SHMINI

"MOSHE WAS ANGRY...AND SPOKE TO MOSHE...AND MOSHE HEARD [AHARON'S REASONING] AND IT WAS PLEASING IN HIS EYES." (VAYIKRAH 10:20)"

These psukim relate a dialogue (according to Zvachim 101a) taking place between Moshe and Aharon. Moshe was angry at Aharon for not eating of the Korban Chatas, the sin offering, while in a state of aninus, mourning. Aharon 's two sons, Nadav and Avihu had just perished. Moshe's opinion was that even though Aharon and his other sons were in a state of aninus, the sin-offering should still have been eaten, for when the kohanim eat of it those that brought the offering receive their atonement. Aharon proved to Moshe through a kal vaChomer that it was forbidden for him to eat of the sin-offering while in aninus. "Moshe heard [Aharon's reasoning] and it was pleasing his eyes." Thus Moshe approved and agreed with Aharon's reasoning.

Rashi brings from the Gemorah (Zvachim 101a) that the meaning of the posuk "Moshe heard [Aharon's reasoning] and it was pleasing in his eyes" is that Moshe admitted his error, although it was embarrassing for him. He said I did hear and know Aharon's reasoning to be the truth, but I forgot it. Although Moshe could have avoided this embarrassment by saying "I never heard or knew of such a halacha," he, nevertheless, admitted to the truth that he knew the halacha and forgot it, although it was an embarrassment for him.

Thus according to the Gemorah, Moshe was confronted with a nisayon, test. Should he admit to Aharon that Aharon's reasoning is correct and say what he really did say as embarrassingly as that would be, "I heard and knew your reasoning to be correct, but I had forgotten it? Or perhaps, in order to avoid embarrassment of admitting that he forgot the halacha, Moshe should say, "I never heard Aharon's reasoning." Thus according to the Gemorah, Moshe was torn between two possibilities: to admit to the truth as embarrassing as that would be, or to change from the truth in order to avoid embarrassment. The meaning then of this posuk, "Moshe heard [Aharon's reasoning] and it was pleasing in his eyes" is that the Torah is heaping praise upon Moshe that he admitted to the truth although it was embarrassing for him to do so and did not change from the truth in order to avoid embarrassment.

This is mystifying. Who was Moshe Rabbeinu? He reached angelic spiritual levels of holiness and purity. He ascended to Heaven and spoke face to face with Hashem Himself. The Torah itself testifies that Moshe Rabbeinu personified truth, "..in all My house, he is trusted (BaMidbar 12:7)." If so, is the Torah here praising Moshe Rabbeinu that he admitted to the truth and didn't lie and say, "I never heard or knew of this halacha." If one is a liar and has an opportunity to lie and doesn't, it would be proper to heap praise upon him and say he overcame this test. He told the truth and did not lie. But one with such holiness and purity, who personifies truth, is there greatness on his part that he admitted to the truth and did not lie? Isn't it simple for an ish emes, a man of truth, to speak the truth? Is it proper for the Torah to heap praise upon Moshe for something that requires no effort whatsoever?

Furthermore, for Moshe Rabbeinu to deviate from the truth and say, "I never heard of this halacha" would be a blatant violation of an explicit transgression of the Torah, "Midvar sheker tirchak, Distance yourself from any matter of falsehood". Is the Torah then praising Moshe Rabbeinu, who attained the highest levels of holiness and purity, for merely not violating a blatant Torah prohibition? Isn't this a prohibition that people nowhere near Moshe Rabbeinu's level certainly must and do comply with?

Perhaps we can see some insight into the inner machinations of the human mind. It seems that even to Moshe, the angelic person who atttained the highest levels of holiness and purity, and who personified emes, the temptation to deviate from the truth, however evanescent and fleeting, was to him also a nisayon. Even Moshe Rabbeinu, with all his holiness and greatness, could feasibly succumb to temptation. If even with a mere split-second flash through his mind to deviate from the truth in order to avoid the embarrassment of forgetting the halacha and say, "I never heard of this halacha." Even Moshe Rabbeinu, the mortal who was privileged to ascend to Heaven and speak to Hashem "face to face," was still only a human being of flesh and blood, whose origin was "dust from the earth." He can succumb to temptation if even for a split second. The Torah heaps praises upon Moshe Rabbeinu, the prototypical ish emes, who was confronted with this difficult nisayon of deviating from the truth in order to avoid embarrassment, and victoriously triumphed over this nisayon, by admitting to the truth despite the embarrassment that it brought upon him.

No human being, no matter how great and holy he may be is immune from the vicious, unrelenting attacks of the Yetzer HaRah. He fears no one. Even the holiest and purest, a Moshe Rabbeinu, can have a nisayon of major dimension in a seemingly simple prohibition of not deviating from the truth.

May we not take for granted even the most seemingly simple and most explicit prohibitions of the Holy Torah. They too can become nisyonos to even the greatest of us. We might even attempt to justify our transgression of these prohibitions with various rationalizations, as surely Moshe could have done. If the "Rebbe of Klal Yisroel" admitted "I heard this halacha but forgot it," it might jeapordize Klal Yisroel's confidence in him for all the other halachos as well.