In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth).
Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
Showing posts with label Meshech Chochma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meshech Chochma. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, September 4, 2011
YOUR BROTHER AND YOUR ENEMY - KI SEITSEI
In Parashas Ki Seitzei, there are a number of Mitzvos instructing us how to react to a fellow Jew who is in some kind of predicament. One of them is the Mitzvo to help unload one’s fellow’s animal when it is suffering under a heavy burden. The Torah tells us: “You shall not see the donkey of your brother or his ox falling on the road and hide yourself from them, you shall surely stand them up, with him.” The commentaries note that this Mitzvo was already mentioned in another place in the Torah, however with a significant difference: In Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah states: “If you see the donkey of your enemy crouching under its burden, would you refrain from helping him? – you shall repeatedly help him.” The obvious question is why, in Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah instructed us to help one’s enemy, whereas in Parashas Ki Seitzei, the Torah discussed helping his brother.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV
In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
THE KEY TO MESIRAS NEFESH
Chazal tell us that when Yaakov Avinu left his parents to go to the home of Lavan, he learnt Torah in the Yeshivos of Shem and Ever for fourteen years. During that time he was so engrossed in his learning that he never once slept ! This poses a difficulty - the Torah tells us that for the previous 63 years of his life Yaakov was a ‘yosheiv ohalim’, he spent all his time learning Torah. However, we do not see that he never slept. What happened that enabled Yaakov to attain such a level of mesiras nefesh to forgo sleep in those 14 years that surpassed what he had achieved up till that time? My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Bervkovits Shlita answers, that Yaakov knew that he would be faced with great challenges during his time living with the evil Lavan; Lavan would provide great tests to his midos and his spiritual level and he would need to rise to a higher spiritual level in order to be able to withstand being influenced by Lavan. Consequently, he recognized that he had to utilize every available second in these 14 years of Torah learning. There is no doubt that in the previous 63 years of his life, he learnt with great hasmada, but there was a far greater sense of urgency that permeated his learning in the 14 years before he went to live with Lavan. We learn from here that being in a challenging situation can be a great motivating factor in increasing the level of mesiras nefesh in one’s Avodas Hashem.
This can also help explain an interesting halacho brought by the Rambam. During a war, a common tactic is to beseige the enemy, thus starving him of vital supplies. The Rambam writes that a Jewish army may not surround the enemy from all four sides, rather it must leave one side open so that the enemy soldiers have the option of fleeing to safety . This seems like a strange hanhago in the midst of a war! The Meshech Chochma explains that this is indeed a shrewd tactical move; when a person is placed in a highly pressurized situation such as being besieged on four sides he has no option but to find new cochos that can enable him to fight with far greater courage and zeal . Therefore the Torah commands us to leave one side open so that the enemy will not be forced in a situation where it can pose a real threat. This also explains the behavior of the Zealots at the time of the Roman siege of Yerushalayim that led to the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash. The inhabitants of Yerushalayim had great food supplies that would enable them to last a very long time even whilst under siege. However, the impatient Zealots wanted to arouse everyone to fight the Romans, so they burnt all the food supplies with the intention of forcing everyone to fight for their lives with a great sense of urgency.
Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita explains that this phenomena led to the incredible mesiras nefesh of Jews who lived through the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. He tells of how Jews that were trying to learn Torah were faced with incredible nisyonos - they would suddenly be visited by KGB agents who would warn them that their jobs were at stake if they would continue in their ‘foolish ways’. If they continued anyway, they would be paid another visit, and this time the safety of their children would be threatened. And yet, amidst such pressure, they were able to find the strength to continue regardless. The following story demonstrates how far their mesiras nefesh went. It was forbidden to perform bris mila on babies, nonetheless many Jews tried to do so at great risk. On one occasion a baby boy had been unwell for the first several months of his life, until finally, aged 10 months the bris was performed. After the bris, the baby’s mother went up to him and kissed him, she then promptly fainted! When she awoke she explained to the bewildered onlookers what had led her to faint. When her baby was born she promised herself that her baby would have bris mila. But she knew that this was no easy task and she feared that she may not have the courage to go through with it. In order to ensure that she would not give up, she swore that she would never kiss or hug her baby until bris was performed! That is why, after waiting so long, she fainted after kissing her little boy! Rav Frand wonders whether we -who are able to practice our religion with ease and in freedom - could contemplate not kissing or hugging our children for so long for the sake of a mitzvo. We do not live with that same sense of urgency that Yaakov Avinu felt as he headed to the house of Lavan, and we cannot relate to the levels of mesiras nefesh that the Jews in the Soviet Union attained.
But how can we tap into the koach of urgency to help improve our own Avodas Hashem? The Mishna in Avos provides a number of answers:“Rebbi Tarfon says; the day is short; the workload is great; the workers our lazy; the reward is great; and the Baal Habayis is pushing. ” In this Mishna, Rebbi Tarfon is trying to imbue us with that sense of urgency that will motivate us to learn and grow more. He begins that “the day is short.” Life is short, before we know it, it has passed us by and all of that time is lost forever. Moreover, we never know when our life will end - a recognition of this should certainly help motivate us. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l notes that the Mishna does not say that our ‘days’ (in the plural) are short, rather, ‘the day.’ He says that this comes to teach us that each individual day has its own function and potential - if a person wastes one part of one day then he has lost that time forever - when a person recognizes that each moment is passing by and will never return he will surely be more careful with his time .
The Mishna continues that, “the work is great“. It is self-evident that every area of Avodas Hashem requires great effort for the workload is endless. This most obviously applies to learning where there is no limit to the depth and breadth that a person can attain. But it also applies to growth - the ladder of Avodas Hamidos is never-ending - there are always more opportunities for character refinement. Moreover, we are also judged as to whether we fulfill our potential - Chazal tell us that there is a heavenly image of each person - this is the image of what he can become if he reaches his full potential. When we proceed to shamayim at the end of our lives, we will be shown that that image and judged as to why we did not fit it.
“The reward is great.” If we were more real of how much reward we receive for mitzvos then our Avoda would drastically improve. Other Mishnayos in Avos discuss this concept: “Be careful with a light mitzvo just as you are with a serious mitzvo, because you do not know the reward for the mitzvos. ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the reason one should be extremely careful with even the ‘lighter’ mitzvos is because he has no real conception about how great the reward is even for that. Later in Avos, we are told that, “one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Haba is greater than all the pleasure of Olam Hazeh. ” Rav Dessler zt”l goes to great lengths to demonstrate how all the pleasure that was ever experienced in Olam Hazeh cannot match one whiff of Olam Haba .
It is understandably difficult to make this concept real but we can at least act in accordance with an intellectual recognition of this. Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita suggests a way of doing so; when a person is tired and ready to head off for bed after the Friday night meal, he should try to motivate himself to learn for an extra five minutes and say to himself - “if I could receive $1000 to learn for another five minutes then I would certainly do so. I realize, at least intellectually, that the reward in Olam Haba for doing so is worth infinitely more than that .”
“The Baal Habayis is pushing.” Hashem is expectant of us to do our job and play our role in perfecting the world. The Gemara says that each person should say that “the world was created for me” - this means that responsibility for the world is placed upon me and I must act with that recognition. Hashem expects a great deal from us and we must produce results.
Baruch Hashem, Jews who live in democratic countries can practice our religion with total freedom. However this can lead to a sense of comfort that can prevent us from tapping into the sense of urgency that is needed to motivate ourselves to strengthen our Avodas Hashem. Gedolim became who they were because they did feel this sense of urgency. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt”l was once asked how he became such a great talmid chochom. He answered that he looked at every day of his life as if it could be his last. With such an outlook he was able to push himself to reach incredible heights . May we too find it in ourselves to tap into this tremendous koach.
If you would like to receive a weekly dvar Torah on email please contact me on: Gefen123@smile.net.il
This can also help explain an interesting halacho brought by the Rambam. During a war, a common tactic is to beseige the enemy, thus starving him of vital supplies. The Rambam writes that a Jewish army may not surround the enemy from all four sides, rather it must leave one side open so that the enemy soldiers have the option of fleeing to safety . This seems like a strange hanhago in the midst of a war! The Meshech Chochma explains that this is indeed a shrewd tactical move; when a person is placed in a highly pressurized situation such as being besieged on four sides he has no option but to find new cochos that can enable him to fight with far greater courage and zeal . Therefore the Torah commands us to leave one side open so that the enemy will not be forced in a situation where it can pose a real threat. This also explains the behavior of the Zealots at the time of the Roman siege of Yerushalayim that led to the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash. The inhabitants of Yerushalayim had great food supplies that would enable them to last a very long time even whilst under siege. However, the impatient Zealots wanted to arouse everyone to fight the Romans, so they burnt all the food supplies with the intention of forcing everyone to fight for their lives with a great sense of urgency.
Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita explains that this phenomena led to the incredible mesiras nefesh of Jews who lived through the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. He tells of how Jews that were trying to learn Torah were faced with incredible nisyonos - they would suddenly be visited by KGB agents who would warn them that their jobs were at stake if they would continue in their ‘foolish ways’. If they continued anyway, they would be paid another visit, and this time the safety of their children would be threatened. And yet, amidst such pressure, they were able to find the strength to continue regardless. The following story demonstrates how far their mesiras nefesh went. It was forbidden to perform bris mila on babies, nonetheless many Jews tried to do so at great risk. On one occasion a baby boy had been unwell for the first several months of his life, until finally, aged 10 months the bris was performed. After the bris, the baby’s mother went up to him and kissed him, she then promptly fainted! When she awoke she explained to the bewildered onlookers what had led her to faint. When her baby was born she promised herself that her baby would have bris mila. But she knew that this was no easy task and she feared that she may not have the courage to go through with it. In order to ensure that she would not give up, she swore that she would never kiss or hug her baby until bris was performed! That is why, after waiting so long, she fainted after kissing her little boy! Rav Frand wonders whether we -who are able to practice our religion with ease and in freedom - could contemplate not kissing or hugging our children for so long for the sake of a mitzvo. We do not live with that same sense of urgency that Yaakov Avinu felt as he headed to the house of Lavan, and we cannot relate to the levels of mesiras nefesh that the Jews in the Soviet Union attained.
But how can we tap into the koach of urgency to help improve our own Avodas Hashem? The Mishna in Avos provides a number of answers:“Rebbi Tarfon says; the day is short; the workload is great; the workers our lazy; the reward is great; and the Baal Habayis is pushing. ” In this Mishna, Rebbi Tarfon is trying to imbue us with that sense of urgency that will motivate us to learn and grow more. He begins that “the day is short.” Life is short, before we know it, it has passed us by and all of that time is lost forever. Moreover, we never know when our life will end - a recognition of this should certainly help motivate us. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l notes that the Mishna does not say that our ‘days’ (in the plural) are short, rather, ‘the day.’ He says that this comes to teach us that each individual day has its own function and potential - if a person wastes one part of one day then he has lost that time forever - when a person recognizes that each moment is passing by and will never return he will surely be more careful with his time .
The Mishna continues that, “the work is great“. It is self-evident that every area of Avodas Hashem requires great effort for the workload is endless. This most obviously applies to learning where there is no limit to the depth and breadth that a person can attain. But it also applies to growth - the ladder of Avodas Hamidos is never-ending - there are always more opportunities for character refinement. Moreover, we are also judged as to whether we fulfill our potential - Chazal tell us that there is a heavenly image of each person - this is the image of what he can become if he reaches his full potential. When we proceed to shamayim at the end of our lives, we will be shown that that image and judged as to why we did not fit it.
“The reward is great.” If we were more real of how much reward we receive for mitzvos then our Avoda would drastically improve. Other Mishnayos in Avos discuss this concept: “Be careful with a light mitzvo just as you are with a serious mitzvo, because you do not know the reward for the mitzvos. ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the reason one should be extremely careful with even the ‘lighter’ mitzvos is because he has no real conception about how great the reward is even for that. Later in Avos, we are told that, “one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Haba is greater than all the pleasure of Olam Hazeh. ” Rav Dessler zt”l goes to great lengths to demonstrate how all the pleasure that was ever experienced in Olam Hazeh cannot match one whiff of Olam Haba .
It is understandably difficult to make this concept real but we can at least act in accordance with an intellectual recognition of this. Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita suggests a way of doing so; when a person is tired and ready to head off for bed after the Friday night meal, he should try to motivate himself to learn for an extra five minutes and say to himself - “if I could receive $1000 to learn for another five minutes then I would certainly do so. I realize, at least intellectually, that the reward in Olam Haba for doing so is worth infinitely more than that .”
“The Baal Habayis is pushing.” Hashem is expectant of us to do our job and play our role in perfecting the world. The Gemara says that each person should say that “the world was created for me” - this means that responsibility for the world is placed upon me and I must act with that recognition. Hashem expects a great deal from us and we must produce results.
Baruch Hashem, Jews who live in democratic countries can practice our religion with total freedom. However this can lead to a sense of comfort that can prevent us from tapping into the sense of urgency that is needed to motivate ourselves to strengthen our Avodas Hashem. Gedolim became who they were because they did feel this sense of urgency. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt”l was once asked how he became such a great talmid chochom. He answered that he looked at every day of his life as if it could be his last. With such an outlook he was able to push himself to reach incredible heights . May we too find it in ourselves to tap into this tremendous koach.
If you would like to receive a weekly dvar Torah on email please contact me on: Gefen123@smile.net.il
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
