תחבולת היצר להפוך עבירה למצוה
The scheme of the yetzer to convert a sin to a mitzvah
וְהוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַפָּר אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַחֲנֶה אֶל מָּקוֹם טָּהוֹר אֶל שֶפֶךְ הַדֶשֶן וְשָּרַף אֹתוֹ עַל עֵצִים בָּאֵש עַל שֶפֶךְ הַדֶשֶן יִשָּרֵף: (ד :יב)
He shall remove the entire bull to the outside of the camp, to a pure place, to where the ashes are poured, and he shall burn it on wood in fire, on the place where the ashes are poured shall it be burned. (4:12)
Rashi explains: Since there is outside the city a place prepared for impurity, to throw away plague-stricken stones and for a cemetery, it needed to say ‘outside of the camp’ which is outside the city, that the place should be pure.
The Torah is discussing the avodah of the karban of the Kohen Gadol, and it is obvious from here that regarding all matters of the Sanctuary even the avodah of this karban had to be done in purity. If so, why did the Torah make a special point regarding the burning that it had to be in a pure place? Why would we think to change this detail more than other parts of the avodah where purity is essential?
We find the answer to this in the explanation of Rashi, and in order to understand the intent of his words we will first mention a famous teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, who said that one of the schemes of the yetzer is to entice the person to sin by making him think it is a mitzvah. He adds that this is considered a ‘sin’ to the yetzer hara and in the future, it will be punished by being slaughtered (see Succah 52a). Then, he will not have an opening to say that he was doing the bidding of the Creator, since it was created to entice the person to veer from Hashem. It was told that it is allowed to entice the person to sin so long as the person knows it is a sin. However, to tell him that this sin is a mitzvah, or the opposite is geneivas da’as – misleading, and it was never given permission for this.
This explains the teaching of Chazal (Shabbos 75a), ‘Why is the slaughterer liable? Rav said because of dyeing and Shmuel said because of taking a life.’ Meaning, this ‘shochet’ is the ‘yetzer hara’, and it is called the ‘shochet’ since it is also the ‘malach hamaves’ – Angel of Death that kills the person, as Chazal said about it (Bava Basra 16a) ‘The yetzer hara descends to this world and lures people into sin and then it ascends and incites Hasheem’s wrath, and it takes permission to kill the sinner, and takes its soul.’ Since this is so, it is right to call it a ‘shochet’. The Gemara asks, ‘Why is the shochet liable?’ That is, why is it liable to death in the future? Rav said because of dyeing! It bothered to paint the sin as a mitzvah. In this way it brings the person to sin, almost as if it was not his fault.
It is self-understood that it is not possible for the yetzer to employ this scheme unless it finds in those sins some aspect of mitzvah. Only then can it tempt the person by saying it is a mitzvah.
We find something similar in the directive before us. It says that the burning of the bull must be done ‘outside the camp’, and since we find several times in the Torah ‘outside the camp’ which is a place designated for impurity, therefore, the yetzer has an opening to say that here too it means a place of impurity. It is as if Yisbarach decreed to contaminate the holy chas v’shalom. Therefore, the Torah points out that the burning must be done in a pure place. Even though there is no concern that the Kohanim who are meticulous, will be enticed by the advice of the yetzer to do the burning in an unclean place. This is the right place to warn for this, in order to compare all situations that are like it, and to teach that just as here the Kohanim knew to be careful and meticulous not to be enticed by their yetzer who dresses sins as mitzvos. When the person sees that the strong will to do a mitzvah is aroused, it is incumbent on him to clearly verify that this is a mitzvah that came to him, or perhaps this is nothing more than an opening to sin, chalilah.
This is what Rashi said, since there is outside the city a place prepared for impurity, as the teaching of the Torah testifies, and Chazal said to throw away plague-stricken stones there, and for a cemetery, for perhaps he will come to equate all laws of the outside one to another, since the yetzer points out that the burning must be done in an impure place chas v’shalom, therefore, it needed to say that when it says here ‘outside the camp’, the intent is only that this too must also be outside the city, but here one must also be careful that it is a pure place. In a situation such as this do not heed the advice of the yetzer.
Just as in those days there were two types of ‘outside the camp’, so too in our days there is an ‘outside the camp’ that is good, and there is an ‘outside the camp’ that is the opposite. And just as in their days they had to separate these two types, so too in our days we must separate between the two.
The ‘outside the camp’ which is good is the ways of the Tzaddikim, Chassidim, and men of action who went outside the city to isolate themselves and serve the Creator this way. This was the portion of our holy forefathers as described at length in the sefer ‘Hamaspik le’ovdei Hashem’ by Rebbe Avraham, son of the Rambam (chapter on hisbodedos [isolation] at the end of the sefer), on the attribute of isolation. He brings there that the forefathers and their sons after them, were only involved in herding sheep and no other business, since this isolated them to areas of grazing, and distance themselves from life in the city. Even the preeminent navi [prophet] – Moshe, servant of Hashem, was a shepherd of the sheep of Yisro, his father-in-law, and he would isolate in the wilderness while they grazed, as it says (Shemos 3:1) 'וינהג את הצאן אחר המדבר ויבא אל הר האלקים חורבה' – ‘He guided the sheep far into the wilderness, and he arrived at the Mountain of G-d, toward Chorev’. This was not because he lacked places to graze the sheep around Midian, rather to immerse himself in inner isolation, and humility for the redemption, an essence that no man could understand but him.
It is also written in Toldos Rabeinu HaAri HaKadosh, that he spent several years in an apartment by himself on a riverbank, and he only returned to his home for Shabbos. It is known that the holy Baal Shem Tov did this as well, as it is known that when he was young, he lived outside civilization and worked on the avodah of isolation. We saw this avodah by many Kedoshim and Tehorim [the holy and pure], who did this for many years, and taught this way to their students after them.
However, on the other hand, there is an ‘outside the camp’ which is not at all acceptable. This refers to people who are not upstanding, and they gather outside the city to do whatever they please Rachmana litzlan. Both have the same designation, but we must be very careful to separate the two. Even if a boy or young man has the urge to go out and isolate, it is incumbent on him to be careful not to turn the pot upside down. He must be extremely careful not to associate with empty people who are found outside, for even if his intent is to bring them close, there is concern that the opposite might happen, and those distant ones will bring him to downfall...
