.”

How can we understand this statement? We could perhaps understand that the Chachamim referred to the fact that the meat came to R’ Shimon bar Chalafta B’Derech Nes, and were positing that a Davar Tamei could not come through a Nes, but their statement seems broader and more absolute—what is the meaning of these words and the message of this story?

The Meshech Chachma, in Parshas Lech Lecha, discusses concepts of Tumah and Tahara at length. He points out that basic elements, such as earth, wood, and water, cannot become Tamei. Only if a person uses them to construct something, and finishes it to perfection, can they be affected by Tumah. Peshutei Kli Etz—simple wooden utensils—do not become Tamei because they have not attained the level of completion necessary to be called “complete”. The same is true of an earthenware vessel, made of soild and water: until it is perfectly complete it does not become Tamei, and once Tamei it returns to Tahor status if it loses its state of perfection.

This, explains R’ Meir Simcha, teaches us that Tumah only comes from Shleimus—only something that has attained a level of completion can become Tamei. This is why Bnei Yisroel are subject to Tumah, but not the Umos HaOlam—we have a level of Shelimus within us that renders us susceptible to Tumah, where they do not.

Based on this idea we can well understand the concept of “Ain Davar Tamei Yored Min HaShamayim.” Tumah requires Shelimus, which does not come “Min Hashamayim”, but requires human interaction—a piece of meat which falls from Shamayim is akin to a basic element like soil or wood, and cannot itself be Tamei. Only something that has been perfected at the hands of a person can reach the level in which Tumah would apply.

Dovid cries to HKBH, asking for a “Lev Tahor” and the Gemara deduces “Tahor Michlal D’Ikah Tamei”. Based on the ideas of the Meshech Chachma we can understand that Dovid Hamelech was saying to Hahsem: I have faltered, and encountered Tumah, but this itself indicates that I have an element of Shelimus: “Tahor Michlal D’Ikah Tamei”. The existence of Tumah gives Dovid the right to ask for Tahara, as his faults reveal his strengths. This is why Dovid chose these concepts to allude to his Yitzrei HaTov V’Hara, for they reveal the truths of these forces.

This could be the explanation of the Gemara in Brachos as well.

We are instructed to love Hahsem, Bchol Levavcha, B’Shtei Yitzrecha. We must realize that the fact that we have a Yetzer Harah, that we are susceptible to Tumah, is itself a function of the love that Hashem has for us. As members of the Am Hanivchar we are imbued with an element of Shleimus that primes us for Tumah. Chet is part of our existence, “Hen B’Avon Cholalti…”, but we need not be its victim. Rather, we must recognize that our faults reveal our potentials, that we have the ability to find Tahara, to accept a “Ruach Nachon” that allows us to move past the Tumah and in turn attain the heights of which we are capable.