CHESED - THE KEY TO SHALOM BAYIS - CHAYEI SARAH

Avraham Avinu's loyal servant, Eliezer, arrives at Aram Naharaim in search of a wife for Yitzchak Avinu. Immediately he prays to Hashem to help him find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. He even asks Hashem to give him a sign for the identity of the prospective wife, requesting that she treat him with great chesed. The commentaries note that Eliezer deliberately wanted to ascertain that Yitzchak's wife excel in the trait of chesed in particular. Why was this mida, above all others, so important to Eliezer?

The Maharal provides us with the key to answering this question. After Eliezer decides that Rivka is the fitting wife for Yitzchak, he immediately bestows her with gifts; "And it was when the camels had finished drinking, the man took a golden nose ring, its weight a beka, and two bracelets on her arms, ten gold shekels their weight." Rashi tells us that there were deeper allusions contained in these gifts. The beka mentioned in the passuk, alludes to the future mitzvo of giving half a shekel, where the Torah instructs the Jewish people to give a "beka per head", a beka being half the weight of a shekel. The two bracelets alluded to the two Luchos (Tablets) given at Sinai, and the ten gold shekels hinted at the Ten Commandments. The Maharal explains that Eliezer was alluding to the three pillars of Torah, Avoda (service of G-d) and Gemillut chasadim, upon which the world stands. The shekalim referred to the pillar of kindness, whereby everyone gave money. The reference to the nose alludes to the smell present in every korban offered in the Beis HaMikdash. Accordingly, Eliezer was hinting at the pillar of Avoda, with this gift. Finally, the Luchos were references to Torah.

The Maharal continues that Eliezer was hinting to Rivka that since she excelled in one of the three pillars, that of chesed, she would also merit to receive the pillars of Avoda and Torah. Her connection to Avoda would be through her marriage to Yitzchak, who epitomized that trait, and her connection to Torah would be through Yaakov Avinu who represents Torah. The Maharal explains that chesed is the pillar through which all others midos derive, accordingly, Rivka merited all the pillars through her excelling in the one pillar of chesed. With this explanation we can understand why the mida of chesed was so important to Eliezer - he recognized that of all the positive traits, the most fundamental was that of chesed because it was the root of all good traits. Accordingly, this was the most important mida to be found in the prospective wife of Yitzchak.

The Maharal makes a similar point in Parshas Lech Lecha. Hashem promises Avraham that his name would be mentioned in the chasima of the first bracha in the Shemoneh Esrei. Why should his name be mentioned any more than those of Yitzchak or Yaakov? Maharal explains that Avraham's mida of chesed contains within it the midos of Yitzchak and Yaakov.

The idea that chesed is the root of all other traits is strongly supported by the famous gemara in which a prospective convert asks Hillel to teach him the Torah 'on one foot'. Hillel answers him, "that which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend, the rest is commentary, go and learn it." The commentaries understand that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew the mitzvo of 'love your neighbor as yourself', the most fundamental of all the mitzvos relating to bein adam lechaveiro. However, they ask how this encapsulated the numerous mitzvos that do not fall within the realm of bein adam lechaveiro? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew a profound lesson. A person who is self-centered will never try to step out of his own way of thinking and viewing the world. Consequently, he will never relate to the thoughts and opinions of other people. Such a person will be unable to properly keep the Torah. This is because in order to follow the Torah, and the outlook prescribed by it, a person must step out of his own way of viewing the world, and subjugate his opinions to those of Hashem. One who cannot relate to the views of those around him will surely not be able to truly accept the views of Hashem. Hillel was teaching the non-Jew that only by stepping out of one's selfish world, can he begin to come to accepting the Torah.

The Chazon Ish's explanation helps us understand how the mida of chesed lies at the root of seeing the truth of the Torah. A baal chesed is one who can step out of his own world, and appreciate the needs and thoughts of others. Therefore, he can also, more easily step out of his own biases to shift his outlook to fit with that of the Torah. We also see this idea in the Torah's focus on Avraham Avinu's midos. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita points out that Chazal characterize Avraham for his incredible desire to seek truth, as well as his great chesed. The Torah goes to great lengths to teach us about Avraham's kindness but there is no mention of his philosophical quest for the truth. It is Chazal who point out this aspect of Avraham. Rav Berkovits explains that the root of Avraham's ability to find the truth was his mida of chesed. It was his very selflessness that brought him to the truth. Since his chesed lay at the root of his greatness, the Torah stressed that aspect of his personality as opposed to the intellectual honesty that came as a result.

It is also clear that the midos of Avoda (service of G-d) and gevurah (strength) epitomized by Yitzchak also stem from chesed. Yitzchak is most praised for his total self-sacrifice. This self-sacrifice emanated from his desire to do G-d's will. Thus, his self-discipline and self-sacrifice stemmed from his desire to do chesed, (so to speak) to Hashem. Even the mido of din, (strict judgment) in fact comes from chesed. We know that the reason Hashem created a world of judgment whereby one can falter, is because of the concept of 'bread of shame'. A person feels far less satisfaction when he receives something without having worked for it. Only by earning it through his own efforts does he really feel joy at his acquisitions. In this way, even Hashem's strict judgment derives from His desire to bestow chesed on his creations.

We have seen many sources that the root trait is that of chesed. This is why Eliezer was so focused on finding this mida in Yitzchak's wife. In a similar vein, one renowned talmid chacham pointed out that when his daughters were dating, he would often be told about the brilliance of their prospective husbands. He would say that their intellect was far less important to him than how they would treat his daughters.

It is clear how important the trait of chesed is in all relationships, and in marriage in particular. By working on one's chesed, a person will immeasurably enhance his marriage. To the degree that he (or she) remains ensconced in his own world he will be unable to understand and meet his spouse's needs. This indeed seems to be the cause of many of the problems that plague bad marriages. In contrast, when a spouse strives to relate to his wife, then, in time, their bonds will grow stronger and stronger. May we all merit to marriages filled with chesed.

THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL - CHAYEI SARAH

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.

We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.

The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!

We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.

Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.

What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good. ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.

The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav. He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

CHESED AND CHACHMA - CHAYEI SARAH

　
Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ her will You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master.”

The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly.

In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak.
The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.

The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people. The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them.

The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!

Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.

MARRIAGE - REMOVING THE OBSTACLES TO SHALOM BAYIS

Parshas Vayeira begins with the story of the Malachim's visit to Avraham Avinu. After Avraham has given them a sumptuous meal, the Malachim surprise him with the prediction that he and his wife, Sarah Imanu would bear a child. Sarah overhears this bold prediction and reacts with skepticism: “And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have withered shall I again have delicate skin? And my husband is old!” Hashem immediately informs Avraham of Sarah’s skepticism, but does not reveal the full content of her words. He omits the part about Avraham being old, and only mentions Sarah’s own perceived inability to have children. Rashi brings the gemara that tells us that Hashem himself changed what Sarah had said, for the sake of maintaining Shalom Bayis (family peace) between Avraham and Sarah. We learn from here a general principle that a person is allowed to change the truth in order to maintain harmony in a marriage.

There are numerous lessons to be learnt from this incident and Chazal’s explanation. One of them is the great value of Shalom Bayis, to the degree that it is preferable to alter the truth rather than cause a possible rift in a marriage. This lesson is magnified when one bears in mind the great value placed on the trait of honesty in Torah thought.

There is another, less obvious lesson that can be derived from this story. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita asks, why could Sarah’s comment about Avraham’s age have possibly caused a rift in their precious marriage. There was nothing vindictive in her observation, she was merely noting an obvious fact, that Avraham was aged. He answers, that we learn from here, that even a very innocent statement with the slightest hint of negativity can cause some kind of weakening in the relationship between man and wife. It is certain that Avraham would not have been upset with Sarah had Hashem informed him of her observation about his age. Nonetheless, the Torah teaches us that on some minute level, it demonstrated a certain lacking in Sarah’s great respect for her righteous husband. If this is true with regard to a tzaddik on the level of Avraham Avinu, how much more is it relevant to a normal person. The Torah is teaching us that even a factual observation about one’s spouse can cause harm in a marriage if it can be perceived to be negative in any way.

Of course, it is very difficult for a person to reach a level where he never says anything that could minutely imply a lack of respect of his spouse. Initially, a more realistic goal is to try to reduce more blatant types of criticism that cause so much damage in a marriage. Whilst such comments are unfortunately commonplace, it is impossible for a couple (or people in any other relationship) to develop a truly loving relationship. This is borne out by an observation of Rav Noach Weinberg on the verse that contains the mitzvo to love one’s fellow man. The passuk says: “Do not take revenge, and do not bear a grudge, and love your neighbor as yourself - I am Hashem.” It is not a coincidence when Mitzvos are placed in the same verse - there must be some kind of connection between them. What is the connection between the mitzvo of love thy neighbor with the commands not to take revenge or bear a grudge? Rav Weinberg explains that the Torah is teaching us that in order to properly love other people, one must remove the negativity that plagues inter-personal relationships. When a person is unforgiving of other people's flaws and mistakes, he will never be able to develop a genuinely positive relationship with them. This is particularly relevant in a marriage. If the spouses are constantly focusing on their partner's failings and begrudging them their mistakes, they will never be able to have a truly happy marriage. Only by removing petty negativity, can they attain the Torah's view of marriage.

The practical applications of this lesson are obvious - reduced criticism is the key to improving a marriage. How can a person reduce his criticism of his spouse? The root of criticism is focusing on the negative aspects of someone else’s behavior. In order to begin to reduce one’s critical words, he must first cut down his critical thoughts. One couple were plagued by constant criticism and bickering about minor matters. They were advised that whenever one such insignificant issue arose and they felt a need to make a comment, they should hold back and remain quiet. Initially, this exercise proved very difficult but as the couple persisted, they found that they looked at each other in a less judgmental and critical fashion. Perhaps this is one way in which the negativity in a marriage can be reduced and enable the relationship to flourish.
　

In response to a question I received with regard to my essay about bris mila being on the 8th day - The source of the Chazal about mila versus Shabbos is the Yalkut, Yeremyahu, Ch.33, Simun 325, quoted in Michtav M'Eliyahu, Chelek 1, p.226-7. (I do have footnotes for all my essays - it is timeconsuming to put them on the blog as well. Anyone who would like to see my Divrei Torah with the footnotes can email me on: Gefen123@smile.net.il and I can put you on my email list which has all the footnotes.

BRIS MILA - REMOVING THE ORLAH

The mitzvo of bris mila involves cutting off the orlah (foreskin). The Torah views the orlah as more than merely an unnecessary part of the body, rather it represents a very negative aspect of human nature. For example, in Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem tells Avraham Avinu, "Go before me and be complete". The Medrash tells us that Hashem was commanding Avraham to perform bris mila, because until he would remove the orlah he was considered as being spiritually blemished. What exact flaw does orlah represent and how does removing it, rectify the problem?
Rav Dessler zt"l explains that orlah represents how a person's bodily desires, or unbridled character traits, are covered up by his intellect. He can use his mind to justify any form of immorality and negative character traits. Cutting off the orlah means removing the warped way of thinking that validates following one's base desires. In this vein, Rav Dessler brings a Zohar that calls the Greek nation the name 'orlah'. This is because they used their sechel (intellect) to validate various forms of immorality and cruel behavior. Chanukah saw the battle of this philosophy with that of the Torah, whereby the intellect is guided by the Torah and thereby reveals the truth, rather than cover it up. This explains why the Greeks made a particular effort to forbid bris mila. They placed great value on the ability of the intellect without the need for any objective sense of right and wrong. Accordingly, the lesson of bris mila, that one should not use his mind to validate immoral behavior, was particularly threatening to them.

The contrast between the Torah attitude to using one's sechel and that of the secular world is beautifully illustrated by the Malbim in Parshas Vayeira. Avraham Avinu travels to the land of the Plishtim (Philistines). Fearing that the people would kill him in order to take his wife, Sarah, he says that she is his sister. The King of the Plishim, Avimelech takes Sarah for himself. That night, Hashem appears to him in a dream, strongly warning him to return to her husband. A furious Avimelech confronts Avraham, demanding to know why Avraham felt it necessary to lie about Sarah's true identity. Avraham answers him, saying, ".. Because I said, 'only there is no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife.'"

The Malbim explains the underlying debate between Avimilech and Avraham. Avimelech expressed his distaste at being suspected by Avraham of unethical behavior such as murdering a man in order to take his wife. He pointed out that the Plishtim were moral people who had a code of ethical behavior. Avraham answered that it was true that the Plishtim were philosophers who espoused virtuous conduct. However, the Malbim adds, Avraham also pointed out that "one who attains good character traits through his own intellect, and he performs justice and kind deeds, completely as a result of his intellect; despite all this, we cannot trust such a man or such a nation, at such a time when his desires persuade him to do evil, that his intellect will overcome his lust. The opposite will happen, because at the time that the fire of lust burns in him, then his intellect will cause him to murder, commit adultery and do all kinds of evil."

Avraham recognized that an ideology that was purely guided by intellect may express admirable values. However, when the desires of a person who espoused such an ideology would overcome him, he would use his intellect to justify all kinds of immoral behavior. Accordingly, Avraham feared that were the Plishtim to see a woman who attracted them, they would easily find a justification to kill her husband. Avraham continued that only an outlook that was guided by an objective morality as defined by G-d, could avoid this terrible phenomena. A person with this outlook would never be at risk of rationalizing immoral behavior because of his desires. His sechel would be constantly guided by the Torah's objective value system.

The Malbim's distinction between the philosophy of the Plishtim and of Avraham, fits perfectly with Rav Dessler's explanation of the detrimental nature of orlah and how it epitomizes the misuse of sechel. Perhaps it is no coincidence that one of the only times in which the word orlah is associated directly with another nation, is in connection with the Plishtim. David HaMelech describes Goliath as "the uncircumcised Plishti."

We have seen the significance of removing the orlah. It is not merely a physical act, rather it represents avoiding the misuse of sechel as a justification for immoral behavior. This is a very relevant lesson to every Jew, no matter what level of his observance. The yetser hara is ingenious at creating rationalizations to justify actions that contradict the absolute values espoused in the Torah. We must strive to use our intellect to help us adhere to the Torah's values, not to get around them. May we all merit to learn and live the lessons of bris mila.
　
　

UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d.” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d.

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah. A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot.” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him. However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus. However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA

The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests). The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?

Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.

We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.

We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.

Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.

There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.

There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.