A Medrashic Machlokes in Bechukosai that Tracks with a Halachic Machlokes in Pesachim
Parshas Bechukosai begins with the blessings the Ribono shel Olam promises if we will keep the Torah. It is very encouraging. Unfortunately, the Torah also shares the “flip side” of this situation: “And if you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments...” [Vayikra 26:14].
One of the beautiful blessings that the Ribono shel Olam promises Klal Yisraelis, “And I will provide peace in the land, and you will lie down with none to frighten you; I will cause wild beasts to withdraw from the land, and a sword will not cross your land.” [Vayikra 26:6] We must realize – as we see from Tanach – that (at least at one time in history) there were lions that were indigenous to Eretz Yisroel. This is the whole story of “the lion converts” [Melachim II 17:25-41]. In Biblical times, people worried about wild animals roaming the countryside and thus “I will cause wild beasts to withdraw from the land” was a significant blessing.
I would like to share an observation that is somewhat atypical of the type of insights we usually say on Chumash, but I think it is brilliant nevertheless:
There is a dispute in the Yalkut Shimoni regarding the promise that Hashem will cause wild beasts to withdraw from the land. Rabbi Yehuda says it means that these wild beasts will be withdrawn from the world entirely. Wild animals will cease to exist: No lions, no leopards, and no cougars – all these animals of prey will become extinct! Rabbi Shimon interprets this blessing to mean that the animals will still exist but they will become pacified so that they do not attack. The lions, leopards, cougars, etc. will become tame and domesticated, but they will still be around. According to Rabbi Shimon, this promise of “withdrawing the wild animals” is akin to the promise of Yeshaya [11:6] that the wolf will live in peace with the sheep in Messianic times. The wolf will still be around, but its nature will change.
The great Rogotchover Gaon writes a beautiful piece of lomdus [subtle halachic analysis], in his Tzafnas Pa’neach. He comments that this Medrashic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in Yalkut Shimoni corresponds to another dispute between them in the Talmud. In the Mishna in Pesachim [Chapter 2 Mishna 1], Rabbi Yehuda holds that the mitzvah of destroying Chometz can only be fulfilled by burning the Chometz. The Sages in that Mishna (who the Rogotchover assumes is Rav Shimon) hold that Chometz can be destroyed in any fashion. It does not need to be burned. It may simply be crushed up and thrown into the wind or tossed into the sea.
The Rogotchover explains that we learn the obligation that one needs to get rid of his Chometz from the pasuk “Tashbeesu se’or m’bateichem” [eliminate leaven from your homes] [Shemos 12:15]. The verb Tashbeesu that we find by Chometz is the same root word that we find here in Becuhosai: v’heeshbati chaya ra’ah min ha’aretz” [I will destroy wild animals from the land]. The Rogotchover says that Rav Yehudah and Rav Shimon have a far-reaching dispute regarding how to translate the word shveesa. Rav Yehuda holds that when the Torah uses the word shveesa, it means to actually eradicate something, to make it non-existant. Therefore, here in Bechukosai when we are taught v’heeshbati chaya ra’ah, it means they will not be around at all, just like tashbeesu se’or means the Chometz will cease to exist (by being incinerated). Rav Shimon disagrees. A person only needs to remove the essence of the Chometz. Simply make it inedible. It can still be here, it just needs to be crumpled up, thrown in the ocean, doused with Clorox, etc. It still exists but it loses its nature and essence. That is the definition of tashbeesu. Therefore, when it says over here v’heeshbati chaya ra’ah min ha’aretz, it also means that the animals might still be around, they will just lose their essence – their evil nature that makes them animals of prey.
