MUSSAR D’ORAISA

Parshas Shemos 5765

 

וַיֵּצֵא בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי וְהִנֵּה שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים עִבְרִים נִצִּים וַיֹּאמֶר לָרָשָׁע לָמָּה תַכֶּה רֵעֶךָ. (שמות ב: י"ג)

 

And he (Moshe) went out on the second day, and there were two Hebrews striving, and he said to the wicked one, 'Why are you hitting your fellow?' (Shemos 2:13)

 

In an earlier pasuk (2:11) regarding the Egyptian who was beating a Jew, the Torah says clearly that the Egyptian was hitting him. But in this pasuk relating that two Jews (Dosan and Aviram) were quarreling, the Torah uses the word נִצִּים, which Rashi translates as מריבים, which means quarrelling or striving, but does not necessarily mean that there was a physical attack. Yet Moshe accuses one of hitting the other and the Torah calls him wicked. The meforshim say that Dosan and Aviram were wicked even before this but even had the striker not been wicked already, this one action would have earned him the title of "wicked". Our pasuk sounds, however, like Dosan only raised his hand to strike, but fell short of hitting Aviram, as the Torah does not state it explicitly as in the previous similar case regarding one man striking another. What, then, was so wicked about the action that Moshe saw fit to intervene that the Torah ascribes this title to him?

 

אמר ריש לקיש המגביה ידו על חבירו אע"פ שלא הכהו נקרא רשע שנאמר ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך למה הכית לא נאמר אלא למה תכה אף על פי שלא הכהו נקרא רשע. (סנהדרין נח:)

Says Reish Lakish: One who raises his hand upon his friend even though he does not hit him is called wicked, as it is said, "…and he said to the wicked one, 'Why are you hitting your fellow?'" It does not state, 'Why did you hit your fellow?' but rather 'Why are you hitting your fellow?' (in order to teach that) even though he did not (actually) strike him, he is nevertheless called wicked. (Sanhedrin 58b)

 

It would seem obvious that were one to lift his hand to strike someone, that he should be thought righteous for conquering over his yetzer hara and controlling his anger, in the end refraining from striking him. Of course it is obvious that one should work to control his temper. However, in this Gemara, no differentiation is made in the Torah's assessment that one that raises his hand to strike his fellow is regarded as wicked, regardless of whether or not he was successful in controlling himself. Indeed, it is not the hitting itself which would earn him the title of a wicked person—for actually hitting someone when it is uncalled for would be an entirely different level of wickedness and transgression.

Rather, the mere act of raising a hand in unnecessary aggression earns him the title, despite the fact that he is able to control his temper and not fall into more severe transgression. A Jew is expected to control himself, not to transgress the Torah's laws simply because he is angry, or driven by any other mood or emotion. One who fails to control himself and actually transgresses is a sinner.

This statement of Reish Lakish in the Gemara applies to one who has not actually committed a transgression. The wicked person he refers to is one whose immediate emotional reaction to a given situation, although subsequently controlled, brings him close to sin. Rather than coping with a situation the way that he is commanded by the Torah, and by viewing the situation from a Torah perspective, a wicked person's immediate response is to act like the Egyptian from our earlier pasuk. Therefore, although he gains control of himself and does not actually strike, as the Egyptian did, a Jew who has not internalized Torah and Mitzvos enough and whose rash animalistic instincts rather than a proper outlook guide his immediate response to a situation, constantly puts himself close to sin, and he is therefore called wicked.

 

Yitzchok Pinkus

Yeshivas Mir Yerushalayim