I admit that I've never read, or at the very most read tiny bits and pieces of, Rav Kook. However, one of the things I most enjoyed learning about him, as brought down in part by Rabbi Mike Feuer and Yiscah Smith, is his ability to tie the individual's spirit to the national spirit. It is an idea I have taken with me since then and have grown - that the individual (and many will say this has already been applied to the tzaddik(im) ha'dor - the generation's most righteous individual or individuals) but I believe it can also apply to anyone) and the national are intertwined, and that a single individual can, in fact, impact the entire world. It is why in my own practice I have recently realized and been trying to fully integrate that my own spiritual enlightenment and manifestation is nothing without the spiritual enlightenment and manifestation of my partner, children, family, community, nation, Jewish people, and kol ha'tevel. And that I should not underestimate "my" own - as communicated and transmitted by G-d - ability to influence all of the above. For, as the shema says, H' is One - so how could it any other way?
Of course - and unfortunately, it works the other way around, too - an individual's negative choice can also negatively influence all of K'lal Yisrael as well, which is one issue we see repeatedly in the relationship between Aharon and the people - perhaps best evidenced in Shemot 32:25, in which the Torah discusses how the so-called "sin of the golden calf" "exposed" the people and how Aharon had "exposed" the people against the "rebels."
Let's not forget that Moshe had specifically entrusted the people's livelihood to Aharon (and Hur) when he ascended the mountain, with Yehoshua essentially serving as an attendant while Moshe ascended. And everyone surely knew at that time that - just as they said after the "sin" - that this people was a "stiff-necked" people, likely to rebel. We had already seen time and time again the people's complaints and supposed lack of faith in their journey, whether it was lack of water or otherwise. And what had been Moshe's response been every time? To turn to G-d and ask for help.
There are multitudes of apologetics about Aharon - that he approved the plan for the calf in an effort to delay it, so that they would not kill him for something for which he did not need to die, so that they would not kill him and commit an even greater sin (of killing a tzaddik) - some of which may be true. But the text seems to indicate otherwise. Aharon did not even put up a fight when the people came to him demanding a "god." Nor did he pray for help. Nor did he raise forces to quell the rebellion. Nor did he even say "no." In an odd incongruency that I have not seen captured by any commentator, while he says after the fact that he threw the gold into the fire and a calf emerged fully formed, the Torah, as it tells the story, states that Aharon formed it himself with the tools of a goldsmith. He not only approves the request for the calf but is literally and actively involved in the plan's execution.
It's easy to sit here thousands of years later and judge Aharon for his choices. I shudder to imagine what choice I would have made if 3,000 individuals - likely armed (as the Torah previously tells us) - approached me with the same request.
Regardless, what I think is clear is that Aharon's choice took the idolatrous desires of a tiny fraction of the people and multiplied it, leading the entire nation to revelry, idol worship, and utter spiritual abandon. What I think the commentators do get right is that the real sin - the action that does not, so to speak, draw G-d's real attention down to the people - is not creating some sort of form to direct one's spiritual energy to while waiting for Moshe. The real sin was that a tiny fraction of people could then lead an entire nation into abandoning their spiritual power so quickly, so easily, and so fully. This second action, unfortunately, may be entirely the fault of Aharon. Why else would the Torah so clearly state that it was Aharon who had "exposed them [to] the rebels"?
But just as one negative choice can lead to the de-elevation of an entire people, one positive choice can elevate them as well. Moshe's actions - we are later told that he has "found favor" in H's eyes - seemingly immediately allow an entire nation to live when H' "reconsiders" his desire to eliminate the people.
Is this ability - on both the most positive end of the spectrum (life) and both the most negative end of the spectrum (death) - limited only to the era's tzaddikim (the righteous) - which in that era was Moshe and Aharon? Although the Torah seemingly juxtaposes an entire people against a select few - these two, Aharon's sons, Hur (temporarily) and Yehoshua, for example - I see no reason to think that the narrative's outlay means that we all don't have a potential impact like they did.
Comments
Post a Comment