A Moral Code

Rabbi Maury Grebenau In the aftermath of the announcement of bnei yisroels forty year detour there is a brief but fascinating episode of the Maapilim1 (Bamidbar 14:40-45). This band of Jews wants to try to conquer Israel immediately despite what Moshe has told them. Moshe tells them that they are going against G-ds wishes and that they will fail. They ignore Moshes suggestion and begin to enter the land. Some of the indigenous nations come out and route them in battle. The two issues which rise to the surface are: what was the motivation of the Maapilim and why was what they did so problematic. Perhaps we should laud their efforts to make good on the Jewish peoples mistake. They realize that they were mistaken in listening to the spies and they want to make amends by accepting Israel now. The Seforno makes a fascinating comment which I believe addresses these questions. His commentary is based on two different categorizations which are found in the Talmud in the context of categorizing sin. We find sins which are said to be lteavon (for ones personal benefit) and others which are lhacheis (literally to anger G-d). The category of lteavon means that one is sinning because of their own personal honor, social acceptance, desires etc. It is a category based in selfishness and ego, choosing what is best for oneself over serving Hashem. The category of lhacheis is usually considered far worse, it is in essence ideological. The sin is not due to an inability to delay gratification, rather it stems from a fundamentally flawed life perspective. The Seforno comments that since the Maapilim were not acting out of self interest their sin is automatically categorized as lhacheis. The Sefornos conception of these categories of sin is that they are not a spectrum with two poles. Rather, if a person is not being motivated by their selfish desires it means their cause is ideological. If we have an ideology which is not in line with what Hashem wants then we are indeed in a very dangerous place. A few months ago, David Brooks wrote an Op Ed in the NY times about the limits of empathy2. He argues that although teaching ourselves and our children empathy is wonderful, it is not sufficient to catalyze moral behavior. He points to the famous Milgram experiment and comments that the subjects felt terrible when they seemed to administer electric shock to patients and yet they pressed on because of the social pressure to listen to the researcher in the white lab coat who represented authority. Brooks suggests that anyone we look up to has some sort of moral code which demands certain behaviors regardless of feelings. He argues that a moral code is what is necessary to create moral behavior.
1

The name comes from the verb used to describe their attack in pasuk 44. Rashi translates it to mean either a language of strength (chozek) or darkness (afeila). Rav Sadia Gaon sees it as a language of intentional sin (mazid) and others also seem to see it as a language of stubbornness. See other commentaries including Emes LYaakov. 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/brooks-the-limits-of-empathy.html

I would argue that those without a moral code slip easily into the lteavon category. They may empathize with others and want to do the right thing but social acceptance and their own ego may get in the way. This is what happened to the subjects of the Milgram experiment. Mr. Brooks suggestion of a moral code resonates with all Jews in that it is certainly a facet of our Torah. However the incident of the Maapilim adds an important caveat to Mr. Brooks argument. If we have a moral code which is not in line with ratzon Hashem (what G-d wants) then we have escaped lteavon only to stumble in to lhacheis! This is exactly what Moshe says to the Maapilim in pasuk 44: Lamah Zeh Atem Ovrim Es Pi Hashem, VHi Lo Titzlach Why do you go against the word of G-d? This will not succeed!. It is necessary to comb the depths of the Torah and to learn from those who have more Torah knowledge than ourselves, in order to create a moral code with a Torah foundation. We must free ourselves from an agenda we might thing belongs in a moral code and make ourselves barren like the proverbial Midbar (desert) in which the Torah was given. We must build our personal moral code from Pi Hashem and in this way be role models for the next generation.