It is interesting to note that the word chatas, sin-offering, is followed by, “l’Hashem,” to Hashem, a term which is not used anywhere else in the Torah. The he-goats of the Korban Mussaf were brought to atone for sins involving tumah, ritual contamination. When an individual was tamei he either entered the Bais Hamikdash or ate kodoshim, sacrificial meat to offer his sacrifice. Rashi explains that the addition of the word “l’Hashem” indicates the extent of error on the part of the tamei person. He was unaware either before or afterwards that he was tamei. Only Hashem knew of the contamination.
The Talmud in Chullin 60 asks this question and gives an answer based upon the following narrative. Chazal cite the pasuk in Parashas Bereishis 1:16, “And Hashem made two great lights: the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night.” This pasuk presents us with an apparent contradiction. The beginning of the pasuk implies that there were two great lights, while the second-half of the pasuk tells us that there was a great light and a small light! What happened? Chazal explain that originally there had been two great lights, the sun and the moon, both of equal size and brilliance. The moon, however, was not satisfied to have “two equal kings reigning under one crown;” one of them had to be diminished. Hashem responded to the moon, “Very well, make yourself small.” This idea did not satisfy the moon. After all, why should he be diminished in size just because he had a good idea?” Hashem then offered to compensate the moon for being diminished by ensuring her presence at all times of the day. The sun, however, shines only during daytime. The moon still complained that she did not gain anything by shining during the day, since nobody would notice her light. Hashem finally consoled the moon that the description of the sin-offering, the phrase, l’Hashem, “a sin-offering to Hashem,” would be incorporated only for the Korban Mussaf offered on Rosh Chodesh. This seemed to satisfy the moon.
The Daas Zekeinim M’Baalei HaTosfos cites the Talmud in Yoma 23a where Chazal say that one should be from the “neelavim v’einom olvim, shomim cherpasam v’einam meishivim,” someone who is insulted, but does not retaliate, who hears themselves humiliated and does not respond. Concerning such an individual, the Navi says (Shoftim 5), “But they that love Him, are as the sun when he goes forth in his might.” Chazal are telling us that one who holds back from responding to others who denigrate him is like the sun. Why? What did the sun do that it has become the paradigm for the humiliated?
The Daas Zekeinim makes a novel connection between these two statements of Chazal. What was the sun doing during the time that the moon was complaining about her size? Chazal do not record the sun’s response to the moon’s critique. Indeed, there was none! The sun remained quiet, it did not respond, despite the fact that (by asking for one of the two lights to be diminished) the moon was — by inference — saying, “Diminish the sun, for I am greater than he!” The sun was humiliated, but did not respond – a deed for which it merited the retention of its original size. The sun remained large, because it did not belittle itself by responding to the moon’s complaints. It did not defer to the natural proclivity we all have, to retaliate at anyone who degrades us. No, the sun ignored the moon. Thus, it continued to shine.
This thesis is not meant to assert that one should lay down and become the world’s doormat, permitting everyone to literally step on him. We are just saying that the Torah is instructing us not to react to other people’s insults. A Torah– Jew is secure in his beliefs, assured and self-confident. He does not lower himself to respond to those who taunt, denigrate and humiliate him. His standards and values are unwaverable. Trading insults dignifies the offender and is self-demeaning. If one wants to shine like the sun, he must act like the sun.
This is all true as long as the offender is not disparaging the Torah’s honor. When kavod haTorah is involved, when the Torah is denigrated or its disseminators ridiculed, the ben Torah should respond – with dignity. He should respond with an augustness and bearing that bespeaks one who studies Torah. He must, however, respond! We cannot permit the community to disparage gedolei Yisrael simply because they are and protecting Klal Yisrael from usurpers who would undermine halachah. If a gadol hador suddenly expresses intolerance for the Torah’s humiliation, if he refuses those who “perform the deed of Zimri and demand the reward of Pinchas” to become the spokesmen for Orthodoxy, he is perceived as a rabble rouser. The time occurs when one must take the initiative and act as Pinchas did. One who refuses to discern between the reactionary and the true zealot, or between the pacifist and the apologist, has no right to condemn others who are fulfilling their role as Torah Jews.
