“My lesson shall drop like rain. My saying shall flow like dew – like
wind-blown rain upon the herb, like a powerful shower upon the covering of
vegetation.” (Devarim 31:2)
Rashi explains that in this pasuk Hashem is describing the effects of the Torah upon its
students. In the first portion of the pasuk, the Torah is compared to rain and
dew. What is the message transmitted
through this comparison?
Rashi comments that although the earth needs rain in
order to sustain life, rain is not always appreciated. Rain can cause
inconvenience. The traveler does not wish to battle inclement weather. A farmer whose harvested crops are still in
the field is not pleased with a summer storm.
Dew does not have the life-sustaining power of
rain. However, it is more
appreciated. Dew provides moisture,
without inconvenience. [1]
Rashi understands the pasuk to contain a fundamental lesson. A few preliminary observations are necessary to understand this
message. Some activities only provide
future reward. Often a person is
required to make a tremendous sacrifice in order to secure this future
benefit. A person may work fifty years,
in a despised job, in order to someday enjoy a dreamed-of retirement. A parent will sacrifice and endure hardship
for years in order to provide the best opportunities for his or her beloved
child.
In contrast, other activities provide only immediate
and fleeting benefit. These activities
offer no long-term gain. For example,
an extra-rich dessert is great for a moment.
But the consequences are not as pleasant. The pleasure of a drug-user epitomizes this type of
activity. The pleasure of the high is
short-term. The long-term effect of the
activity is a shattered life.
Rashi understands rain to represent an activity with
a long-term sustaining effect. Dew, in
contrast, symbolizes activity providing immediate joy and benefit. He explains the pasuk to mean that the Torah combines the benefits of rain and
dew. Like rain, Torah sustains life. Through observance and study of the Torah we
can achieve eternal life in Olam HaBah
– the world to come. Yet, the Torah
also has the quality represented by dew – immediate gain. We are not required to sacrifice happiness
in this life. Instead, the Torah
enhances our temporal existence in the material world.
How are these two outcomes accomplished? The Torah provides us with guidance in our
everyday affairs. It teaches us a way,
an outlook and discipline designed to help deal with the challenges of
life. At the same time, the Torah
encourages the development of the human’s unique spiritual element. This element is immortal and survives the
temporal material world.
The second portion of the pasuk makes reference to wind-blown rain falling upon an herb and a
powerful shower falling upon the mantle of vegetation. Again, the pasuk is teaching some lesson about Torah. But we must determine the meaning of the
various symbols – wind-blown rain, the individual herb, a powerful shower, and
the mantle of vegetation. The
association between the symbols also requires analysis. The wind-blown rain is associated with the
individual herb. The powerful shower is
associated with the mantle of vegetation.
Again, Rashi provides a hint to the interpretation
of the pasuk. He comments that the wind-blown rain
strengthens the herb it strikes. In a
similar way, the study of Torah strengthens the student.
Rashi seems to understand this second portion of the
pasuk as a describing two manners in
which Torah can be transmitted. These
two methods are described as wind-blown rain and as a powerful shower.[2] Apparently, each method has its
application. One method is applicable
when dealing with the individual – the single herb. The other method is required when teaching a large group – the
mantle of vegetation.
Torah is taught in many forums. It may be transmitted from rebbe to talmid – teacher to student. Even in the classroom the rebbe works with a small group of
students. In this situation the teacher
has the opportunity and responsibility to recognize the individuality of the
pupil. Torah is also transmitted in
larger forums. In the synagogue the rav
must inspire a congregation. He cannot
study the reaction of each individual as he addresses his congregation. He must speak to the group. The rebbe
deals with the single herb. The rav
must communicate with the entire mantle of vegetation.
Each of these situations requires a unique
approach. The rebbe’s success depends upon assuming the role of wind-blown rain. The teacher must be demanding. High expectations cause the student to grow
and become a scholar. The rebbe can be demanding because each
individual student is carefully observed.
This allows the teacher to provide measured demands corresponding to the
abilities and needs of the pupil.
The rav of a kehila – a congregation –
does not have this luxury. He must use
a different means to achieve his goal of effectively teaching the lessons of
the Torah. He must present his thoughts
with power and impact. This requires a
clear, sharply-defined message. In this
way he inspires his congregation through demonstrating the wisdom and beauty of
the Torah.
“To Hashem do you act this way? You are a foolish nation without
wisdom. He is your Father and the One
who established you. He made you and
placed you upon a foundation.” (Devarim
32:6)
The pasuk
addresses a future generation of Bnai Yisrael.
It is confronting a people who reject Hashem and His Torah. This rebellion against the Almighty and His
law is characterized as the action of a nation of fools.
Rashi comments that such people are foolish for they
forget the past. The history of the
Jewish people serves as testimony to the Almighty’s relationship to Bnai
Yisrael. The nation has no wisdom for
it fails to foresee the outcome of its behavior. The rejection of Hashem can only result in disaster.[3]
Rashi’s comments correspond a famous teaching of the
Sages. The Sages ask, “Who is
wise?” They respond, “One who sees the
future.”[4]
This teaching requires some analysis. There are many characteristics that can be
associated with a wise person. Why did
our Sages specifically associate the wise person with the ability to foresee
the future? Another problem stems from
the strange phraseology adopted in this teaching. No human can see the future.
We can see only the present.
Regarding the future, we predict likely outcomes.
The present we perceive with our senses. These sense perceptions are very real. No normal person would purposely walk in
front of an oncoming train. We have no
doubt as to the reality of the speeding train, and no doubt that crossing its
path will result in disaster.
In contrast, we can perceive the future only as an
idea. The future cannot be seen through
the senses. For this reason the future
often seems less real than the present. Mere ideas do not strike us as quite as
definite as sense perceptions. It is
difficult to take ideational material completely seriously. However, this
denigration of the reality of ideas is an illusion. Ideas are just as real as sense perceptions.
Our Sages did not regard a person as wise simply as
a consequence of the accumulation of data.
A wise person is an individual who is guided by wisdom. This means that the reality of ideas is as
definite to the wise person as input received through the senses. The Sages characterized this quality by
referring to “seeing” the future. The
future, although only an idea, is as real as the present that is seen through
the senses.
The message of the pasuk is now clearer. The
rejection of the Almighty will inevitably result in a negative
consequence. Why would the people
expose themselves to this outcome? The pasuk responds that this behavior
reflects a lack of wisdom. The people
will become attached to the material life.
They will strive to fulfill their immediate desires. These desires will seem very real and
pressing. The future consequences of
this behavior will be disregarded. The
future only exists as an idea. To a
people steeped in materialism an idea will seem illusionary and vague. The result is that the future will be
ignored in order to enjoy the present.
“Among the repentant
behaviors are for the repentant individual to constantly call-out to Hashem
with cries and supplications. And one
should give charity according to one’s ability. One should distance oneself from one’s sin. One should change one’s name. One is stating that I am a different
person. I am not the person who did
those inappropriate actions. One should
alter all of one’s actions so that they are positive and just…”
(Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuva 2:4)
Maimonides describes the behaviors of the repentant
individual. One of these behaviors is
somewhat confusing. Maimonides suggests
that the repentant individual should alter all of his or her actions. One must be positive and just in all
actions.
In order to understand the difficulty regarding this
suggestion, a short introduction is required.
What is repentance? Repentance
is not accomplished through a temporary cessation of the sinful behavior. Teshuva
is much more demanding. Teshuva
requires that a person make a complete break with the sinful behavior. This complete break is only achieved through
a commitment to never again commit the sin. Maimonides’ position on this issue
is emphatic. He explains that a person
who confesses a sin and does not resolve to completely discontinue the sinful
behavior has not fulfilled the mitzvah
of teshuva. He compares this person to one who immerses in a mikveh – a body of water – while holding
an impure object. The immersion cannot
affect a state of purity until the person releases the impure object. Similarly, the purification and process of teshuva cannot proceed without a
complete break from the sin. This
complete break is expressed in a firm commitment to abandon the sinful
behavior.[5]
Maimonides suggests that the repentant individual
must alter all of his or her behaviors.
Does this mean that repentance must be all-encompassing and include all
aspects of a person’s life? Is
Maimonides suggesting that the repentance from a specific sin requires a person
to repent from all other inappropriate behaviors? This is not a reasonable interpretation of Maimonides’
words. As we have explained, teshuva requires a complete and
permanent cessation of the sinful behavior. Maimonides cannot intend to suggest
that repentance from a single sin requires that we permanently abandon all
other wrongdoing. Such a requirement would
render teshuva virtually unattainable!
We must conclude that Maimonides is not suggesting
that the repentant individual must permanently discontinue all other
inappropriate behaviors. Instead,
Maimonides is acknowledging the value of change that is not accompanied by
complete commitment. The repentant
person should endeavor to discontinue all inappropriate behavior. It is true that such a drastic undertaking
will not result in a permanent cessation of all wrongdoing. That is an unrealistic expectation. Nonetheless, temporary change has a
value. The sincerely repentant person
should appreciate that value a seek change – even temporary change.
This interpretation of Maimonides’ suggestion is
implied by his carefully chosen wording.
He does not suggest that the repentant individual should repent from all
other wrongdoing. He suggests that repentant person alter his or her
behavior. There is a tremendous
difference between altering a behavior and repenting from the behavior. An alteration is achieved even through a
temporary suspension of wrongdoing.
Repentance requires a complete commitment to permanently discontinue the
behavior. This analysis confirms our
interpretation of Maimonides’ suggestion.
He is acknowledging the value of positive change – even temporary
change.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 32:2.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 32:2.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 32:6.
[4] Mesechet Tamid 32a.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuva 2:3.