We're talking about acting "with a high hand"—b'yad ramah—and the consequences, according to the ancient text Sifrei Bamidbar, are pretty severe.
So, what does it mean to act "with a high hand?" Bamidbar 15:30 tells us, it's about more than just breaking a rule. It's about actively perverting the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who, as the text recounts, would mock the Torah itself. He'd say things like, "Why did it need to mention Reuven going out in the wheat harvest?" or "Why tell us about Timna being Lotan's sister?" It sounds almost childish, doesn't it? But the implication is serious: a deliberate undermining of the sacred text, a casting of ridicule "in the face of the L-rd."
And what’s the problem with a little bit of mockery? Well, according to this passage, it's a slippery slope. Like Isaiah warns us (5:18), sin starts like a strand of a spider's web, thin and easily broken. But if left unchecked, it becomes as stout as wagon ropes, binding us and dragging us down.
Rabbi takes this idea even further. He says that a single mitzvah lishmah, a good deed done purely for the sake of Heaven, can pull along many more. Conversely, a single transgression can drag us down a path of further misdeeds. Mitzvah "tows" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. It’s a powerful image, isn’t it? The idea that our actions have a ripple effect, creating a chain reaction of either good or bad.
The text then uses some pretty strong language to describe the consequences of this kind of deliberate defiance. R. Eliezer b. Azaryah compares it to someone who doesn't just eat the food, but scrapes the dish clean, leaving nothing behind. Issi b. Akiva says it's like scraping the dish and leaving nothing in it. It's the ultimate insult, a complete disregard for what is sacred. The punishment? Karet, "cutting off"—cessation of the family line, childlessness. Ouch.
So, who are these people who despise the word of the L-rd and break His commandments? The text offers a few interpretations. Some say it's the Sadducees or heretics. Others say it's someone who distorts the Torah or breaks the covenant of circumcision. R. Elazar Hamodai even says that someone who desecrates offerings, cheapens festivals, and breaks the covenant of circumcision should be "thrust" from the world, even if they’ve performed many mitzvot (commandments)! Strong words, indeed.
But it gets even more nuanced. What about someone who says the entire Torah is from Heaven, except for one thing that Moses said on his own? Or someone who accepts the entire Torah, except for one particular inference? The text says that even that constitutes despising the word of the L-rd. It’s a reminder that it’s not enough to just pay lip service to tradition. We have to engage with it thoughtfully and respectfully.
And what about those who learn Torah but don't teach it to others? Or those who are able to learn but choose not to? R. Nathan even says it applies to someone who pays no heed at all to words of Torah. According to R. Yishmael, the verse speaks of idolatry and the first commandment, "I am the L-rd your G-d… There shall be unto you no other gods before Me."
The consequences, according to R. Akiva, are dire: "Cut off" in this world, and "shall be cut off" in the world to come. R. Yishmael offers a different interpretation, saying that the Torah speaks in the language of man.
And what happens after death? The text says that for most, death atones for their sins. But for those who die with their transgression still clinging to them, "its transgression is in it," as it says in (Ezekiel 32:27), "And their transgressions shall be upon their bones." But what if they repented? The text clarifies that this applies only when "its transgression is in it," and not when he has repented.
Interestingly, R. Nathan sees a silver lining in this. He says that if someone isn't properly eulogized or buried, or if their body is eaten by an animal, or if rain falls upon it, it's actually a good sign. It means their transgressions are being exacted of them after death, paving the way for them to merit life in the world to come. It's a strange comfort, isn't it?
Finally, R. Shimon b. Elazar uses this passage to argue against the beliefs of the Samaritans, who didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead. He points to the phrase "its transgression is in it" as evidence that the soul is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment.
So, what are we to make of all this? This passage from Sifrei Bamidbar is a powerful reminder that our actions have consequences, both in this world and the next. It challenges us to examine our own attitudes towards tradition, to engage with it thoughtfully and respectfully, and to avoid the trap of acting "with a high hand." And it reminds us that even a single good deed can have a ripple effect, creating a chain reaction of positive change. Maybe that's a little less scary than wagon ropes.
(Bamidbar 15:30) "And the soul who acts with a high hand": This is one who perverts the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would sit and cast ridicule in the face of the L-rd, saying (for example): He should not have written in the Torah (Bereshit 30:14) "And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest." And He should not have written (Ibid. 36:22) "And the sister of Lotan was Timna." Of one such as he it is written in the Tradition (Psalms 50:20) "You sit and speak against your brother; you cast ridicule against your mother. These you have done and I have kept silent. You thought I was one such as you": (i.e.), you thought that perhaps as the ways of flesh and blood are the ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) "I will reprove you and set (them) forth before your eyes." And of one such as he, Isaiah writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) "Woe unto those who pull transgressions to themselves with strands of deceit, and sin as with the ropes of a wagon": In the beginning, sin is like the strands of a spider's web, and, in the end, sin is as ("stout" as) wagon ropes. Rebbi says: If a man does one mitzvah lishmah (for the sake of Heaven), let him rejoice not only in that mitzvah alone; for in the end, it will "pull along" many mitzvoth. And if a man commits one transgression, let him not despond over it alone, for in the end, it will pull along many transgressions. For mitzvah "tows" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes (megadef)." R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: As a man would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the dish (of food) and 'scraped' ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the 'dish' itself." (i.e., this is the ultimate insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the entire dish and left nothing in it." (Ibid.) "and that soul will be cut off": "cutting-off" connotes cessation (of the family line, i.e., he will be childless). "that soul": who acts deliberately. "from the midst of its people": but its people will remain at peace. (Ibid. 31) "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is a Sadducee. "and His commandment he has broken": This is a heretic. Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who distorts the Torah. "and His commandment he has broken": This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who does not circumcise his sons.) From here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One who desecrates the offerings, and cheapens the festivals, and breaks the covenant (of circumcision) of our father Abraham — even if he has performed many mitzvoth, it were best to "thrust" him from the world! Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": this is one who says there is no Torah from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from the mouth of the Holy One (except for) this thing that Moses said on his own — And even if he said: The entire Torah I accept, except for this inference, this kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) — this is "For the word of the L-rd he has despised." Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who learns, but does not teach others. R. Nechemiah says: This is one who is able to learn but does not. R. Nathan said: This is one who paid no heed at all to words of Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse speaks of idolatry, as it is written "For the word of the L-rd he has despised" — the first commandment of the Omnipotent One — (Shemot 20:2-3) "I am the L-rd your G-d … There shall be unto you no other gods before Me." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "cut off shall be cut off": "cut off" — in this world; "shall be cut off" — in the world to come. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: But is it not already written (Ibid. 30) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes; and that soul shall be cut off'? Are there three worlds? Rather, "and that soul shall be cut off" — in this world. "cut off" — in the world to come. "cut off shall be cut off" — Torah speaks in the language of man. (Ibid. 31) "its transgression is in it": All who die are atoned for by death; but this one, "its transgression is in it." As it is written (Ezekiel 32:27) "And their transgressions shall be upon their bones." — Even if they have repented? — It is, therefore, written (when) "its transgression is in it," and not when he has repented. Similarly, (Devarim 32:5) "They have corrupted themselves — not His children — their blemish" — When their blemish is in them, they are not His children. When their blemish is not in them, they are His children. R. Yishmael says: "its transgression is in it": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemot 20:5) "He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon sons," I might think that (the father's sin of) idolatry, too, is visited upon sons "until the third and fourth generation"; it is, therefore, written (here, in respect to idolatry) "its transgression is in it" — in it (the soul of the doer) the transgression inheres, and it is not visited upon the sons, and not on the third and on the fourth generation. R. Nathan says: This ("its transgression is in it") is a good sign for a man, (indicating) that his transgressions are exacted of him after his death, (so that he may merit life in the world to come.) If a dead one is not eulogized or buried, or if he is eaten by an animal, or if rain descended upon it — this is a good sign, (indicating that his transgressions are being exacted of him after his death.) And even though there is no (Scriptural) proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 8:1-2) "At that time, says the L-rd, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its officers … And they will spread them out under the sun and the moon, etc." R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From here ("its transgression is in it") I have exposed (as false) the books of the Samaritans. For they say: The dead do not live — whereupon I said to them: But it is written "That soul shall be cut off; its transgression is in it." Let this not be stated (i.e., What purpose does it serve?) — It indicates that it (the soul) is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment.
