In parshas Vayechi (49:6), Yaakov Ovinu's rebuke to
Shimon and Levi includes the following: "Besodom al tovo
nafshi, bikeholom al teichad kevodi. Ki be'apom horgu ish,
uvirtzonom ikru shor. Rashi there explains that this
posuk is referring to two separate incidents that
would take place with the descendants of Shimon and Levi.
The first part of the posuk -- Besodom al tovo nafshi,
refers to the incident with Zimri, the nosi of
Shevet Shimon, who took a Mo'avite princess and
committed an aveiroh with her. Yaakov's name is not
mentioned in connection with that incident, as it states
(Bamidbar 25:14) "Zimri the son of Solu nosi of
shevet Shimon." The posuk does not include "the
son of Yaakov."
The second part of the posuk -- bikeholom al teichad
kevodi, refers to the incident of Korach, a descendant of
Levi, who publicly challenged Moshe Rabbeinu spurred by
terrible feelings of envy . . . Here too, Yaakov insisted
that his name not be mentioned in connection with Korach in
any way, and the posuk indeed complied. Korach is
referred to as "Korach the son of Yitzhor the son of Kehos
the son of Levi" (Bamidbar, 16:1), and it does not
continue with "the son of Yaakov."
Why? "Ki be'apom horgu ish" -- In their wrath, they
killed Chamor and all the people of Shechem. "Uvirtzonom
ikru shor" -- they wished to uproot and destroy their
brother Yosef, who is symbolized by a shor -- an
ox.
We must understand: why was Yaakov Ovinu so insistent that
his name not be mentioned in conjunction with the misdeeds of
his children's descendants? It is, after all, public
knowledge that Shimon and Levi are his children. We must also
try to grasp the connection between the first half of the
posuk and its ending.
The Rashbo questions a seeming contradiction between that
which Chazal have stated in two separate contexts. In one
location, it says "Bero kar'ei de'avuho" -- a son is
the continuation of his father, meaning that all the son's
characteristics are transmitted to him by his father. Yet,
elsewhere it says: "Bero mezakeh abba" -- a son
transmits merits to his father.
How can these two seemingly contradictory phrases be
resolved?
The Rashbo answers that in This World the son is indeed a
continuation of the father, constantly inheriting all that
his father is transmitting to him. However, once the father
reaches the Next World it is the son who transmits to the
father. The mitzvos and ma'asim tovim of the son in
This World are credited to the father, already in the Next
World.
However, the opposite is true as well. The transgressions and
faults of the living son can cause terrible anguish and
punishment to his father in Olam Habo.
Why is this so? Doesn't it state openly that fathers do not
die on account of their sons? And if it is true that fathers
are accountable, until how many generations is the father
held responsible?
We must understand that the purpose of man in This World is
to achieve true and total perfection. Included in this tall
order is the development of our character traits as well. It
is insufficient for man to simply overcome his negative
traits when the situation warrants it and constantly display
only positive character traits. Man's obligation is to
completely uproot his detrimental middos from within
his heart, so that there remain no traces whatsoever, as
explained in the Mesillas Yeshorim (Chapter 10 --
"Midas Hanekiyus"). One who has not successfully
uprooted his bad middos, however many times he has
overcome them, is in danger of transmitting these
middos to his descendants. His very own bad traits,
which he was unsuccessful in ridding himself of, might be the
causing factor of his children straying and doing wrong. For
their aveiros, he will then be held responsible.
In light of this, we can now easily understand how a son can
cause his father anguish in the Next World. If the father is
directly responsible, it is natural that he will have to
suffer punishment . . . This is true, and possibly even
more so, in connection to the praiseworthy middos of
the father. If the son will perform mitzvos and ma'asim
tovim as a direct result of his father's education, it
will cause great spiritual satisfaction to his father's
neshomoh. The father taught his son properly, and now
he reaps the benefits. Certainly, a father being credited or
chas vesholom being blamed goes only until the point
that he was a contributing cause.
This was Yaakov's intention when he refused to be mentioned
in connection with Zimri's act or Korach's rebellion. The
negative traits that caused these two descendants to slip
were not traceable to Yaakov in any way. The contributing
faults had surfaced from his children, not from him. He was
clear.
Which character trait, then, had prompted Korach to initiate
his machlokes, which ultimately brought about his own
end? It was envy. As Rashi explains (Bamidbar 16:1),
quoting the Medrash Tanchuma: "Why did Korach see fit
to argue with Moshe? It was his jealousy of (his cousin)
Elitzofon ben Uziel's (newly acquired) appointment as
nosi." Korach felt that he himself should have been
appointed as he deemed himself worthy of the exalted
position
This middoh of jealousy is what Yaakov said he had no
part of. The jealousy stemmed from Levi, not from him. That
is why our posuk ends with "uvirtzonom ikru
shor." This phrase is referring to mechiras
Yosef.
The brothers went ahead with such a drastic step of actually
selling their own brother as a slave because they were
motivated by feelings of jealousy towards him. On the
Shevotim's lofty madreigah, although it was
only a minute degree of envy, the posuk states, "And
his (Yosef's) brothers were envious of him."
(Bereishis 37:11) This envious trait was transmitted
through the generations, until it reached Korach, when it
surfaced and became the contributing factor for his ruin.
And, what was the trait which prompted Zimri to act the way
he did?
When Zimri attempted to convince Kozbi the Mo'avite to commit
an aveiroh with him, she refused. She would agree only
if Moshe Rabbeinu would allow it. To that, Zimri replied,
"Don't worry. I am as great as Moshe, and it is okay"
(Medrash Rabbah, Bamidbar 20:24). Apparent from this
medrash is that the ga'avah -- arrogance -- in
Zimri is what caused his grave sin.
This middoh of ga'avah is what Yaakov disowned.
The trait stemmed from Shimon, not from him. "Ki be'apom
horgu ish" -- referring to the slaughtering of the city
of Shechem -- came about from the arrogance of Shimon and
Levi. Although they were Yaakov's children, they did not
consult with him before they acted as sons would ordinarily
consult a father. (Rashi, Bereishis 34:25) On their
own, they went ahead to wipe out an entire city; so furious
were they with what had taken place with their sister Dina.
Why, indeed, did they not consult their father? They thought
that they were acting justly and did not need any advice. On
their lofty madreigah, this was considered
arrogance.
In a similar vein, the Maharsha comments at the end of
Kiddushin (82a) on the phrase, "The ultimate fate of
the best doctor is Gehennom." The doctor considers
himself the best, feeling so superior that he sees no need to
consult his colleagues. He therefore relies largely on his
own expertise and arrogant judgment. As a result, he will
misjudge the true condition of his patient, and can actually
kill him with a medicine, which should truthfully not have
been administered. This could be avoided if the doctor would
consult others; there is a life-and-death decision here. Yet
in his arrogance, the doctor does not deem it necessary to do
so; his own judgment is just as great.
An element of the same arrogance is what lay in Shimon and
Levi's hearts, according to their lofty madreigah. It
was transmitted through the generations, until it surfaced in
Zimri, causing such serious consequences.
In light of the above, we can well understand the flow of our
posuk. Yaakov so strongly disassociated himself with
both incidents of Korach and Zimri, because neither had
anything to do with him. "Besodom al tovo nafshi,
bikeholom al teichad kevodi" Why? The middos of
arrogance -- "ki be'apom horgu ish" -- apparent in the
slaughtering of Shechem, and envy -- uvirtzonom ikru
shor" -- apparent in mechiras Yosef, stemmed from
his children, not from him. Yaakov Ovinu was not
responsible.
From the above, we can appreciate the awesome
responsibility lying in each one of us as individuals and as
mechanchim. Will we have to frightfully account for
deeds others have committed after we have gone to the Next
World, which were prompted by the influence we radiated while
we were alive?
Or will we be able to reap only nachas and
sechar, because it was only positive ideals which we
espoused to those around us? It is up to us!
HaRav Shimon Yerachmiel Kaplan is a ram in Yeshivas
Ezras Torah, Manchester.
The above article has appeared in the Tishrei, 5761
edition of the bi-annually published Kol Hatorah
journal. It has been adapted and translated with
permission.
