Sunday, November 20, 2011
USING STRENGTH IN THE RIGHT WAY - TOLDOS
One of the most difficult aspects of Toldos is Isaac’s preference for Esau over Jacob. How could such a great man as Isaac believe that Esau was virtuous and more fitting to receive the blessings than his righteous brother? The Be’er Yosef offers an interesting approach to these issues. He explains that there are two types of righteous people. One is a person whose natural character traits are very refined and pure. The other, is one whose natural tendencies are negative, and therefore has to work hard to overcome his yetser hara (evil inclination). He quotes the Yaavetz, who states that the person whose natural inclination is negative is greater.
He explains further that Isaac believed both his sons were tzaddikim (righteous), however, he saw that Jacob was the kind of tzaddik who is born with a natural leaning to good character traits, whereas, Esau was an example of a tzaddik who had to overcome his yetser hara. Isaac’s mistake was that he believed Esau had successfully overcome his natural tendencies, where in truth, they had overcome him, driving him on a course of destruction. How could Isaac be blind to Esau’s true character?
The Be’er Yosef continues that Isaac recognized that Esau was born with the sign of redness, which the gemara tells us is an indication of a bloodthirsty nature. The gemara says that one who is born with this tendency will direct his energies to some form of activity related to spilling blood. If he applies it in a negative way, he will be a thief, however if he directs it positively he will be a shochet or a mohel . Esau became a hunter which the Be’er Yosef equates with a shochet. Isaac viewed this as being Esau’s way of channeling his violent tendencies to a positive use. Moreover, he used his hunting to fulfill the Mitzva of honoring one’s father, by providing Isaac with food. In this way, Isaac believed that Esau had reached a level of righteousness that was greater than that of Jacob. He saw that Jacob’s natural leanings were towards righteousness, therefore Yaakov was less meritorious than Esau, whom, Isaac believed, had overcome his yetser hara to become a tzaddik.
It is possible to further develop this idea that Isaac preferred Esau’s perceived form of righteousness. It is well-known that each of the Avos (Forefathers) excelled in one particular character trait. Abraham’s trait was chessed (kindness), Isaac’s was gevura (strength) , and that of Jacob was emes (truth). The commentaries explain that both Abraham and Isaac bore sons who also had a leaning to the same trait as them, however, they misused that trait, and therefore it became expressed in a negative way. Ishmael epitomized misuse of the trait of chessed , whereas Esau personified the misapplication of gevura. It is instructive to analyze more deeply, the positive aspect of gevura embodied by Isaac, and contrast it to its negative application by Esau.
Isaac exercised great internal strength throughout his life. His strength was in his ability to conquer any negative inclinations that he may have had, and to nullify his own selfish desires and needs. This resulted in a great level of self-discipline and pure Avodas HaShem whereby Isaac’s whole being was fulfilled solely to fulfilling God’s will. Isaac saw in Esau the potential to also excel in this trait, and perhaps even to develop it further than Isaac could. As the Be’er Yosef explained, Isaac saw that Esau had powerful inclinations driving him towards evil, however he felt that if Esau used his natural gevura in the correct way, he could excel greatly in that trait. However, Isaac did not realize that Esau directed his gevura for selfish purposes. Instead of utilizing it in the correct way, by controlling himself, Esau used it to control others. Rather than expressing his power through self-discipline, he did it through dominating and overpowering other people. This is most obviously apparent in his profession of hunting, which involved overcoming mighty animals. Moreover, Rashi tells us that Esau was a murderer. Needless to say, Esau paid no heed to strengthening himself internally to control himself, rather the sources tell us that he was extremely immoral.
Esau’s descendants, in particular, the Romans, emulated him in their misuse of the trait of gevura. They were a nation bent on conquering the world for the sake of having immense power. Moreover, like Esau, they had absolutely no interest in the internal strength that involved self-control, rather they were extremely immoral in their lifestyle.
We have seen how Isaac excelled in the trait of gevura, and that he believed that his son Esau could also exercise this trait to overcome his natural inclinations. However, Esau chose to use his gevura to further his own desires and dominate others. The Torah outlook clearly emphasizes the value of self-control, and deemphasizes the importance of external power. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Mishna in Pirkei Avot. “Who is strong? He who subdues his inclination, as it says, ‘He who is slow to anger is better than the strong man, and a master of passions is better than a conqueror of a city.” We learn from here that the strength that the Torah acclaims is that which Isaac excelled in – overcoming one’s natural inclinations in order to do God’s will. This form of power, the Mishna tells us, is what we should aspire to.
It is true that just as the Forefathers made particular emphasis on one particular trait, so too each person naturally leans to one such trait. Nevertheless, it is also clear that no matter what one’s natural inclination is, each person needs to express all these traits at some points. Thus, each person must apply the lessons with regard to gevura to his own life. We see from the contrast between Esau and Isaac, that one must be very careful to express the trait of gevura in the correct way. It is far easier to apply it in the wrong fashion, using it to dominate or control other people. It is far more difficult, but ultimately far more rewarding, to control oneself. A person who dominates others will still feel himself a slave to his passions, and satisfying these passions will never provide him with true contentment. Whereas, one who has true self-control of himself, can be free to express himself in the optimum fashion.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
MAKING THE MOST OF OUR STRENGTHS - KI SEITSEI
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even their tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, to eternity. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt, and because he hired against you Bilaam Ben Beor, of Pethor, Aram Naharaim, to curse you.”
The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!
The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira (free will), the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.
There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive. Why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.
We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.
Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential. Had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people. Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.
The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.
We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.