“These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with
G-d.” Noach was the greatest person in his time, the only one who deserved to be spared from the flood. And yet Noach is unfavorably compared to Avraham Avinu by Chazal in a number of places. What is the difference between these two great men?
Rashi brings a Medrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, Hashem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve Hashem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.
Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “Ish tzaddik (man of righteousness),” whilst Avraham is “Ish chessed (man of kindness).” Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler, “This was only tzedek - he fulfilled his obligation.” It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.
The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”
This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of Klal Yisroel, the Chosen People, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true chessed. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.
Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.
The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.
Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.
A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel .
In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.
Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.
Showing posts with label Noach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noach. Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2011
ESCAPE OR REBUILD? - NOACH
“And Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. ” When the flood and ended and Noach returned to the earth, he faced the daunting task of starting the world anew. He began by planting a vineyard which had terrible consequences. Chazal strongly criticize Noach’s decision to first plant a vineyard; whilst wine can cause man great simcha and can help him to feel closer to Hashem, that he should have begun planting something that was more immediately necessary for the rebuilding of the world .
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it led to damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced a similar nisayon to that of Noach. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rose immediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for ShatneZ. He faced more than one churban - one, the Holocuast, was physical in nature - and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Mabul or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel s met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and says ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own person churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer terrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it led to damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced a similar nisayon to that of Noach. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rose immediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for ShatneZ. He faced more than one churban - one, the Holocuast, was physical in nature - and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Mabul or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel s met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and says ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own person churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer terrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH
The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was did not believe with a leiv shalem. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was did not believe with a leiv shalem. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.
SHEM AND EVER – THE MASTERS OF INSULATION - PARSHAS NOACH
At the end of Parshas Bereishis, the Torah writes that Noach found favor in the eyes of HaShem. In the beginning of the next Parsha, the Torah tells us of the offspring of Noach. The Medrash notes the juxtaposition between Noach’s finding favor with HaShem and the mention of his children. It explains that Noach’s special favor was in the merit of his sons. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l notes that this Medrash is difficult to understand; in all its discussion of Noach’s special treatment by HaShem, the Torah makes no emphasis of this being due to his sons’ greatness, rather Noach, through his own merit, was deserving of being saved from the Flood and of being the progenitor of mankind. Accordingly, why does the Medrash attribute Noach’s special favor to his sons? Rav Kamenetsky answers this by quoting another Medrash. That Medrash discusses Noach’s ability to protect himself and his family from the evil people that surrounded him. It gives an analogy of a flask of perfume that is sealed tight, which is placed in a cemetery yet despite its unpleasant surroundings it maintains its pleasant aroma.
Rav Kamenetsky explains that Noach’s greatest accomplishment was his ability to protect himself and his family from the evil influences that encircled them on all sides in the same way that a sealed flask of perfume can maintain its pleasantness despite the great powers of impurity surrounding it. Therefore, when the Medrash says that Noach was saved in his sons’ merit it means that he was saved because he brought up his children in such a way that they were protected from the negative influences surrounding them.
This idea is further brought out by a drush interpretation of a Gemara in Brachos. The Gemara states that even if a person has said the krias Shema in shul, he must say it again before he goes to sleep. The Shema epitomizes the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven (ol Malchus Shamayim). This Gemara alludes to the fact that even if a person accepted the yoke of Heaven in shul with the community he must do it again when he is at home without the spiritual support of the community. The Gemara is teaching us that it is insufficient for a person to maintain his spiritual level when he is surrounded by likeminded people who can help him. He must be strong enough to maintain this level even when he is alone, with no external support. Noach epitomized this exalted level, whereby he was able to maintain his righteousness even though he had no assistance from those around him.
Noach’s son Shem, and his great-grandson, Ever, emulated Noach in this area, and taught it over to the individuals who came to study in their Yeshivas. With this understanding, a number of difficulties can be resolved. Firstly, when Yaakov Avinu leaves Eretz Yisroel to go to Lavan, he goes to the Yeshiva of Ever (Shem had already passed away by that time ) and learns there for fourteen years. Yaakov was sixty three years old at the time, and had spent his whole life learning from his great father, Yitzchak Avinu. Why was the Torah that he learnt from Yitzchak insufficient to prepare him for his time with Lavan? The answer is that up to this time in his life, Yaakov had grown up surrounded by tzaddikim and now that he was facing the challenge of living with people like Lavan he needed to learn other sugyas (topics), those related to dealing with tricksters, liars and enemies. The Torah of Yitzchak Avinu was not geared to such nisyonos (tests) because he too was protected from negative influences by his parents. Indeed, when Yishmael threatened to negatively influence him, Sarah threw him out of the home. In contrast Shem and Ever had grown up surrounded by evil; Shem, in the time of the Mabul (great flood), and Ever, in the time of the Tower of Bavel. Accordingly, the Torah of Shem and Ever addressed the kinds of challenges that Yaakov knew he would face during his time with Lavan.
The teachings of Shem and Ever are also mentioned with regard to the Torah that Yaakov taught his son, Yosef. Rashi, based on the Medrash, says that one of the ways in which Yaakov seemed to give preferential treatment to Yosef was that, “everything he [Yaakov] learnt from Shem and Ever, he passed on to him [Yosef].” Why does the Medrash stress in particular that the Torah that Yaakov learnt from Shem and Ever; what about the Torah he learnt from Yitzchak? The answer is that Yaakov subconsciously knew that Yosef, of all the sons, was destined to live in exile away from G-d fearing people, and surrounded by negative influences. Therefore, he taught Yosef in particular amongst all the sons the Torah of Shem and Ever because he was in the greatest need of that Torah. The others brothers misread Yaakov’s intentions and believed that he was teaching Yosef more Torah than them, because only he would continue the line of transmission. However, in truth, Yaakov was only equipping Yosef with the tools that he needed to survive his own galus (exile).
Indeed, when Yaakov is finally reunited with Yosef he exclaims, “Rav, od Yosef chai” – “it is great, Yosef is still alive”. The Medrash elaborates on what Yaakov meant by this – he was extolling Yosef’s great strength in withstanding many challenges and tests in Mitzrayim, and yet remaining steadfast in his righteousness. The reason Yosef was so successful in this area was because of the Torah of Shem and Ever that Yaakov taught him in his youth.
We have seen Rav Kamenetky’s theme which teaches us that Noach’s great strength was his ability to protect himself and his family from external influences and how Shem and Ever passed on his teachings through the Torah that they taught in their Yeshivas. The only remaining question is what does it mean that they taught a different type of Torah? In what way was it different? There are two areas of Torah in which it seems that Shem and Ever taught a different type of Torah; halacha (Jewish law) and hashkafa (Jewish thought). In terms of halacha Rav Kamenetsky notes that The Chofetz Chaim wrote a separate work on the Jewish laws specifically geared for Jews who were serving in non-Jewish armies. Such people obviously faced many unusual and difficult challenges and needed guidance as to when they could apply various leniencies and to what extent. In a similar vein, nowadays, people can be exposed to environments that pose new questions; people who work in non-Jewish environments, or people who have secular families, face complicated questions that are not necessarily addressed in the standard halacha works. Obviously such delicate questions cannot be answered alone, rather one must ask a Rav who is familiar with these unusual situations.
With regard to hashkafa, there are clearly different challenges that face people in varying situations. A person who finds himself surrounded by others who espouse very distinct lifestyles will need to study works of mussar and hashkafa that focus on staying strong in such circumstances. He may need a more constant strengthening in basics of Jewish thought in order to maintain the correct outlook when those around him may pressure him to act differently. We have seen the importance of the Torah of Shem and Ever to the development of our forefathers, and how it can apply to our lives.
Rav Kamenetsky explains that Noach’s greatest accomplishment was his ability to protect himself and his family from the evil influences that encircled them on all sides in the same way that a sealed flask of perfume can maintain its pleasantness despite the great powers of impurity surrounding it. Therefore, when the Medrash says that Noach was saved in his sons’ merit it means that he was saved because he brought up his children in such a way that they were protected from the negative influences surrounding them.
This idea is further brought out by a drush interpretation of a Gemara in Brachos. The Gemara states that even if a person has said the krias Shema in shul, he must say it again before he goes to sleep. The Shema epitomizes the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven (ol Malchus Shamayim). This Gemara alludes to the fact that even if a person accepted the yoke of Heaven in shul with the community he must do it again when he is at home without the spiritual support of the community. The Gemara is teaching us that it is insufficient for a person to maintain his spiritual level when he is surrounded by likeminded people who can help him. He must be strong enough to maintain this level even when he is alone, with no external support. Noach epitomized this exalted level, whereby he was able to maintain his righteousness even though he had no assistance from those around him.
Noach’s son Shem, and his great-grandson, Ever, emulated Noach in this area, and taught it over to the individuals who came to study in their Yeshivas. With this understanding, a number of difficulties can be resolved. Firstly, when Yaakov Avinu leaves Eretz Yisroel to go to Lavan, he goes to the Yeshiva of Ever (Shem had already passed away by that time ) and learns there for fourteen years. Yaakov was sixty three years old at the time, and had spent his whole life learning from his great father, Yitzchak Avinu. Why was the Torah that he learnt from Yitzchak insufficient to prepare him for his time with Lavan? The answer is that up to this time in his life, Yaakov had grown up surrounded by tzaddikim and now that he was facing the challenge of living with people like Lavan he needed to learn other sugyas (topics), those related to dealing with tricksters, liars and enemies. The Torah of Yitzchak Avinu was not geared to such nisyonos (tests) because he too was protected from negative influences by his parents. Indeed, when Yishmael threatened to negatively influence him, Sarah threw him out of the home. In contrast Shem and Ever had grown up surrounded by evil; Shem, in the time of the Mabul (great flood), and Ever, in the time of the Tower of Bavel. Accordingly, the Torah of Shem and Ever addressed the kinds of challenges that Yaakov knew he would face during his time with Lavan.
The teachings of Shem and Ever are also mentioned with regard to the Torah that Yaakov taught his son, Yosef. Rashi, based on the Medrash, says that one of the ways in which Yaakov seemed to give preferential treatment to Yosef was that, “everything he [Yaakov] learnt from Shem and Ever, he passed on to him [Yosef].” Why does the Medrash stress in particular that the Torah that Yaakov learnt from Shem and Ever; what about the Torah he learnt from Yitzchak? The answer is that Yaakov subconsciously knew that Yosef, of all the sons, was destined to live in exile away from G-d fearing people, and surrounded by negative influences. Therefore, he taught Yosef in particular amongst all the sons the Torah of Shem and Ever because he was in the greatest need of that Torah. The others brothers misread Yaakov’s intentions and believed that he was teaching Yosef more Torah than them, because only he would continue the line of transmission. However, in truth, Yaakov was only equipping Yosef with the tools that he needed to survive his own galus (exile).
Indeed, when Yaakov is finally reunited with Yosef he exclaims, “Rav, od Yosef chai” – “it is great, Yosef is still alive”. The Medrash elaborates on what Yaakov meant by this – he was extolling Yosef’s great strength in withstanding many challenges and tests in Mitzrayim, and yet remaining steadfast in his righteousness. The reason Yosef was so successful in this area was because of the Torah of Shem and Ever that Yaakov taught him in his youth.
We have seen Rav Kamenetky’s theme which teaches us that Noach’s great strength was his ability to protect himself and his family from external influences and how Shem and Ever passed on his teachings through the Torah that they taught in their Yeshivas. The only remaining question is what does it mean that they taught a different type of Torah? In what way was it different? There are two areas of Torah in which it seems that Shem and Ever taught a different type of Torah; halacha (Jewish law) and hashkafa (Jewish thought). In terms of halacha Rav Kamenetsky notes that The Chofetz Chaim wrote a separate work on the Jewish laws specifically geared for Jews who were serving in non-Jewish armies. Such people obviously faced many unusual and difficult challenges and needed guidance as to when they could apply various leniencies and to what extent. In a similar vein, nowadays, people can be exposed to environments that pose new questions; people who work in non-Jewish environments, or people who have secular families, face complicated questions that are not necessarily addressed in the standard halacha works. Obviously such delicate questions cannot be answered alone, rather one must ask a Rav who is familiar with these unusual situations.
With regard to hashkafa, there are clearly different challenges that face people in varying situations. A person who finds himself surrounded by others who espouse very distinct lifestyles will need to study works of mussar and hashkafa that focus on staying strong in such circumstances. He may need a more constant strengthening in basics of Jewish thought in order to maintain the correct outlook when those around him may pressure him to act differently. We have seen the importance of the Torah of Shem and Ever to the development of our forefathers, and how it can apply to our lives.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH
The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was totally insincere in his beliefs. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was totally insincere in his beliefs. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
ESCAPE OR REBUILD? - NOACH
“And Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. ” When the flood had ended and Noach returned to the earth, he faced the daunting task of starting the world anew. He began by planting a vineyard which had terrible consequences. Chazal strongly criticize Noach’s decision to first plant a vineyard. Wine can cause man great simcha and can help him to feel closer to Hashem, however Noach should have begun planting something that was more immediately necessary for the rebuilding of the world .
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it had damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced an incredibly great nisayon. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rimmediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnez checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnez. He faced more than one churban. One, the Holocuast, was physical in nature, and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem, in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Flood or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel is met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and say ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own individual churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer fromterrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it had damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced an incredibly great nisayon. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rimmediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnez checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnez. He faced more than one churban. One, the Holocuast, was physical in nature, and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem, in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Flood or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel is met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and say ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own individual churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer fromterrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
NOACH AND AVRAHAM - PARSHAS NOACH
“These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with G-d.” Noach was the greatest person in his time, the only one who deserved to be spared from the flood. And yet Noach is unfavorably compared to Avraham Avinu by the Rabbis in a number of places. What is the difference between these two great men?
Rashi brings a Midrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, HaShem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve HaShem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.
Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “ish tzaddik" (man of righteousness), whilst Avraham is “ish chessed" (man of kindness). Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler that this was only tzedek,(the right thing to do), meaning that he fulfilled his obligation. It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.
The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”
This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of the Jewish people, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true kindness. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.
Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.
The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.
Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.
A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel .
In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.
Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.
Rashi brings a Midrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, HaShem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve HaShem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.
Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “ish tzaddik" (man of righteousness), whilst Avraham is “ish chessed" (man of kindness). Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler that this was only tzedek,(the right thing to do), meaning that he fulfilled his obligation. It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.
The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”
This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of the Jewish people, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true kindness. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.
Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.
The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.
Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.
A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel .
In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.
Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
ESCAPE OR REBUILD? - NOACH
“And Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.” When the flood had ended and Noach returned to the earth, he faced the daunting task of starting the world anew. He began by planting a vineyard which had terrible consequences. Chazal strongly criticize Noach’s decision to first plant a vineyard. Wine can cause man great simcha and can help him to feel closer to Hashem, however Noach should have begun planting something that was more immediately necessary for the rebuilding of the world.
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard. The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha. Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will. Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt. This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it had damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced an incredibly great nisayon. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rimmediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnez checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnez. He faced more than one churban. One, the Holocuast, was physical in nature, and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem, in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Flood or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel is met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and say ‘shalom aliyich nafshi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own individual churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer fromterrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d..” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
Monday, October 19, 2009
NOACH AND AVRAHAM - NOACH
“These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with G-d.” Noach was the greatest person in his time, the only one who deserved to be spared from the flood. And yet Noach is unfavorably compared to Avraham Avinu by Chazal in a number of places. What is the difference between these two great men?
Rashi brings a Medrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, Hashem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve Hashem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.
Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “ish tzaddik"(man of righteousness), whilst Avraham is “ish chessed"(man of kindness). Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler, “This was only tzedek - he fulfilled his obligation.” It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.
The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”
This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of the Jewish people, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true kindness. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.
Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.
The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.
Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.
A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel.
In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.
Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
