To Fast or Not To Fast

We learn in the Torah portion of Mishpatim:[1] "When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its load, you will [be tempted] to refrain from helping him, [but] you must come to his aid."

In commenting on this verse, the Mechilta notes[2] instances when one is not obliged to render assistance: when the donkey belongs to a gentile and the load belongs to a Jew, or when the animal is in a cemetery and the person who would render assistance is a kohen, for the kohen may not ritually defile himself by entering a cemetery.

Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah[3], explains this verse, first according to its simple meaning and then according to its Midrashic interpretation. The simple meaning, says Rashi, is that the verse expresses an understanding that a person might want to refrain from helping his enemy, but goes on to say "you must come to his aid."

Now, we observe that Rashi, in discussing the Midrashic exceptions, omits the instance mentioned in the Mechilta of the animal being in a cemetery, and instead mentions that when the individual who would offer assistance is old and the conduct would be entirely inappropriate, he is not obliged to help.

Now, while the instance of the older person is indeed mentioned by our Sages,[4] they mention it in explaining the verse in Devarim:[5] "If you see your brother's ox or sheep going astray....."

How could Rashi possibly omit the example quoted by the Mechilta on this verse and substitute an example derived from another verse?

This can be understood by explaining the inner meaning of this Rashi, in context with our own spiritual service:

The Ba'al Shem Tov explains[6] that "donkey" - in Hebrew, chamor, from the root chomer (materialism) - refers to a person's physical body. "You must come to his aid" thus means that one may not rely on fasts and mortifications to break down the body's crude materialism, but must rather "come to his aid," by purifying and refining the body.

But there are instances in which one may engage in fasting:[7]

1. a fast of repentance;

2. a fast to restore one's spiritual status.

In the first instance, fasting atones for iniquities, while in the latter instance, it either follows repentance, or there was no sin at all; the individual is merely "polishing the soul clean before G-d."[8]

Rashi's two examples of "an old person..." and "a gentile's animal...." are predicated upon the two instances when one does not "come to his [the body's] aid" through purification and refinement alone, but also through fasts.

When a Jew - Heaven forbid! - sins, his body and animal soul are torn away from holiness and come under the temporary rule of unholiness; they become "a gentile's animal." Yet, even the greatest Jewish sinner is filled with mitzvos[9] - a "Jewish load" - especially so since, even while a sin is being committed, the Divine soul remains faithful to G-d.[10]

In such an instance, where there is "a gentile's 'animal' and a Jewish 'load,' " Rashi informs us that fasting is permitted in order to gain atonement.

The second instance of permissible fasting, however, involves a person who merely desires to "polish his soul" - no actual sin is involved; it's just that he was so busy with spiritual affairs, he did not take the opportunity to fully refine his materialism, though this shortcoming also dims the shine of one's soul.

This is alluded to by Rashi as someone "old" - age being a metaphor for the acquisition of wisdom[11] - who had found it spiritually "inappropriate" until now to deal with his materialism. For such a person, fasting "polishes" both body and soul.

Rashi therefore does not bring the example of a Kohen and the cemetery, for the Jewish soul - the "load" which is likened to a [daughter of a] Kohen[12] - can never descend so low that it is found in a "cemetery," for both the divine soul and even the Jewish body are ultimately immortal.[13]

Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXI, pp. 125-131

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Shmos 23:5.

2. (Back to text) Ibid.

3. (Back to text) Ibid.

4. (Back to text) Sifri, Devarim 22:1; Bava Metzia 30a.

5. (Back to text) Devarim, ibid.

6. (Back to text) HaYom Yom, Shvat 28; Keser Shem Tov (Kehot) addendum, sec. 16.

7. (Back to text) Shulchan Aruch Admur HaZakein, Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Nizkei Guf v'Nefesh par. 4.

8. (Back to text) Iggeres HaTeshuvah beginning of ch. 4.

9. (Back to text) Eruvin 19a; conclusion of Tractate Chagigah.

10. (Back to text) Tanya, conclusion of ch. 24.

11. (Back to text) Kiddushin 32a; Toras Kohanim and Rashi, Kedoshim 19:32.

12. (Back to text) See Zohar, Vol. II, p. 91a ff.; Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 12 (p. 118a).

13. (Back to text) See Sanhedrin, Mishnah at the beginning of Chapter Cheilek; Teshuvos U'Biurim XVIII.

---

A Partial Admission

The Gemara,[1] basing itself on the verse:[2] "He who has a grievance should approach you," teaches that we are to listen first to the words of a plaintiff, and only then to the words of a defendant.[3]

The Shach explains[4] that whose side of an argument is heard first makes a difference when there is a partial admission, a modeh b'miktzas, regarding the application of a Torah oath. For example, if the plaintiff states that he is owed $100 and the defendant admits to $50, then the defendant must take a Torah oath concerning the $50 that he denies.

If the defendant first admits to owing $50, and only then does the plaintiff demand $100, the defendant is not considered a modeh b'miktzas, and need not take an oath to back up his statement.

Thus, a plaintiff who states his case first is assured of the defendant's having to take a Torah oath.

The source of this oath[5] is the verse:[6] "In every case of dishonesty... anything that was lost ... which he says 'this is it'," i.e., the defendant offers a partial admission.

Every aspect of the revealed portion of Torah has a spiritual counterpart in the esoteric portion, and in terms of man's spiritual service. In fact, since Torah descended from the spiritual realms to the physical,[7] its esoteric inner dimension is the source of the revealed portion. Moreover, there are many things in the revealed portion of Torah that can be fully understood only with an explanation on a more esoteric level.

This principle applies here, for, on a simple level, the explanation of the Shach does not appear entirely cogent. The statement of our Sages that "We are to listen first to the words of the plaintiff" seems to address itself to all situations involving plaintiffs and defendants;[8] according to the Shach, however, the ruling would only make a difference in a situation where the defendant offers a partial admission.

In a spiritual context, however, the overwhelming majority of lawsuits involve modeh b'miktzas.

The yetzer hora, the evil inclination, acts as a Jew's plaintiff, first leading him to sin, or at least to "sin" in the sense of faultiness[9] and a loss of spirituality, and then acting as claimant,[10] demanding that the person be given over to its clutches.

The response of the Jew - the defendant - is to offer a "partial admission." The Jew responds by saying that, while it is true that he succumbed to sin, the sin was only "partial;" it involved only an external aspect of his being, and not his soul's essence, for the quintessential aspect of his soul transcends sin and cannot possibly be tainted by it.

Moreover, even on a revealed level, every Jew possesses an abundance of good, so that "Even the sinners in Israel are as filled with mitzvos as a pomegranate [is filled with seeds]."[11] It is therefore impossible for a Jew to be, G-d forbid, entirely evil.

The fact that every Jew, whether an actual sinner or a righteous individual who merely lost some degree of spirituality, falls into the category of modeh b'miktzas is alluded to in the verse "In every case of dishonesty... anything that was lost... which he says 'this is it' ":

In spiritual terms, the plaintiff's complaint extends both to "cases of dishonesty" (i.e., actual sin) and to "anything that was lost" (referring to a person who lost some measure of spirituality by not fulfilling his soul's mission to the best of his ability.)

In answer to both of these complaints, the Jew says "this is it," i.e., that in which he sinned or in which he is lacking, is minor and partial compared to both his greater whole - the essence of his soul that is always at one with G-d - and the revealed aspect of his being, which is as full of mitzvos as a pomegranate is filled with seeds.

Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVI, pp. 269-271

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Bava Kamma 46b.

2. (Back to text) Shmos 24:14.

3. (Back to text) See Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 3:8; Tosefta, ibid., 6:3.

4. (Back to text) Choshen Mishpat 24:1.

5. (Back to text) Bava Kamma 106b ff.; Bava Metzia 5a; Shavuos 39b.

6. (Back to text) Shmos 22:8.

7. (Back to text) See Tanya ch. 4.

8. (Back to text) See Sama, Choshen Mishpat 24:1.

9. (Back to text) Likkutei Torah, Matos, p. 82a; Al Kein Yomru 5691.

10. (Back to text) As in the statement of our Sages: (Bava Basra 16a) "He descends and causes the person to sin, he then ascends and acts as accuser ... He is the Satan, he is the Yetzer Hara."

11. (Back to text) Eruvin 19a; conclusion of Tractate Chagigah.