The Parsha begins with the mitzvo of terumas hadeshen, whereby the Kohen must remove the ashes from the previous day’s offering. Rabbeinu Bechaya writes that this mitzvo teaches the mida of humility before Hashem because the Kohen must humble himself to perform this seemingly degrading act . The Kli Yakar adds that the ashes should remind the Kohen of Avraham Avinu’s recognition that man comes from ’afar v’eifer’ .
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
Showing posts with label Tzav. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tzav. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
THE TEMPTATIONS OF MONEY - TZAV
"And Hashem said to Moshe, saying; Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, to say; this is the Law of the Olah.. .
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV
In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth).
Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth).
Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV
In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
THE GREATNESS AND LOWLINESS OF MAN - TZAV
The Parsha begins with the mitzvo of terumas hadeshen, whereby the Kohen must remove the ashes from the previous day’s offering. Rabbeinu Bechaya writes that this mitzvo teaches the mida of humility before Hashem because the Kohen must humble himself to perform this seemingly degrading act . The Kli Yakar adds that the ashes should remind the Kohen of Avraham Avinu’s recognition that man comes from ’afar v’eifer’ .
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
THE TEMPTATIONS OF MONEY - TZAV
"And Hashem said to Moshe, saying; Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, to say; this is the Law of the Olah.. .
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
THE TEMPTATIONS OF MONEY - TZAV
"And Hashem said to Moshe, saying; Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, to say; this is the Law of the Olah..[1].
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss[2] involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah[3].
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation[4]. Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy[5]. Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money [6]!
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places[7]. One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality[8]...[9]" Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money[10].
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.[11]
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
[1] Tzav, 6:1-2.
[2] There are different opinions as to the exact nature of the financial loss; many commentaries explain that unlike other korbanos, the Olah was fully burnt and the Kohanim were not allowed to eat from any part of it. Thus, he had a sense of loss in that in the time he was offering the Olah he could have offered a different korban from which he could have gained material benefit. See Ohr HaChaim, Tzav, 6:2 for an outline of other interpretations of the loss that Chazal refer to.
[3] Toras Kohanim, 6:1, quoted by Rashi, Tzav, 6:2.
[4] An exception to this is the Kohanim of the Second Temple period who often attained the position through bribery and political affiliations.
[5] Yoma, 18a.
[6] Tallelei Oros, Parshas Tzav, p.100, quoted by Meilitz Yosher.
[7] See Chagiga, 11b and Bava Basra, 165a. See also Mesillas Yesharim, Ch.11 who discusses these Gemaras.
[8] Translated as arayos. This refers to specific forms of immorality that the Torah prohibits in the strongest fashion such as relations with a married woman or incest.
[9] Bava Basra, 165a.
[10] Rav Yerucham Levovits zt"l brings Rav Yisroel's hanhago of never being alone with uncounted money. Rav Yerucham himself adds that he would even not want to be alone with counted money despite the heightened chance of being caught for stealing it! (Daas Chachmo u'Mussar, 4th Chelek, Parshas Shelach, p.115b.)
[11] Choshen Mishpat is the section of Shulchan Aruch that discusses monetary laws.
Monday, March 22, 2010
THE GREATNESS AND LOWLINESS OF MAN - TZAV
The Parsha begins with the mitzvo of terumas hadeshen, whereby the Kohen must remove the ashes from the previous day’s offering. Rabbeinu Bechaya writes that this mitzvo teaches the mida of humility before Hashem because the Kohen must humble himself to perform this seemingly degrading act[1]. The Kli Yakar adds that the ashes should remind the Kohen of Avraham Avinu’s recognition that man comes from ’afar v’eifer’[2].
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots.[3]” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots.[4]”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world.[5]” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d].[6]”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul[7]. There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close.[8]” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
[1] Tzav, 6:3
[2] Tzav, 6:4.
[3] Avos, 3:1
[4] Avos, 4:4.
[5] Sanhedrin, 37a.
[6] Avos, 3:18.
[7] Hadrach lelimud hamussar, p.20.
[8] Sotah, 47a.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
