[Find Rabbi Oratz’s letter in Part One here…]
Dear Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz,
Thank you for both taking the survey and then engaging with the manifesto itself.
Now, even if you are right, the specific calculation by Aaron (אם יהרג) seems to be davka, as Rashi says that this caused the Churban. Other benefit-loss calculations don’t rise to the same level, but see below. And those who claim to follow Aaron’s example in protecting the Jewish people (and not as a whole!), ultimately do so in a spirit of selfishness or worse. Not to mention the results.
But while I haven’t learned this in depth as you may have done, it seems to me even those Rishonim being doresh leshvach don’t mean Aaron’s entire action should therefore be emulated, but that his thought process was partially praiseworthy (and should be applied where applicable). After all, the Torah says “ובאהרן התאנף ד’ מאד להשמידו”. See also Rashi in a few places, such as Vayikra 9:2 קח לך עגל, להודיע שמכפר לו הקב”ה ע”י עגל זה על מעשה העגל.
Strictly speaking, “Mitzvas Peshara” has a recognized meaning in Hebrew. It stems from the discussion Sanhedrin there if Peshara in monetary matters is reshus or mitzva (and the Shulchan Aruch C.M. 12:2 rules like the latter view). Even if we go beyond accepted usage, Tosafos and Ran don’t use the word “Peshara” to refer to Aaron’s action (unlike Rashi), while Rashi wouldn’t append the word “Mitzva”, of course.
There are similar cases throughout Chazal of sin mitigation; this doesn’t imply no sin. For example, the Torah gives place to Shimon and Levi’s reason for destroying Shechem, Chazal say Peninah intended Leshem Shamayim, explain why Reuven moved the bed, much on Mei Meriva, and on and on. And yet: Peninah’s children died, Shimon and Levi were cursed, Reuven lost out, etc., etc.
As I wrote once before:
The very greatness of the individuals amplifies the lesson we cannot rely on ourselves and must be forever vigilant and precede prayer to escape the evil inclination.
And we cannot relate to angels, so we cannot learn anything at all from them if they are “angels”, and us “donkey” shadows.
No matter how much the sin is “explained” (the person had good intentions, etc.), even if this is the case, there must still be some degree of sinfulness remaining, otherwise, why is it mentioned against them, and/or why were they punished? (And don’t we, too, often have good intentions? Except, we are partially deceiving ourselves beneath the ingenious justifications, the same way they did.)
If you read the manifesto with care, you will notice the words “maybe”, “perhaps”; a pointed refusal to accompany the reader past “the gates”. There’s a reason for that. Sure, “compromise” is a Shas sugya, and in truth evades full explication in writing, but we can’t let internal “Observant” Reformers get their way!
Rather, “בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך”, never, ever sin or assist sinning at all or even allow that impression to form, even for what might appear to be the best of religious reasons (especially in the minds of current generations). And yet I am unsure Rabbi Elyashiv’s position must follow (I didn’t get far yet in your Chaburah).
Thank you for writing!