Our parsha discusses the case of when a king sins and the korban he brings to atone for his sin, as it states, “When a ruler sins, and commits one from among all the commandments of Hashem that may not be done—unintentionally—and becomes guilty. If the sin that he committed becomes known to him, he shall bring his offering ….” Rashi comments that the word the verse uses for “when” [“asher”] is related to the word “ashrei,” “fortunate,” as if to say, fortunate is the generation whose ruler sets his heart to bring an atonement for his unintentional sin. All the more so that he has regrets for his intentional sins (see Rashi to 4:22).
The question may be asked, if the king brings his korban to atone for his unintentional transgression, why does the king’s proper choice deem that generation “fortunate?” After all, isn’t it a basic principle that a person, including a king, would take the necessary steps to make amends and atone for their wrongdoing?
The Gur Aryeh seems to give the following explanation: It’s the way of kings to be haughty. Therefore, if the king does, in fact, regret his unintentional transgression and sets his heart to atone for it, this shows that he is not embarrassed to say, “I transgressed,” and doesn’t say to himself, “I am great and I am important, how can I say, ‘I transgressed.’” Hence, since he is an anav (a humble person), “fortunate is the generation” who have such a king who is not haughty.
The Gur Aryeh is perhaps teaching us: It’s very possible that a king wouldn’t admit his unintentional wrongdoing and take the steps to atone for it due to the trait of haughtiness he may possess. Hence, although it may be basic that one takes these steps of admission and atonement, a king, more than the typical person, has a greater challenge in doing so because of his position and the haughtiness that may come as result of it. Thus, his generation is fortunate to have an above average king, a noble ruler indeed, who is not haughty but instead possesses and acts with the admirable trait of anavah, humility.
We can perhaps learn from the Gur Aryeh that the trait of haughtiness may prevent one from admitting one’s wrongdoing (whereas the trait humility enables one to own up to and admit one’s wrongdoing, even despite potential embarrassment). Moreover, this discussion is about a king, who may therefore be a spiritually great person. Yet, it seems that even such a person may struggle with haughtiness to the point that he won’t be willing to admit and atone for his wrongdoing. Furthermore, the wrongdoing under discussion in this context is an unintentional one. It would seem then that the trait of haughtiness can be so challenging that it may prevent even such a person from admitting and owning up to even a transgression of this level.
The Gur Aryeh also perhaps indicates that haughtiness may cause one to refrain from performing Hashem’s directives—in this case, the king bringing his korban—out of fear of potential embarrassment and diminishment of his reputation that may be incurred as a result; while on the other hand, anavah may enable one to give priority to Hashem’s will over concern for one’s own honor and thus carry out his moral responsibilities despite the potential for embarrassment.
Binyamin Benji is a graduate of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan, and Wurzweiler School of Social Work
