Lord of the Fly – Ki Teitzei
כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֶיךָ וּנְתָנוֹ ה' אֱ-לֹקֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ. (דברים כא, י)
In this week’s shiur I would like to discuss somewhat of a strange subject – flies! Yes, the kind that buzz around you endlessly and no matter how much you shush them away, they keep coming back. The reason for this choice of subject matter is simply because - our parsha begins and ends with flies.
According to the Kli Yakar on our passuk above, the entire episode is not to be taken literally, i.e. waging war, beautiful captive, etc. Instead, the Torah is referring to our battle with the yetzer hara (see shiur on Ki Teitzei 2022).
Chazal in the Gemara liken the yetzer hara to a זְבוּב, a fly.
אָמַר רַב: יֵצֶר הָרָע דּוֹמֶה לִזְבוּב וְיוֹשֵׁב בֵּין שְׁנֵי מִפְתְּחֵי הַלֵּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זְבוּבֵי מָוֶת יַבְאִישׁ יַבִּיעַ שֶׁמֶן רוֹקֵחַ״. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כְּמִין חִטָּה הוּא דּוֹמֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רוֹבֵץ״. (ברכות סא, ע"א)
Similarly, Amalek is likened to a fly. According to the Ba'al HaTurim, in the passuk כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וכו' (שמות יז, יד), the rashei teivot of זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאָזְנֵי make up the word זְבוּב.
Many of my betters before me have devoted endless ink to comparing the characteristics of a fly and the yetzer hara - how a fly can land on and stick to even the smoothest glass, how a fly repeatedly keeps bugging you no matter how many times you chase it away, etc.
I will not repeat this material here. Instead, I will try offer some unique insights into the yetzer hara (and flies), from a baker's perspective. I would like to assert that there are few people who can understand the yetzer hara (and flies) better than a baker.
To begin, I would like to analyze the machloket (if it really is a machloket) in the Gemara above, between Rav and Shmuel. As we know, most often Rav and Shmuel differed in their opinions on various subject matter. In the Gemara above, it appears, contrary to normal, that both Rav and Shmuel concur that the yetzer hara is something bad or negative.
Rav's association is blatantly clear זְבוּבֵי מָוֶת – nothing good in that. Shmuel's seems to be in a similar vein. חִטָּה referring to sin (Rashi, ibid.), i.e לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רוֹבֵץ.
Associating the yetzer hara with something bad, is intuitive – it is called the יֵצֶר הָרַע after all, no ambiguity in that!
My question is why Shmuel chose to compare the yetzer hara to חִטָּה, which literally means wheat (The Rashi above is a "word play", not the literal meaning). If Shmuel meant sin, why did he not simply use the word חֵטְא? That would be as un-ambiguous as Rav's זְבוּבֵי מָוֶת, with no room for doubt. By using the generic word "wheat", Shmuel seems to be opening his opinion up to interpretation.
The first obvious association that comes to mind is the "first sin" - that of Adam HaRishon, which according to R' Yehuda (Brachot 40a) - was eating wheat from the tree. The passuk Shmuel brings, לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רוֹבֵץ (בראשית ד, ו), refers to Kayin, born as a result of this sin.
However, if this is the reference, why directly blame the wheat? Wouldn't it be better to say the yetzer hara is like a נָחָשׁ? The cause of the sin of Adam HaRishon is primarily because of the נָחָשׁ, the wheat was just the medium. Why didn't Shmuel instead say "the yetzer hara is like a snake" and bring the passuk וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֱ-לֹקִים אֶל הַנָּחָשׁ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת אָרוּר אַתָּה (בראשית ג, יד)? Similarly, what does wheat have to do with Kayin, the passuk brought by Shmuel? Kayin brought a korban of flax, not wheat!
The answer is that obviously Shmuel's reference is to חֵטְא עֵץ הַדַּעַת and by comparing the yetzer hara to wheat, Shmuel is giving us a novel insight to the essence of the yetzer hara.
Wheat, the fruit of the עֵץ הַדַּעַת is a paradox.
Sefer Meir Panim says that the "wheat tree" was the only tree in Gan Eden whose fruit could not be eaten as-is. It was the product of a sin of the tree itself, which defied HKB"H's directive to manifest in a way that the fruit and the wood of the tree both taste the same. This tree, the עֵץ הַדַּעַת, bore more than one type of fruit – five in fact, of which wheat was just the primary fruit (wheat, barley, spelt, rye and oats).
This is why HKB"H forbade Adam and Chava to eat from this tree on the 6th day, because in order to be able to eat from it, they would first have to do tikkun to the tree, i.e. process the fruit into a different, edible form – bread. In order to be allowed to bake bread, Adam and Chava required the halachot of baking bread, which they did not yet possess. If they would have waited until Shabbat (Ari z"l), HKB"H would have given them the halachot of baking bread and then after Shabbat they would be permitted to take the fruit of the עֵץ הַדַּעַת, wheat, make it into bread and eat it.
The essence of the sin was not baking bread and eating it, it was baking bread before they had been taught the halachot of Kashrut.
Instead of waiting until Shabbat to be taught the halachot of baking bread from HKB"H, Chava followed a different set of "halachot" - those given by the yetzer hara, the נָחָשׁ.
In this lies the paradox. The wheat is the same wheat, the same fruit on the tree. The operations are almost identical - those in HKB"H's halachot and those in the instructions of the נָחָשׁ – pick the wheat from the tree, grind the wheat into סֹלֶת, mix it with water, knead it into a dough, inflate it and bake it over the fire.
If Chava would have waited for HKB"H's halachot, the process would have been - pick the wheat from the tree, take ma'aser and truma from the wheat, grind the wheat into סֹלֶת, mix it with water, knead it into a dough, take hafrashat challah from the dough, allow HKB"H to inflate it with רוּחָא דְּחָיָא, and bake it over the fire (given to Adam HaRishon on motzei Shabbat).
However, Chava instead followed the process given to her by the נָחָשׁ - pick the wheat from the tree, (skip taking ma'aser and truma), grind the wheat into סֹלֶת, mix it with water, knead it into a dough, (skip hafrashat challah), leave the dough to rest and allow the נָחָשׁ to inflate it with רוּחָא דְּמוּתָא, and bake it in the fire (provided by the נָחָשׁ, who was an angel surrounded by fire) on the sixth day, before Shabbat.
What essentially is the difference between the two? Simple - the first bread is kosher and the second is treif! Not because the ingredients are different, but because one is prepared according to the halacha and the other is not.
The kosher bread would have been לֶחֶם אַבִּירִים, equivalent to the Mann in the Midbar, but instead, the bread Chava baked turned out to be treif chametz bread.
Same wheat - two different results. In this lies the paradox. Wheat has the potential for both types of bread – kosher and treif! It all depends on how you use the wheat! If you use it according to the halacha – you do tikkun for the wheat and the עֵץ הַדַּעַת. If you do not use it according to the halacha – you perpetuate the sin of the עֵץ הַדַּעַת (before Adam, when the tree manifested contrary to HKB"H's directive).
By comparing the yetzer hara to wheat, Shmuel seems to be inferring that the yetzer hara is also a paradox, it has the potential for good and also bad, depending on how we interact with it.
This is why at the end of Creation on the sixth day, the passuk says וַיַּרְא אֱ-לֹקִים אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי (בראשית א, לא). One of the creations was the yetzer hara, how can that be good? The yetzer hara has an important role to play in this world. By virtue of the yetzer hara, we get reward and merit for our actions in this world, it is not a "freebie", or in the words of the Ramchal (דעת תבונות יח) נַהְמָא דְּכִיסוּפָא, literally translated as "unearned (wheat) bread".
Without the yetzer hara, there would be no פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה and the world would cease to exist. We have to use the yetzer hara to our benefit by us controlling our yetzer hara and not the other way round. If Kayin had offered wheat instead of flax, his korban may have been accepted and Shem would not have been killed.
Why did I say that bakers have greater insight into the yetzer hara? Simply because the Gemara (Brachot 17a) states so categorically - רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁרְצוֹנֵנוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹנְךָ וּמִי מְעַכֵּב - שְׂאוֹר שֶׁבָּעִיסָּה. When referring to the yetzer hara, the Gemara calls it the "leaven in the dough". There is nobody who knows more about dough and how the "leavening" process works - than a baker.
When the Gemara refers to שְׂאוֹר, it is referring to chametz of course. The process of chametz in the dough is very complex, both chemically and halachically speaking. However, chametz has one common starting point – lack of activity in the dough. When someone leaves the dough to rest for an extended period of time, without actively working with it (kneading/shaping/etc.), the dough becomes chametz.
This is also the way the yetzer hara operates in us. People who are most susceptible to the yetzer hara are those who are inactive or idle. The yetzer hara has a much tougher job leading astray someone who is furiously active. But this aspect is not what the shiur is about – it is all about flies.
Another thing a baker knows very well are flies. Anyone in the food business has to contend with flies, to prevent them contaminating the food. I am normally very tolerant of flies when I am outdoors, in the garden, on a hike, picnic, etc. However, when a fly decides to visit my "holy of holies" workspace in the bakery, it is impossible to continue working until the fly is gotten rid of - it is part of the HACCP health code.
I have therefore become quite an expert on flies in the workspace, after thoroughly researching the various techniques for managing and getting rid of flies. These include first opening the window or door to chase it out. When that fails, one resorts to paraphernalia, such as sticky paper to trap them, UV traps that zap them etc.
However, if I had to wait for a fly to have the "courtesy" to land in one of these traps before continuing to work, I would waste most of my work day. I have therefore also become very proficient at killing flies with my bare hands (gross), the most efficient immediate technique for disposing of them.
It is more efficient than using a fly swatter, because the fly swatter splatters the fly all over the work surface or on the food, which you then have to throw out. It is this proprietary technique I would like to share with you, because it is also an extremely effective technique of counteracting the yetzer hara.
How many of you have tried to catch a fly by trying to swat it with one hand, and failed? Aside from some fictional Hollywood gunslinger characters in western movies, this is an impossible way to swat a fly in reality. A fly has two eyes, each of which is made up of thousands of prismatic lenses, each pointing in a different direction.
A fly has no "blind spots", it has a spherical 3D field of view of 360°. A fly can see you coming from every possible direction. Secondly, the fly's reflexes are three times or more faster than humans. Therefore, by the time your hand reaches the spot where the fly is, the fly is long gone.
The only way to kill a fly with your bare hands is to use the fly's strengths against him. This technique only works if the fly has landed and is stationary. You slowly (sudden movements scare the fly away) approach the fly with your two hands spaced widely apart, as if you are about to clap your hands. Slowly (with the emphasis on slowly) you bring your hands closer to each other. If you do this with only one hand it won’t work.
The fact that you are approaching the fly from two opposite directions at once confuses the fly. It is not that it can't see you, but it is "torn" – if it flies one way it will collide with one hand and if it flies the other it will collide with the other. The confused fly's natural reaction is to "stay put" and not move.
The end game is eventually to clap your hands very quickly together and squish the fly between your two hands. However, you do not aim at where the fly is now, when you begin to move your hands together, you aim at a spot 10-15cm above where the fly is now. This is the way missile defense systems work – they calculate the trajectory of the missile and they aim for where it is going to be seconds later, not where it is now.
The fly's reflexes are much faster than yours, so when you finally slam your two hands together very quickly, it will already have taken off from where it was and when your hands finally clap together, the fly will be 10-15cm upwards – directly between your hands.
Squish! I suppose it is a little gross, but no more gross than squishing a mosquito. You simply wash your hands after with soap and water.
To summarize the technique –
1. Wait for the fly to land.
2. Bring your two open hands very slowly together simultaneously in a clapping action, about 10-15cm above the fly's position (aim high).
3. At the last second, quickly clap your hands together.
This technique is not 100% foolproof, but it has a success rate of over 90%. I call it the BAM technique (not like the cartoon comic expletive, it has much deeper meaning, as we will soon see).
By inference, if the yetzer hara is likened to a fly, then a technique that works on a fly should work equally well on the yetzer hara. The entire technique is designed to confuse the yetzer hara so that instead of him being two steps ahead of you, you want to be two steps ahead of him.
The technique begins with the yetzer hara being "stationary". If the yetzer hara is furiously buzzing around you, this technique cannot work. When is the yetzer hara stationary and when is he furiously buzzing? If the yetzer hara thinks he has the upper hand, he will slow down and approach being stationary, because he thinks he has you in his clutches, from which you cannot escape.
Someone who is visibly and loudly attacking the yetzer hara, on the other hand, will send him into a panic and he will begin furiously buzzing around you. For this technique to work, it has to be done cleverly, slowly and quietly! without fanfare.
To counteract the yetzer hara, we need to attack him from multiple directions. In other words, if you only take one kabbalah upon yourself, to improve yourself, that will not work effectively. Instead, you should take two (or more) kabbalot upon yourself, from different directions. This confuses the yetzer hara. It is like blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana.
Why do we blow different sounds – tekiah, shevarim, teruah? It is not only because we are not certain what the Torah meant when it said Yom Teruah, so we blow all three types לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָה. Another, more important reason is to confuse the yetzer hara.
If we just blew repeated long notes (tekiah, tekiah, tekiah…), that is predictable. However, if we switch between long notes, shorter notes and staccato, the yetzer hara does not know what is going on and what to expect next.
Lehavdil, it is like Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody – with so many different dynamics in the song, that it keeps you guessing. The end result of such a tactic is that the yetzer hara is frozen in confusion and not in motion – you don't want him to be in motion.
Secondly you need to aim high. If you aim at where the yetzer hara is torpedoing you now, you will fail. You must take upon yourself kabbalot that aim higher than where the yetzer hara has caused you to fail right now.
For example, if you have trouble waking up in time for the shacharit minyan, instead of trying to correct the problem by setting better or louder alarm clocks (addressing the current failure), rather take upon yourself to stay an extra 15 minutes after shacharit in shul to learn or say Tehilim – aim higher, not at the point of failure.
The yetzer hara is also aiming higher – he does not want you to be late for shul, he wants you to stop going to shul altogether. Counteract him by aiming higher, be there before he is, by strengthening your presence in shul.
This all sounds a little weird in a shiur, like some eclectic "trick" from an eccentric baker. I cannot lay claim to this technique, however, it was invented long before me, by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.
In Birkat HaMazon we say – אוֹתָנוּ וְאֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לָנוּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּרְכוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב בַּכֹּל מִכֹּל כֹּל. What does it mean בַּכֹּל מִכֹּל כֹּל?
בַּכֹּל is referring to Avraham וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים וַיהוָה בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַבְרָהָם בַּכֹּל (בראשית כד,א). The meaning of בַּכֹּל, according to the Yalkut Shimoni, is ר' לֵוִי אָמַר ... שֶׁהִשְׁלִיטוֹ בִּיִצְרוֹ, that HKB"H finally gave Avraham total control over his yetzer hara – at the end of his life.
מִכֹּל is referring to Yitzchak וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵפוֹא הוּא הַצָּד צַיִד וַיָּבֵא לִי וָאֹכַל מִכֹּל (בראשית כז, לג). Yitzchak achieved the same control of his yetzer hara much earlier in life than Avraham.
כֹּל is referring to Yaakov וְכִי יֶשׁ לִי כֹל (בראשית לג, יא). Yaakov learned from his father and grandfather and achieved control of his yetzer early in his life.
What is the difference between בַּכֹּל מִכֹּל כֹּל? They all have the common word כֹּל referring to control over the yetzer hara. With Avraham there is an extra letter ב and with Yitzchak, an extra letter מ.
Avraham's technique of bettering his yetzer hara was with ב, in other words ב' כִּוּוּנִים, attacking from two directions at once. Yitzchak's technique was with מ, in other words מִלְּמַעְלָה, aiming high. The two letters together make בם, the BAM technique.
To summarize the techniques that bakers can teach us about counteracting our yetzer hara –
1. Always be active! Idleness lets the yetzer hara gain a foothold.
2. Take multiple kabbalot upon yourself to improve yourself, not just one.
3. Move slowly and not too quickly – slow and steady wins the race.
4. Aim high.
As we said above, Amalek is also compared to a זְבוּב. The way to defeat Amalek is very similar to the above. This in fact, without realizing it, is the way we have been waging the war with our enemy since October 7.
Instead of simply attacking Hamas/Amalek in Gaza, we attacked from opposite directions – Hezbollah/Amalek in the north and the Houtis/Amalek in the south. We aimed high and went straight for the head of the snake – Iran/Amalek.
And now, we are dealing the final death blow to the Amalek in Gaza where it all began. This is not because Netanyahu knows the BAM technique, but because HKB"H Himself is orchestrating this war!
Am Yisrael take heart. HKB"H is fighting for us. All we need to do is our own hishtadlut by fighting our own yetzer hara on an individual level. HKB"H does not ask of us to defeat our yetzer hara, this is an impossibility – we are mere humans battling against an angel.
All HKB"H asks is that we actively wage war on on our yetzer hara כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֶיךָ. When HKB"H sees sincere effort on our part, then וּנְתָנוֹ ה' אֱ-לֹקֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ, HKB"H will step in and help us defeat our yetzer hara (and Amalek) for good.
Shabbat Shalom,
Eliezer Meir Saidel
Machon Lechem Hapanim,
No comments:
Post a Comment