Parshat Tzav discusses the subject of korbanot. The Midrash (Tanchuma) on Parshat Tzav teaches that the nations of the world asked Bilaam, “Why did Hashem say to Bnei Yisrael that they should bring for Him korbanot, whereas to us He didn’t say anything?” Bilaam replied, “The korbanot are only but peace (shalom); and he who accepted the Torah, wherein korbanot are written, needs to bring korbanot. You, from the beginning, disqualified it (i.e., you did not want to accept the Torah), and now you request to bring korbanot? He who accepted it brings korbanot”!
The sefer, “Meir Derech,” points out two nuances in Bilaam’s wording:
1) Bilaam preceded his explanation by first stating that, “Korbanot are only but peace,” and then continued to explain that “he who accepted the Torah, etc.” Why did Bilaam throw in that intro? What connection does it have to the continuation of his explanation?
2) Bilaam responded by saying, “He (Bnei Yisrael) who ‘accepted’ the Torah…needs to bring korbanot” (instead of simply saying, “since they who are commanded by the Torah…need to bring korbanot”). And when contrasting the nations of the world, Bilaam said to them, “You ‘from the beginning’ disqualified it, and now you wish to bring korbanot?” (instead of simply saying, “You, who are not ‘commanded’ by the Torah, wish to bring korbanot”?). Hence, Bilaam implies and emphasizes that the original moment when it came to accepting or not accepting the Torah in the first place was part of the determinant for who needs and merits to bring korbanot and who does not. How do we understand this?
Meir Derech seems to explain as follows (based on my limited understanding of its comments): Chazal teach that when Hashem went to offer the Torah to the nations of the world, they asked, “What’s written in it?” This response of, “What’s written in it,” carries the connotation of “What’s in the Torah for us?” In other words, “What do we have to gain from the Torah”? On the other hand, when Bnei Yisrael were offered the Torah, they said, “We will do and we will obey,” which shows that Bnei Yisrael did not seek any personal gains from accepting the Torah, but instead accepted it will full devotion to Hashem, without any personal agendas or self-centered wishes.
For shalom to last there must be a lack of self-centeredness. One who is concerned only for himself—for his own personal gains—won’t be able to dwell in peace with others for long. On the other hand, one who is totally devoted to enhancing the welfare of others, without any self-centered motives, is guaranteed to be able to dwell with others in peace.
When Bnei Yisrael were offered the Torah, they totally submitted and devoted themselves to Hashem and said, “We will do and we will obey,” showing that they lacked that self-centeredness that discourages peace, and hence, they revealed that at their essence, they have a connection to the middah of shalom. Thus, they merited the korbanot since the korbanot as well are “only but peace” as the midrash states. On the other hand, when the nations of the world were offered the Torah, they showed that they were interested in their own personal gains by asking, “What’s written in it?” thus revealing that they lack the proper connection to the middah of shalom since they have that self-centeredness that discourages peace. Therefore, they didn’t merit the korbanot which are shalom. Hence the emphasis Bilaam placed on the original time of being offered the Torah and why that would be a factor to merit or not merit korbanot which are peace (See Meir Derech, Tzav).
We can perhaps learn from this insight that anavah, and devoting ourselves to enhancing the welfare of others instead of ourselves (which perhaps is a result of anavah) can promote peace and create an atmosphere for peace to thrive.Anavah may also create and foster love: Last week’s parsha began with stating that “Hashem called to Moshe.” Rashi comments: “‘Calling’ preceded every statement, and every saying, and every command. [It is] a language of affection (i.e. language that indicates affection).” The Midrash (Tanchuma, Vayikra) teaches that although there were many other righteous people in Moshe’s generation—the 70 sages, Betzalel, Chur, Aharon and his sons and the Nesiim—Hashem only called to Moshe. This midrash perhaps shows that despite the outstanding people that lived in Moshe’s time, only Moshe received such a level of affection from Hashem. Why, however, did only Moshe merit this?
Rav Mordechai Druk seems to explain: The trait of submissiveness leads to affection. Moshe was an extremely submissive person, as the Torah refers to him as a “servant of Hashem” (We can add that we might also see this from the fact that the Torah highlights his anavah, as it states, “Moshe was exceedingly humble, more than any person on the face of the earth”). Therefore, he gained Hashem’s affection and Hashem “called” only to him (see Drash Mordechai, Vayikra, p. 28). We perhaps see from here that anavah can generate and increase love. Putting both insights together, we can perhaps learn that anavah and devoting ourselves to benefitting others can enhance both peace and love.
Binyamin Benji is a graduate of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan, and Wurzweiler School of Social Work.
