Rashi explains that the Torah is relating Bnei Yisrael’s shame. They had observed the first Shabbos in the desert, and on the second Shabbos an individual profaned it. Why were Bnei Yisrael held responsible for this isolated act of chillul Shabbos? Indeed, they had done everything possible to ensure that the sanctity of Shabbos not be desecrated. The Sifri states that Moshe had even designated guards throughout the encampment to caution people regarding chillul Shabbos.
When the people saw this man pick up the sticks, they admonished him not to continue his desecration of Shabbos. When he ignored their warning, they seized him and brought him to Moshe to decide his fate. Upon hearing the verdict from Hashem, Moshe instructed Bnei Yisrael in the manner of execution. What more could Bnei Yisrael have done? Why, then, is all of Klal Yisrael collectively held accountable for this singular act? Should the entire nation have been condemned for a single person?
Horav Yosef Z. Salant z.l. offers a profound explanation for this enigma. A unique aspect of Shabbos distinguishes it from other mitzvos. On the first luchos, tablets, the Torah enjoins us to observe Shabbos with the word zachor, remember the day of Shabbos. On the second set of luchos, in contrast, the commandment is expressed with the word shamor, guard the Shabbos. Chazal state that the words “zachor” and “shamor” were both said in one utterance.
Horav Salant explains that one must do everything in his power to prevent others from desecrating Shabbos. One who has the ability to prevent others from desecrating Shabbos and does not, is viewed as if he personally profaned Shabbos! The reason for this is that zachor admonishes the individual to observe Shabbos. Shamor, on the other hand, indicates that he is responsible for collective observance, being watchful that others observe Shabbos, as well. Since these two words/mitzvos were said in one utterance, an individual is held accountable for another Jew’s chillul Shabbos as if he personally had transgressed! Transgressing “shamor” is tantamount to transgressing “zachor”!
In the incident of the “mekoshesh,” why wasn’t the man prevented from carrying out his transgression? The guards should have immediately seized and subdued him physically, thereby thwarting his reprehensible act. Although Moshe appointed guards, they were regrettably inadequate to deter this travesty. Consequently, Bnei Yisrael were collectively derelict in this first instance of chillul Shabbos. If there was anything humanly possible for them to have done in order to prevent this aveirah, sin, they should have done so. Since they did not, they were obligated to accept complete responsibility as if they had been personally compliant. These words are striking and should inspire each one of us to accept our communal responsibility.
