In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
Showing posts with label Chessed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chessed. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Monday, November 14, 2011
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;’ she, You will 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 perceive 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 people's 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 the 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 man 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.
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 perceive 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 people's 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 the 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 man 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.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
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 well being.
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 is this 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.
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 well being.
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 is this 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.
KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA
One of the most famous episodes in the Torah Portion is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?
Rav Yitzchak Berkovits explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that God punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that God was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so wicked that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat) and Oneg Shabbat (enjoying Shabbat) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed.
Rav Yitzchak Berkovits explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that God punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that God was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so wicked that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat) and Oneg Shabbat (enjoying Shabbat) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed.
Monday, March 21, 2011
CHAYECHA KODMIM - SHEMINI
Among the list of non-kosher birds in ParshaS Shmini is the interestingly named ‘Chasida’. Rashi quotes the Gemara in Chullin that explains that this bird is renowned for its trait of chesed because it shares it’s food with its friends. The Rizhiner Rebbe zt”l asks that if this bird is endowed with such a favorable mida, why is it considered non-kosher ? He answers that the Chasida only does chesed with its own kind, but does not display any kindness to other species of birds. This form of chesed is not compatible with the Torah outlook, indeed it is a ‘treif’ form of chesed, consequently, it is listed among the non-kosher birds.
The implication of the Rizhiner Rebbe’s answer is that the ‘kosher’ form of chesed is to bestow kindness equally to all people, not just those closest to us. However, this does not seem to actually be the case: The Gemara discusses a case in which two people find themselves stranded in a desert and one of them has a bottle of water that can provide enough water for one of them to survive until they reach civilization. The Tannaim argue as to the correct hanhago in this case; Ben Peturah says that the one in possession of the bottle should share it with his friend even though, it is very likely that as a result both men will die. Rebbe Akiva argues, introducing the concept of Chayecha Kodmim, that a person should look after his own needs before those of his friend. Consequently, the man in possession of the bottle should keep the bottle for himself and thereby assure himself of his own survival despite the sad results this behavior will have for his friend . The halacho follows Rebbe Akiva and applies to many aspects of our lives.
The poskim write that a person must provide for his own needs before those of others. Moreover, there is a list of priorities in the laws of charity, whereby a person must provide for those closer to him before others . The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these priorities do not just apply to charity, but to all forms of chesed . It could seem that this concept of chayecha kodmim does not seem so different from the actions of the chasida; both seem to embody the attitude that it is acceptable to give to one’s own kind at the expense of others.
In truth, there are two crucial differences between Chayecha Kodmim and the chasida. Firstly, the chasida only does chesed with its own kind, to the total exclusion of all other creatures. In contrast, chayecha kodmim does not preclude giving to all kinds of people, rather it simply makes a list of priorities but does not exempt us from the obligation of helping those less close to us . Moreover there is a very significant factor that limit’s the effect of chayecha kodmim. The poskim write that it applies in a situation where two people have identical needs, for example they both need bread to eat. In such a case, chayecha kodmim instructs us to give to the person closer to us. However, if their needs are not the same, and the more distant person is more needy then we are obligated to provide for him first because he is more lacking For example,
if the closer person has bread but lacks meat, and the other does not even have bread, then we are obligated to provide him with bread ahead of giving meat to the person closer to us .
There is a second, even more crucial difference between the chesed of the chasida and the Torah outlook of chesed. That is the attitude behind giving priority to those closer to us. The root of the chasida’s limited chesed is the fact that it only cares about its own kind but has no concern for other species. The chasida is essentially a selfish bird whose sense of self extends to its own species but stops there. In stark contrast, we are obligated to care equally about all other Jews. This begs the questions, what is the reasoning behind chayecha kodmim? The answer is that chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility, not selfishness; the reason that we must give to ourselves and family before others is that we have more responsibility for their well-being. Thus, a person is required to provide for the financial needs of his family before other families because he is the person most responsible for their well-being. The implication of this is that chayecha kodmim is not a privilege whereby I am allowed to look after myself before others because I am more important than them. Rather, it is an obligation - I am duty-bound to look after myself before others and neglecting this duty is no different from failing to observe any Torah requirement.
We have seen that the chesed of the chasida is treif according to Torah because it is based on selfishness. In contrast, chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility for those closest to us. It does not in any way take away from the need to care about every Jew, and it does not preclude doing chesed for all Jews, rather it teaches us a list of priorities. It is no easy task to decide how much time and effort should be allotted towards the various groups of people in one’s life, ranging from ones wife and kids. To his other family, friends, community members and strangers. Moreover, each person has a different level of responsibility in each area based on his own personal circumstances.
Whilst there is no single ‘correct’ hanhago in this area, in a general sense it seems that one must be careful to strike a right balance - on the one hand providing enough , financial physical and emotional support to his immediate family whilst also fulfilling his obligations to the wider community. Over-emphasizing one area can have dire consequences in another. The story is told of a ten year old boy from an observant home who had already strayed from the Torah derech and was involved in highly undesirable activities. A certain organization that specializes in such cases decided that this boy needed to develop a close connection with a warm and caring family, something that he was obviously lacking. They made a thorough search and finally found a family renowned for their overflowing chesed to members of their community. To their absolute shock, they discovered that this dysfunctional child was a member of this family! This boy’s parents were so interested in helping others that they neglected the person whom they were most obligated to provide for. This is a challenging nisayon for anyone who wants to help the community at large.
On the other hand, this does not mean that a person should completely neglect those outside his immediate family. Many people have shown that there need not be any contradiction between providing for one’s family and simultaneously helping others. Indeed doing chesed with others can be a tremendous tool in educating one’s own children in midos such as generosity and empathy. If the right balance can be struck then a person can fulfill all his various responsibilities to all the people in his life.
The implication of the Rizhiner Rebbe’s answer is that the ‘kosher’ form of chesed is to bestow kindness equally to all people, not just those closest to us. However, this does not seem to actually be the case: The Gemara discusses a case in which two people find themselves stranded in a desert and one of them has a bottle of water that can provide enough water for one of them to survive until they reach civilization. The Tannaim argue as to the correct hanhago in this case; Ben Peturah says that the one in possession of the bottle should share it with his friend even though, it is very likely that as a result both men will die. Rebbe Akiva argues, introducing the concept of Chayecha Kodmim, that a person should look after his own needs before those of his friend. Consequently, the man in possession of the bottle should keep the bottle for himself and thereby assure himself of his own survival despite the sad results this behavior will have for his friend . The halacho follows Rebbe Akiva and applies to many aspects of our lives.
The poskim write that a person must provide for his own needs before those of others. Moreover, there is a list of priorities in the laws of charity, whereby a person must provide for those closer to him before others . The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these priorities do not just apply to charity, but to all forms of chesed . It could seem that this concept of chayecha kodmim does not seem so different from the actions of the chasida; both seem to embody the attitude that it is acceptable to give to one’s own kind at the expense of others.
In truth, there are two crucial differences between Chayecha Kodmim and the chasida. Firstly, the chasida only does chesed with its own kind, to the total exclusion of all other creatures. In contrast, chayecha kodmim does not preclude giving to all kinds of people, rather it simply makes a list of priorities but does not exempt us from the obligation of helping those less close to us . Moreover there is a very significant factor that limit’s the effect of chayecha kodmim. The poskim write that it applies in a situation where two people have identical needs, for example they both need bread to eat. In such a case, chayecha kodmim instructs us to give to the person closer to us. However, if their needs are not the same, and the more distant person is more needy then we are obligated to provide for him first because he is more lacking For example,
if the closer person has bread but lacks meat, and the other does not even have bread, then we are obligated to provide him with bread ahead of giving meat to the person closer to us .
There is a second, even more crucial difference between the chesed of the chasida and the Torah outlook of chesed. That is the attitude behind giving priority to those closer to us. The root of the chasida’s limited chesed is the fact that it only cares about its own kind but has no concern for other species. The chasida is essentially a selfish bird whose sense of self extends to its own species but stops there. In stark contrast, we are obligated to care equally about all other Jews. This begs the questions, what is the reasoning behind chayecha kodmim? The answer is that chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility, not selfishness; the reason that we must give to ourselves and family before others is that we have more responsibility for their well-being. Thus, a person is required to provide for the financial needs of his family before other families because he is the person most responsible for their well-being. The implication of this is that chayecha kodmim is not a privilege whereby I am allowed to look after myself before others because I am more important than them. Rather, it is an obligation - I am duty-bound to look after myself before others and neglecting this duty is no different from failing to observe any Torah requirement.
We have seen that the chesed of the chasida is treif according to Torah because it is based on selfishness. In contrast, chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility for those closest to us. It does not in any way take away from the need to care about every Jew, and it does not preclude doing chesed for all Jews, rather it teaches us a list of priorities. It is no easy task to decide how much time and effort should be allotted towards the various groups of people in one’s life, ranging from ones wife and kids. To his other family, friends, community members and strangers. Moreover, each person has a different level of responsibility in each area based on his own personal circumstances.
Whilst there is no single ‘correct’ hanhago in this area, in a general sense it seems that one must be careful to strike a right balance - on the one hand providing enough , financial physical and emotional support to his immediate family whilst also fulfilling his obligations to the wider community. Over-emphasizing one area can have dire consequences in another. The story is told of a ten year old boy from an observant home who had already strayed from the Torah derech and was involved in highly undesirable activities. A certain organization that specializes in such cases decided that this boy needed to develop a close connection with a warm and caring family, something that he was obviously lacking. They made a thorough search and finally found a family renowned for their overflowing chesed to members of their community. To their absolute shock, they discovered that this dysfunctional child was a member of this family! This boy’s parents were so interested in helping others that they neglected the person whom they were most obligated to provide for. This is a challenging nisayon for anyone who wants to help the community at large.
On the other hand, this does not mean that a person should completely neglect those outside his immediate family. Many people have shown that there need not be any contradiction between providing for one’s family and simultaneously helping others. Indeed doing chesed with others can be a tremendous tool in educating one’s own children in midos such as generosity and empathy. If the right balance can be struck then a person can fulfill all his various responsibilities to all the people in his life.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
COMPLETE KINDNESS - MISHPATIM
In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
Friday, October 22, 2010
KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA
One of the most famous episodes in the Parsha is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that HaShem punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that HaShem was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so cruel that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbos (honoring the Shabbos) and Oneg Shabbos (enjoying Shabbos) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed. May we all merit to learn these lessons and help our fellow in the most ideal way possible.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that HaShem punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that HaShem was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so cruel that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbos (honoring the Shabbos) and Oneg Shabbos (enjoying Shabbos) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed. May we all merit to learn these lessons and help our fellow in the most ideal way possible.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
MAKING THE MOST OF OUR STRENGTHS - KI SEITZEI
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even their tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, to eternity. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt, and because he hired against you Bilaam Ben Beor, of Pethor, Aram Naharaim, to curse you. ”
The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!
The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.
There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.
We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.
Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.
The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.
We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.
The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!
The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.
There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.
We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.
Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.
The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.
We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE MEANING OF CHESED - KEDOSHIM
In the latter part of the Parsha the Torah enumerates the various forbidden relationships and their punishments. Towards the end of this list the Torah states: “A man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, it is a chesed and they shall be cut off in the sight of the members of their people; he will have uncovered the nakedness of his sister, he shall bear his iniquity.[1]” There is a glaring problem with this passuk - the description of an incestuous relationship as being a ‘chesed’. Chesed is normally translated as kindness - what kindness is involved in arayos?!
In order to answer this question it is necessary to alter our understanding of what ‘chesed’ actually entails. It seems that chesed is more appropriately understood as a mida that is characterized by overflowing and lack of boundaries. One significant outgrowth of this is kindness in that chesed causes a person to want to unabashedly share with others, breaking his boundaries of selfishness. However, that is just one manifestation of chesed, and like all midos, chesed has negative, as well as positive, apects. One negative manifestation is that a person can lose his appreciation of a proper sense of boundaries. Arayos involves ignoring the Torah’s assertion that certain relationships break the appropriate boundaries. Consequently, the Torah describes arayos as chesed;
Two prominent characters in the Torah represent negative aspects of the mida of chesed; Yishmael and Lot. Chazal tell us that Yishmael was deeply involved in arayos[2] and thievery[3]. Both of these emanated from his distorted chesed which broke the acceptable boundaries. An attitude of ‘what is mine is yours and yours is mine’ causes a person to believe that he has the right to infringe on other people’s wives and material possessions. Lot grew up in Avraham Avinu’s home and therefore became habituated to doing chesed with others, as is demonstrated by his great hachanasos orchim in Sodom. However, Lot clearly developed a warped sense of chesed. For example, when the people of Sodom threatened to abuse his guests he preferred to offer them his own daughters! He wanted to do chesed with his guests at the expense of his own daughters[4].
Why did Yishmael and Lot so badly misapply the mida of chesed? The answer is that their chesed was not acquired through avodas hamidos based on the Torah‘s guidelines, rather it came as a result of genetics and upbringing. Even a generally positive mida such as chesed has undesirable offshoots if it is not applied in the correct way. For example, a person with a natural inclination to chesed may do kindness in the wrong way or quantity. He may be overflowing with chesed to friends, but forget about sufficiently caring for his own family. Another example is that a ‘chesed’ person may have a difficulty with making appropriate boundaries for himself in various aspects of life; he may find it hard to be punctual or reliable because he finds it difficult to set limits on his time. Further if a person does not have well-defined boundaries then he may have a nisayon of avoiding sheker because honesty requires the ability to adhere to the boundaries of truth.
The epitome of the correct balance of chesed is Avraham Avinu. He certainly had a natural propensity for chesed, however he did not merely allow his natural inclinations lead him blindly, rather he harnessed and even negated his chesed when necessary. On many occasions throughout the Torah, Avraham was placed in situations where he was forced to curtail his chesed[5]. Avraham succeeded in these difficult nisyonos, thereby showing that his chesed was not directed by natural inclinations but by Yiras Hashem and Avodas HaMidos.
Another common failing of a person naturally endowed with doing chesed is that he expects people that he helps to be equally giving to him. Consequently he may not hesitate to request that others do significant favors for him because he would do the same for them. However, whilst demanding that we give in great abundance, the Torah requires that we strive not to rely on the kindness of others. This is demonstrated in Shlomo HaMelech’s assertion that “one who hates gifts will live.[6]” Our Gedolim were overflowing with chesed and yet they often refused to take anything from anyone else. A striking example of this is the Brisker Rav. When he was the Rav of Brisk, there were a number of children whose father’s identities were unknown and whose mother were unable to raise them. No one wanted to assume the tremendous responsibility of caring for these children. What did the poor mothers do? They would come in the middle of the night and place their children on the Brisker Rav’s doorstep. When morning came and the Rav found a crying child outside his door, he brought him inside. He took upon himself the task of finding someone to take care of the child. If he was unsuccessful, then he himself took care of all the child’s needs.[7]
Whilst he was overflowing in helping others the Brisker Rav was extremely careful never to accept gifts of any kind, even under the most difficult of circumstances. When he first arrived in Palestine in 1941, along with the Mirrer Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel, they were detained in the passport control offices. The delegation awaiting the two Gedolim was told that they did not have the money with which to pay the poll tax of one-half to a full-lira (approximately 80 shekels) and it was forbidden to allow entry to anyone who had not paid. One of the heads of the Jewish Agency offered to pay the tax for the Brisker Rav, but he staunchly refused, saying, “Never in my life did I take money from anyone.” After much deliberation, an old resident of Brisk had an idea - he entered the office and approached the Brisker Rav, “The members of the Brisker Community who have come to Eretz Yisroel want the Rav to continue serving as our Rav. We will pay the Rav a salary just as we did in Brisk. Therefore, I want to either give or lend the Rav the money to pay the tax, which will then be deducted from his salary.” “That’s an offer I can accept,” agreed the Brisker Rav and he accepted the money[8]. The Brisker Rav may or may not have been naturally endowed with the mida of chesed. Regardless of his natural inclinations he excelled in the correct form of chesed and simultaneously avoided its negative aspects.
We have seen that chesed does not simply mean kindness, rather it represents the propensity for overflowing and lack of boundaries, and this can be utilized for the good or bad. Moreover, there is a striking difference between a person who has the mida of chesed through genetics or habit, as opposed to someone who develops his chesed within the lens of the Torah. May we all use the mida of chesed only for the good.
[1] Kedoshim, 20:17.
[2] Rashi, Vayera, 21:9.
[3] Rashi, Lech Lecha, 16:12.
[4] See Ramban, Vayera, 19:8.
[5] For example, when he is told to send his son Yishmael away, and even more so when he is commanded to kill his son Yitzchak.
[6] Mishlei, 15:27.
[7] Lorinz, “In Their Shadow.”
[8] Lorinz, “In Their Shadow,” p.261-2.
In order to answer this question it is necessary to alter our understanding of what ‘chesed’ actually entails. It seems that chesed is more appropriately understood as a mida that is characterized by overflowing and lack of boundaries. One significant outgrowth of this is kindness in that chesed causes a person to want to unabashedly share with others, breaking his boundaries of selfishness. However, that is just one manifestation of chesed, and like all midos, chesed has negative, as well as positive, apects. One negative manifestation is that a person can lose his appreciation of a proper sense of boundaries. Arayos involves ignoring the Torah’s assertion that certain relationships break the appropriate boundaries. Consequently, the Torah describes arayos as chesed;
Two prominent characters in the Torah represent negative aspects of the mida of chesed; Yishmael and Lot. Chazal tell us that Yishmael was deeply involved in arayos[2] and thievery[3]. Both of these emanated from his distorted chesed which broke the acceptable boundaries. An attitude of ‘what is mine is yours and yours is mine’ causes a person to believe that he has the right to infringe on other people’s wives and material possessions. Lot grew up in Avraham Avinu’s home and therefore became habituated to doing chesed with others, as is demonstrated by his great hachanasos orchim in Sodom. However, Lot clearly developed a warped sense of chesed. For example, when the people of Sodom threatened to abuse his guests he preferred to offer them his own daughters! He wanted to do chesed with his guests at the expense of his own daughters[4].
Why did Yishmael and Lot so badly misapply the mida of chesed? The answer is that their chesed was not acquired through avodas hamidos based on the Torah‘s guidelines, rather it came as a result of genetics and upbringing. Even a generally positive mida such as chesed has undesirable offshoots if it is not applied in the correct way. For example, a person with a natural inclination to chesed may do kindness in the wrong way or quantity. He may be overflowing with chesed to friends, but forget about sufficiently caring for his own family. Another example is that a ‘chesed’ person may have a difficulty with making appropriate boundaries for himself in various aspects of life; he may find it hard to be punctual or reliable because he finds it difficult to set limits on his time. Further if a person does not have well-defined boundaries then he may have a nisayon of avoiding sheker because honesty requires the ability to adhere to the boundaries of truth.
The epitome of the correct balance of chesed is Avraham Avinu. He certainly had a natural propensity for chesed, however he did not merely allow his natural inclinations lead him blindly, rather he harnessed and even negated his chesed when necessary. On many occasions throughout the Torah, Avraham was placed in situations where he was forced to curtail his chesed[5]. Avraham succeeded in these difficult nisyonos, thereby showing that his chesed was not directed by natural inclinations but by Yiras Hashem and Avodas HaMidos.
Another common failing of a person naturally endowed with doing chesed is that he expects people that he helps to be equally giving to him. Consequently he may not hesitate to request that others do significant favors for him because he would do the same for them. However, whilst demanding that we give in great abundance, the Torah requires that we strive not to rely on the kindness of others. This is demonstrated in Shlomo HaMelech’s assertion that “one who hates gifts will live.[6]” Our Gedolim were overflowing with chesed and yet they often refused to take anything from anyone else. A striking example of this is the Brisker Rav. When he was the Rav of Brisk, there were a number of children whose father’s identities were unknown and whose mother were unable to raise them. No one wanted to assume the tremendous responsibility of caring for these children. What did the poor mothers do? They would come in the middle of the night and place their children on the Brisker Rav’s doorstep. When morning came and the Rav found a crying child outside his door, he brought him inside. He took upon himself the task of finding someone to take care of the child. If he was unsuccessful, then he himself took care of all the child’s needs.[7]
Whilst he was overflowing in helping others the Brisker Rav was extremely careful never to accept gifts of any kind, even under the most difficult of circumstances. When he first arrived in Palestine in 1941, along with the Mirrer Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel, they were detained in the passport control offices. The delegation awaiting the two Gedolim was told that they did not have the money with which to pay the poll tax of one-half to a full-lira (approximately 80 shekels) and it was forbidden to allow entry to anyone who had not paid. One of the heads of the Jewish Agency offered to pay the tax for the Brisker Rav, but he staunchly refused, saying, “Never in my life did I take money from anyone.” After much deliberation, an old resident of Brisk had an idea - he entered the office and approached the Brisker Rav, “The members of the Brisker Community who have come to Eretz Yisroel want the Rav to continue serving as our Rav. We will pay the Rav a salary just as we did in Brisk. Therefore, I want to either give or lend the Rav the money to pay the tax, which will then be deducted from his salary.” “That’s an offer I can accept,” agreed the Brisker Rav and he accepted the money[8]. The Brisker Rav may or may not have been naturally endowed with the mida of chesed. Regardless of his natural inclinations he excelled in the correct form of chesed and simultaneously avoided its negative aspects.
We have seen that chesed does not simply mean kindness, rather it represents the propensity for overflowing and lack of boundaries, and this can be utilized for the good or bad. Moreover, there is a striking difference between a person who has the mida of chesed through genetics or habit, as opposed to someone who develops his chesed within the lens of the Torah. May we all use the mida of chesed only for the good.
[1] Kedoshim, 20:17.
[2] Rashi, Vayera, 21:9.
[3] Rashi, Lech Lecha, 16:12.
[4] See Ramban, Vayera, 19:8.
[5] For example, when he is told to send his son Yishmael away, and even more so when he is commanded to kill his son Yitzchak.
[6] Mishlei, 15:27.
[7] Lorinz, “In Their Shadow.”
[8] Lorinz, “In Their Shadow,” p.261-2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
