On Pesach we celebrate Yetsias Mitzrayim and express our endless gratitude to Hashem for extracting us from the terrible slavery that we endured there. However, there is a great difficulty with the whole essence of this festival. Imagine Reuven is walking down the street and suddenly someone appears in front of him holding a steel bar and strikes his leg very hard, causing it to break. Whilst Reuven is sprawled out on the floor in agony, his assailant approaches him and calmly informs him that there is no need to worry because he is a surgeon and will happily perform the operation to help heal Reuven’s broken leg. He performs the surgery and Reuven’s leg does indeed heal. How should Reuven feel about this person - should he feel tremendous gratitude that he healed him? Of course not! - He would much rather have preferred if he had never been hit, and consequently would not have needed surgery. Similarly on Pesach we thank Hashem for taking us out of Mitzrayim but the question must be asked: ‘who put us there initially?!’ It was Hashem Himself - so why are we thanking Him so profusely for a chesed that need not have been required at all?!
It must be that the actual process of being taken out of Mitzrayim was essential to the future of the Jewish people and that the slavery was necessary in order to facilitate it. How is this so? The sefarim discuss how the beginning of something is the defining factor in how that thing will develop. For example, the intial DNA of a fertilised egg contains all the genetic information that will eventually sprout into a human being. The way in which it is formed will have a great effect on how it develops.
Yetsias Mitzrayim was the birth of a nation, the beginning of the process that led us to receive the Torah and enter Eretz Yisroel. Accordingly, the way in which Klal Yisroel was formed had a huge impact on its subsequent development. It determined that the spiritual laws governing Klal Yisroel were completely different from those of the other nations. Historically most nations are formed when a large group of people settles an area of land or overcomes another group and seizes control of their land, which then becomes the home of this nation. The birth of Klal Yisroel was very different in many respects: Firstly, we did nothing to facilitate the Exodus - the Ten Plagues which caused the Mitzrim to send us out were purely Divine acts, with no input from us. Secondly, whilst most nations are born in their own land, we were born in a foreign country - a unique historical event. But the most important difference is the manner in which our creation took place. Whilst other nations are formed according to the normal laws of nature, we were formed in a totally miraculous fashion - the Ten Plagues were completely beyond derech hateva as was the Splitting of the Sea. This is of immense significance - it defined the way in which the ‘laws of nature’ would effect Klal Yisroel. The other nations and their inhabitants live according to derech hateva - there are historical trends that define the development of the nations. In contrast the history of Klal Yisroel developed according to a different set of laws, laws that are above derech hateva. This was defined by our formation - Yetsias Mitzrayim.
We asked why we are so thankful to Hashem for freeing us from the slavery. The answer is that we are grateful that He put us in the slavery and then took us out. It was only because we were so weak and helpless that our formation could be completely in the hands of Hashem - it was impossible to attribute any aspect of Yetsias Mitzrayim to our power. Had we been free men who lived in Mitzrayim and not slaves, and then left it for Eretz Yisroel, it would have been very easy for us to attribute some or all of our success to our own hands - there would have been the yetser hara of ‘my power and my strength enabled me to achieve this success’. Instead the slavery facilitated the miraculous events that characterized Yetsias Mitzrayim which were clearly completely from the Yad Hashem and involved no input from any human being . This explains the halacha that we must discuss the ’genai’ of the story of Yetsias Mitzrayim before the ‘shvach’. The genai was intrinsic to the course of events that led to our formation in such a miraculous fashion, without it, the ‘shvach’, that is the miracles which became the model for our existence, could never have happened.
We have thus far discussed how the formation of Klal Yisroel dictated that our actual existence be defined by a completely different set of ‘laws of nature’ than those of the other nations. How has this manifest itself? The Aish Hatorah Discovery Seminar teaches a class known as ’the Seven Wonders of Jewish History’. This class shows how there are several unique factors that set apart Jewish history from that of the rest of the world. These include: The eternal and chosen status of the Jewish people; their predicted survival despite their exile and worldwide dispersion; their predicted survival in the face of persistent, vehement anti-Semitism. A nation that is forced to leave its own homeland on more than onc occasion, whilst facing tremendous persecution, is by the regular ‘laws of history’, destined either to be destroyed or assimilated into other nations. That the Jewish people have not faced this fate is clearly an indication of a unique pattern of history.
This concept of Klal Yisroel living above Derech hateva also shows itself in how observant Jews conduct their daily lives. We often do not act according to the dictates of regular ‘common sense’. For example, many businesses are the most busy on Shabbos and therefore logic dictates that one work on Shabbos. However, observant Jews know that the laws of the Torah override this practical attitude. We realize that our financial well-being is not determined by how much we work, and that any work on Shabbos would not reap any benefit.
It is clear that the observant Jew follows a unique lifestyle based on the dictates of the Torah, nevertheless it seems that there are still areas where this lesson provides a great challenge in life. What is the overall attitude with which one approaches life? Does he focus primarily on materialistic success as his source of happiness, or does he realize that spiritual considerations override this. For example, in a purely logical way of approaching life, it would be far more sensible to work more hours than to spend a few hours each day learning Torah. However, according to an outlook that transcends the normal laws of nature, one would realize that learning Torah is ultimately far more important than making that extra bit of money that is not necessary for survival. This is just one example of a general attitude that encompasses the major decision each Jew needs to think over every Pesach - that is, do I live my life according to the regular laws of nature like the goyim or do I realize that a Jew’s ambitions are completely different, defined by an understanding of the unique nature of Klal Yisroel. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzhak Berkovits Shlita explains that this is also the main lesson that we should have in mind during the Seder: The Haggadah tells us that we are obligated to see ourselves as if we left Mitzrayim ourselves - this does not just mean that we should re-live the actual story of the Exodus. Whilst this is praiseworthy, it is not the ultimate goal. The ikar is that we should see ourselves as being part of the Nation that left Mitzrayim in a miraculous fashion, a Nation that was formed to be the Am Hashem. And consequently we must realize that this places upon us a responsibility - that we must live our lives according to the laws that guide an Am Hashem; our life goals must be primarily guided by spiritual considerations. And if we live life with such an attitude then Hashem reflects that in how He guides us - with no limits of the ‘laws of nature’, rather He will enable us to fulfil our spiritual goals in a way that transcends nature. We should all have a Chag kasher v’sameach.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
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.
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.
צו- גדלות וקטנות האדם יהונתן גפן
הפרשה פותחת במצות תרומת הדשן – חיובו של הכהן לסלק את האפר הנותר מקרבנות היום הקודם. רבינו בחיי כותב שממצוה זו לומדים את מידת הענווה וההתבטלות לפני ה', כיוון שעל הכהן להשפיל את עצמו על מנת לקיים מעשה זה הנראה כלפי חוץ כמעשה מבייש. מוסיף הכלי יקר ואומר שמטרת האפר הנותר היא להזכיר לכהן את דבריו של אברהם אבינו – שהאדם הינו "עפר ואפר" .
ישנם מאמרי חז"ל רבים אחרים אשר אף הם מדגישים את חשיבות ההכרה בשפלותו של האדם. שניים מתוכם בפרקי אבות: "דע מאין באת ולאן אתה הולך... מאין באת? מטיפה סרוחה, ולאן אתה הולך? למקום עפר, רימה ותולעה" , "רבי לויטס איש יבנה אומר, מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח שתקוות אנוש רימה" . לעומת זאת, ישנם מאמרי חז"ל אחרים המדגישים את גדלותו וחשיבותו של כל אדם. הגמרא בסנהדרין אומרת "כל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא, וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא" , ובפרקי אבות- רבי עקיבא אומר "חביב אדם שנברא בצלם" .
במבט שטחי נראה לכאורה שישנה מחלוקת בין מאמרי חז"ל אלה – האם האדם נחשב לרם מעלה, או שמא שפל הוא עד מאד. אולם, האמת היא שונה. אין שום סתירה בין מאמרים אלה, אלא השוני ביניהם נובע משתי זוויות ראיה שונות המתייחסות כל אחת להיבט אחר באדם. גישה אחת מתמקדת בגוף האדם ובתאוותיו הנובעות ממקור גשמי ושפל, ואילו הגישה השנייה מדגישה את נשמתו של האדם – זו אשר גדלותה היא לאין שיעור כלל.
ניתן לראות הוכחה להסבר זה אם נעיין לעומק במקורות המובאים לעיל: תרומת הדשן נועדה להזכיר לכהן הגדול שגופו של האדם הוא בר חלוף, ולבסוף כל אדם יגיע לעפרו, אולם לא מדובר כלל על נשמת האדם. באותה מידה המשנה באבות הקוראת לכל אדם להיות מאד מאד שפל רוח – מתמקדת בגוף האדם אף היא. המשנה משתמשת בביטוי פחות מקובל לאדם -"אנוש" ולא אומרת "אדם" או "איש", כיוון שהמילה "אנוש" אכן מתייחסת לחלק הגשמי יותר של האדם, ולא לחלקים הגבוהים והרוחניים שבו. המשנה אומרת לאדם שאל לו להתגאות יתר על המידה בהישגיו הגשמיים, כיוון שבדומה לכל עניין גשמי אחר – הם אינם שלו לנצח. אין כוונת המשנה במילים אלה לומר לאדם שעליו לחוש שפל וחסר ערך עצמי, אלא שלהצלחותיו בתחום הגשמי אין שווי וערך משמעותי כלל. זהו גם ההסבר לגבי המשנה המזכירה לאדם שמקורו הוא מטיפה סרוחה, והוא הולך ומתקרב לעבר מקום עפר, רימה ותולעה – מדובר על מהותו העראית ובת החלוף של גוף האדם, ולא מדובר כלל על נשמת האדם.
לעומת זאת, הגמרא בסנהדרין, המדגישה את הגדלות הטבועה בכל אדם ואדם, מתייחסת לגדלותו הרוחנית של האדם. המשנה באבות מסבירה במפורש שהאדם חביב בעיני ה' בשל היותו נברא בצלם אלוקים – מהו צלם האלוקים של האדם? הנשמה שבקרבו שהיא חלק אלוק ממעל. ברור אם כך שאין כל מחלוקת במאמרי חז"ל, אלא במקומות מסוימים הראו חז"ל לאדם עד כמה שפל גופו, ובמקומות אחרים הדגישו את חשיבות ההכרה בגדולתה של הנשמה.
ר' שלמה וולבה זצ"ל כותב שרבים הם הטועים לחשוב שקיימת מחלוקת בעולם המוסר האם האדם הוא "גדול" או "קטן". הוא מוחה בתוקף נגד טעות זו, וכותב ששתי הגישות נכונות בהחלט, ואין כל מחלוקת ביניהם. כל אדם בזמנים מסוימים בחייו צריך להתמקד בשפלות גופו, ובהזדמנויות אחרות, עליו להתמקד יותר ברוממותה וגדלותה של נשמתו . אולם ישנו צד של סיכון מסוים בהדגשת שפלותו של האדם, אם מהעבר השני לא מעריכים ומדגישים את גדלותו ורוממותו. אדם שחי את חייו ללא דימוי עצמי חיובי, עלול להזיק לעצמו ביותר אם יעסוק בעיקר בקטנות האדם - במקום לטהר את נפשו מגאווה במעלות והישגים גשמיים, הוא עלול להגיע מתוך כך לפקפוק בערך מהותו הפנימית. רק אדם שמודע היטב לכוחותיו ולעוצמה הטבועה עמוק בנפשו, יכול להפנות אל עצמו דברי מוסר נוקבים וחדים העוסקים בקטנותו ושפלותו של החלק הגשמי שבאדם.
ישנם הורים או מורים הנוהגים להדגיש את החסר, ואת הטעון שיפור בתלמידיהם או בילדיהם, הם פועלים מתוך גישה של מדת הדין, וכך מתייחסים לחניכיהם. אנשי חינוך רבים בני זמננו מסבירים כי בדורות עברו היו בני האדם והילדים בעלי דימוי עצמי חיובי הרבה יותר, אשר על כן לא היה חשש שייגרם נזק כלשהו מגישת חינוך כזו. אולם, בימינו יחס נוקשה וביקורתי יותר מידי עלול לגרום לילדים תחושה שאין להם כל ערך, תחושה הגורמת לילד נזק עצום. אכן, טעות חינוכית כזו ידועה כאחד ההסברים לנשירתם של נערים צעירים מדרך התורה בחיפושם הנלאה אחר מילות עידוד ותחושת ערך עצמי כלשהי.
יתירה מזאת, גם אם אדם רואה את תלמידו כמסוגל לקבל גישה קפדנית יותר, מוכרח הוא לזכור את דברי הגמרא בסוטה המורה: "לעולם תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת" - כלומר תמיד הדחייה - הגישה הקפדנית צריכה להגיע מצידה של היד החלשה יותר, ובד בבד יש להשתמש ביד החזקה יותר - ביד ימין לחסד ולקירוב. העובדה שהגמרא משתמשת במילה "לעולם" מלמדת שזהו עיקרון שנכון תמיד ולעולם יש להשתמש בו, ואין כל מקרה יוצא מן הכלל. על פי עיקרון זו אמר אחד אנשי החינוך הידועים שעם כל מילת הערה או ביקורת כלפי התלמיד, יש לציין לפחות ארבעה מחמאות חיוביות.
הפרשה מלמדת שעל האדם לזכור שגופו הוא ארעי ובר חלוף. זהו לימוד חשוב ביותר, אולם ראינו שאין להתמקד אך ורק בו, אלא יחד עם זאת יש לזכור שאנו, בנינו ותלמידנו – כולנו בעלי ערך רוחני עצום. מי יתן ונזכה כולנו לצעוד בדרך המלך.
ישנם מאמרי חז"ל רבים אחרים אשר אף הם מדגישים את חשיבות ההכרה בשפלותו של האדם. שניים מתוכם בפרקי אבות: "דע מאין באת ולאן אתה הולך... מאין באת? מטיפה סרוחה, ולאן אתה הולך? למקום עפר, רימה ותולעה" , "רבי לויטס איש יבנה אומר, מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח שתקוות אנוש רימה" . לעומת זאת, ישנם מאמרי חז"ל אחרים המדגישים את גדלותו וחשיבותו של כל אדם. הגמרא בסנהדרין אומרת "כל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא, וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא" , ובפרקי אבות- רבי עקיבא אומר "חביב אדם שנברא בצלם" .
במבט שטחי נראה לכאורה שישנה מחלוקת בין מאמרי חז"ל אלה – האם האדם נחשב לרם מעלה, או שמא שפל הוא עד מאד. אולם, האמת היא שונה. אין שום סתירה בין מאמרים אלה, אלא השוני ביניהם נובע משתי זוויות ראיה שונות המתייחסות כל אחת להיבט אחר באדם. גישה אחת מתמקדת בגוף האדם ובתאוותיו הנובעות ממקור גשמי ושפל, ואילו הגישה השנייה מדגישה את נשמתו של האדם – זו אשר גדלותה היא לאין שיעור כלל.
ניתן לראות הוכחה להסבר זה אם נעיין לעומק במקורות המובאים לעיל: תרומת הדשן נועדה להזכיר לכהן הגדול שגופו של האדם הוא בר חלוף, ולבסוף כל אדם יגיע לעפרו, אולם לא מדובר כלל על נשמת האדם. באותה מידה המשנה באבות הקוראת לכל אדם להיות מאד מאד שפל רוח – מתמקדת בגוף האדם אף היא. המשנה משתמשת בביטוי פחות מקובל לאדם -"אנוש" ולא אומרת "אדם" או "איש", כיוון שהמילה "אנוש" אכן מתייחסת לחלק הגשמי יותר של האדם, ולא לחלקים הגבוהים והרוחניים שבו. המשנה אומרת לאדם שאל לו להתגאות יתר על המידה בהישגיו הגשמיים, כיוון שבדומה לכל עניין גשמי אחר – הם אינם שלו לנצח. אין כוונת המשנה במילים אלה לומר לאדם שעליו לחוש שפל וחסר ערך עצמי, אלא שלהצלחותיו בתחום הגשמי אין שווי וערך משמעותי כלל. זהו גם ההסבר לגבי המשנה המזכירה לאדם שמקורו הוא מטיפה סרוחה, והוא הולך ומתקרב לעבר מקום עפר, רימה ותולעה – מדובר על מהותו העראית ובת החלוף של גוף האדם, ולא מדובר כלל על נשמת האדם.
לעומת זאת, הגמרא בסנהדרין, המדגישה את הגדלות הטבועה בכל אדם ואדם, מתייחסת לגדלותו הרוחנית של האדם. המשנה באבות מסבירה במפורש שהאדם חביב בעיני ה' בשל היותו נברא בצלם אלוקים – מהו צלם האלוקים של האדם? הנשמה שבקרבו שהיא חלק אלוק ממעל. ברור אם כך שאין כל מחלוקת במאמרי חז"ל, אלא במקומות מסוימים הראו חז"ל לאדם עד כמה שפל גופו, ובמקומות אחרים הדגישו את חשיבות ההכרה בגדולתה של הנשמה.
ר' שלמה וולבה זצ"ל כותב שרבים הם הטועים לחשוב שקיימת מחלוקת בעולם המוסר האם האדם הוא "גדול" או "קטן". הוא מוחה בתוקף נגד טעות זו, וכותב ששתי הגישות נכונות בהחלט, ואין כל מחלוקת ביניהם. כל אדם בזמנים מסוימים בחייו צריך להתמקד בשפלות גופו, ובהזדמנויות אחרות, עליו להתמקד יותר ברוממותה וגדלותה של נשמתו . אולם ישנו צד של סיכון מסוים בהדגשת שפלותו של האדם, אם מהעבר השני לא מעריכים ומדגישים את גדלותו ורוממותו. אדם שחי את חייו ללא דימוי עצמי חיובי, עלול להזיק לעצמו ביותר אם יעסוק בעיקר בקטנות האדם - במקום לטהר את נפשו מגאווה במעלות והישגים גשמיים, הוא עלול להגיע מתוך כך לפקפוק בערך מהותו הפנימית. רק אדם שמודע היטב לכוחותיו ולעוצמה הטבועה עמוק בנפשו, יכול להפנות אל עצמו דברי מוסר נוקבים וחדים העוסקים בקטנותו ושפלותו של החלק הגשמי שבאדם.
ישנם הורים או מורים הנוהגים להדגיש את החסר, ואת הטעון שיפור בתלמידיהם או בילדיהם, הם פועלים מתוך גישה של מדת הדין, וכך מתייחסים לחניכיהם. אנשי חינוך רבים בני זמננו מסבירים כי בדורות עברו היו בני האדם והילדים בעלי דימוי עצמי חיובי הרבה יותר, אשר על כן לא היה חשש שייגרם נזק כלשהו מגישת חינוך כזו. אולם, בימינו יחס נוקשה וביקורתי יותר מידי עלול לגרום לילדים תחושה שאין להם כל ערך, תחושה הגורמת לילד נזק עצום. אכן, טעות חינוכית כזו ידועה כאחד ההסברים לנשירתם של נערים צעירים מדרך התורה בחיפושם הנלאה אחר מילות עידוד ותחושת ערך עצמי כלשהי.
יתירה מזאת, גם אם אדם רואה את תלמידו כמסוגל לקבל גישה קפדנית יותר, מוכרח הוא לזכור את דברי הגמרא בסוטה המורה: "לעולם תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת" - כלומר תמיד הדחייה - הגישה הקפדנית צריכה להגיע מצידה של היד החלשה יותר, ובד בבד יש להשתמש ביד החזקה יותר - ביד ימין לחסד ולקירוב. העובדה שהגמרא משתמשת במילה "לעולם" מלמדת שזהו עיקרון שנכון תמיד ולעולם יש להשתמש בו, ואין כל מקרה יוצא מן הכלל. על פי עיקרון זו אמר אחד אנשי החינוך הידועים שעם כל מילת הערה או ביקורת כלפי התלמיד, יש לציין לפחות ארבעה מחמאות חיוביות.
הפרשה מלמדת שעל האדם לזכור שגופו הוא ארעי ובר חלוף. זהו לימוד חשוב ביותר, אולם ראינו שאין להתמקד אך ורק בו, אלא יחד עם זאת יש לזכור שאנו, בנינו ותלמידנו – כולנו בעלי ערך רוחני עצום. מי יתן ונזכה כולנו לצעוד בדרך המלך.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
GIFT OFFERINGS - VAYIKRA
The Book of Vayikra focuses to a significant degree on the various korbanos that were to be given in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and later the Beis HaMikdash (Temple). A number of these korbanos are known as korbanos nedava (gift offerings). They are not obligatory, however, if a person is aroused to give such an offering, then he fulfils a Mitzo and to do so is considered highly praiseworthy. The Steipler Gaon zt"l asks a penetrating question about the nature of these korbanos nedava . Most Mitzvos are obligatory because Hashem's wisdom decreed that a Jew must fulfill them, thus they are an essential aspect of one's Avodas Hashem. Korbanos Nedava are not obligatory, implying that they are not essential to a Jew's Avoda.. However, on the other hand, offering such korbanos is considered to be a Mitzo, implying that there is some kind of benefit in their offering and that they do have a place in one's Avoda. How can we understand the nature of this kind of Mitzvo?
The Steipler answers this by first addressing another important question in Jewish thought. One of the most fundamental Mitzvos is that of Ahavas Hashem (to love Hashem). This obligates a Jew to direct his emotions in such a way that he develops a strong love of Hashem. How can theTorah can obligate one to have a particular emotion - surely that is beyond a person's control? To answer this problem, the Steipler brings the yesod (principle) of the Mesillas Yesharim (Path of the Just), with regard to the trait of zerizus (zealousness) . He writes that just as internal inspiration brings about external actions, so too, external actions can arouse one's inner feelings. Thus, acting in a certain manner can bring about desired emotions.
The Steipler writes that this yesod applies very strongly to the Mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem. We know that an internal love brings one to actions reflecting his love for Hashem and his willingness to ignore his own desires for the sake of Hashem's honor. So too, performing voluntary actions that involve placing Hashem's Ratson (will) before one's own desires, will bring a person to an increased love of Hashem.
With this yesod, the Steipler explains the nature of korbanos nedava. These korbanos provide one with a great opportunity to get close to Hashem by placing Hashem before himself: He forgoes his own needs by exerting a considerable amount of time, effort and money, in order to bring an animal or food offering to the Temple and offer it up to Hashem. Showing such selflessness on behalf of Hashem is a highly effective way of arousing one's love of Him. This explains why bringing korbanos nedava is such a praiseworthy act. However, if the Torah obligated every Jew to bring such korbanos, then their whole purpose would be lost - when one is obligated to give of himself to another, he does not develop feelings of love, rather he feels that he is paying a debt that he owes. Thus, the Torah gives each Jew the opportunity to arouse himself to fulfill an action that will surely increase his ahavas Hashem by making korbanos nedava 'optional'. Yet at the same time, offering such korbanos is considered a great Mitzvo because of its effectiveness in bringing about love of Hashem.
The Steipler writes that this yesod is not limited to korbanos; a person can choose any specific area where he desires to exert an extra amount of effort that goes beyond what is required by law. By 'willingly' giving of himself in one area he can bring himself to an increased love of Hashem. This idea is demonstrated by the following story told over by Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita: He was once given a ride by a seemingly ordinary Jew. In the course of the conversation it emerged that this Jew gave particular emphasis to the Mitzvo of prayer. He had not missed praying in a minyan for several years and even cancelled a vacation to a place when he realized that he would be unable to find a minyan there. Further, he never prayed Mincha or Maariv before or after the ideal time. This man chose one area in which to put in that extra effort and self-sacrifice and in this way he was surely able to arouse in himself an increased love for Hashem. He didn't need to feel obligated to act in this way because it is possible to find heterim (leniencies) to sometimes miss a minyan and not pray in the ideal zman. Yet he chose to express his desire to do Ratson Hashem by being extra careful in the Mitzvo of prayer.
We learn from the yesod of the Steipler, that a key method of bringing oneself closer to Hashem is by doing actions that are not considered obligatory according to the Torah but that are certainly praiseworthy. It is instructive for each person to strive to find at least one area in which he makes that extra exertion in his efforts to get closer to Hashem.
The Steipler answers this by first addressing another important question in Jewish thought. One of the most fundamental Mitzvos is that of Ahavas Hashem (to love Hashem). This obligates a Jew to direct his emotions in such a way that he develops a strong love of Hashem. How can theTorah can obligate one to have a particular emotion - surely that is beyond a person's control? To answer this problem, the Steipler brings the yesod (principle) of the Mesillas Yesharim (Path of the Just), with regard to the trait of zerizus (zealousness) . He writes that just as internal inspiration brings about external actions, so too, external actions can arouse one's inner feelings. Thus, acting in a certain manner can bring about desired emotions.
The Steipler writes that this yesod applies very strongly to the Mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem. We know that an internal love brings one to actions reflecting his love for Hashem and his willingness to ignore his own desires for the sake of Hashem's honor. So too, performing voluntary actions that involve placing Hashem's Ratson (will) before one's own desires, will bring a person to an increased love of Hashem.
With this yesod, the Steipler explains the nature of korbanos nedava. These korbanos provide one with a great opportunity to get close to Hashem by placing Hashem before himself: He forgoes his own needs by exerting a considerable amount of time, effort and money, in order to bring an animal or food offering to the Temple and offer it up to Hashem. Showing such selflessness on behalf of Hashem is a highly effective way of arousing one's love of Him. This explains why bringing korbanos nedava is such a praiseworthy act. However, if the Torah obligated every Jew to bring such korbanos, then their whole purpose would be lost - when one is obligated to give of himself to another, he does not develop feelings of love, rather he feels that he is paying a debt that he owes. Thus, the Torah gives each Jew the opportunity to arouse himself to fulfill an action that will surely increase his ahavas Hashem by making korbanos nedava 'optional'. Yet at the same time, offering such korbanos is considered a great Mitzvo because of its effectiveness in bringing about love of Hashem.
The Steipler writes that this yesod is not limited to korbanos; a person can choose any specific area where he desires to exert an extra amount of effort that goes beyond what is required by law. By 'willingly' giving of himself in one area he can bring himself to an increased love of Hashem. This idea is demonstrated by the following story told over by Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita: He was once given a ride by a seemingly ordinary Jew. In the course of the conversation it emerged that this Jew gave particular emphasis to the Mitzvo of prayer. He had not missed praying in a minyan for several years and even cancelled a vacation to a place when he realized that he would be unable to find a minyan there. Further, he never prayed Mincha or Maariv before or after the ideal time. This man chose one area in which to put in that extra effort and self-sacrifice and in this way he was surely able to arouse in himself an increased love for Hashem. He didn't need to feel obligated to act in this way because it is possible to find heterim (leniencies) to sometimes miss a minyan and not pray in the ideal zman. Yet he chose to express his desire to do Ratson Hashem by being extra careful in the Mitzvo of prayer.
We learn from the yesod of the Steipler, that a key method of bringing oneself closer to Hashem is by doing actions that are not considered obligatory according to the Torah but that are certainly praiseworthy. It is instructive for each person to strive to find at least one area in which he makes that extra exertion in his efforts to get closer to Hashem.
KORBANOS AND YIRAS HASHEM - VAYIKRA
Parshas Vayikra enumerates many korbanos, including those that must be given for inadvertent sins. Why must a person give a korban for a sin that he did not flagrantly intend to commit? The commentaries explain that the fact that he allowed himself to commit such a sin, even inadvertently, demonstrates an element of carelessness. Had he been more zahir, he would never have allowed himself to get to the point where he could sin. The Torah goes even further and requires that a person who has a doubt as to whether he committed a sin that requires a korban, is required to bring an asham talui . The Sefer HaChinuch explains that this korban does not atone for the actual sin (if it was indeed committed), rather it serves as an atonement for the carelessness that caused the safek .
It still needs to be understood what is the root cause of the carelessness that leads to inadvertent sins and why bringing korbanos helped atone for it. In order to answer this, it is instructive to compare how we conduct ourselves in the physical world with how we act with regard to spiritual matters. If a person is aware that a poisonous substance may be present in the food that he intends to eat he would be extremely careful to avoid any remote possibility of consuming the poison. This is because he is well aware of the dire consequences of eating poison. Just as there are natural consequences to our actions in the physical world, there are also natural consequences to actions in the spiritual world. Therefore, a person who is faced with the possibility of eating food that is forbidden, such as chelev, should have the same level of zehirus to avoid doing something that will cause him grave spiritual damage. When a person stumbles and sins inadvertently or puts himself in a position where he is in doubt as to whether he sinned, he demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the spiritual consequences of his actions; he is not fully cognizant of the spiritual reality that negative actions inevitably have negative results.
There seem to be two main reasons as to why it is far more difficult to attain the same awareness of cause-and-effect in the spiritual world as in the physical world: Firstly, the physical world is completely tangible to us - we can easily see the results of our actions, for example, when a person eats poison, he is visibly damaged. In contrast, the spiritual world is not tangible and we cannot see the results of our actions - for example, a person is less aware of the spiritual consequences of breaking Shabbos b’shogeg, because he has never visually seen them. If he could see what happens in the spiritual realm for turning a light on, forgetting that it is Shabbos, then he would surely never allow himself to commit that sin b’shogeg.
Giving a korban for committing such an aveiro helped a person metaken this flaw of not being real with spiritual consequences. He had to go through a lengthy and expensive process of paying for, and bringing a korban to Yerushalayim, and go through the dramatic process of offering up the korban and seeing its blood. This process surely made it very clear that there are dramatic consequences to one’s actions.
The second reason why it is difficult to live with the awareness that there are consequences to all our actions in the spiritual world, is that we are so familiar with Hashem’s ‘mida‘ of Rachamim that it is easy slip into the trap of thinking that Hashem will automatically forgive us for our sins. As a result, a person will be less fearful of the consequences of sinning. The Gemara in Chagiga observes that there is a natural yetser hara to presume that there is automatic forgiveness for sinning - it states, “If the yetser hara will tell you, ‘sin and Hashem will forgive you,’ do not listen to him. ”
The Mesillas Yesharim addresses this attitude at length and stresses that it is incorrect - Hashem is a ‘Kel Emes’ who judges every action. Hashem’s rachamim does not contradict the concept of reward and punishment: Rachamim does three things; it delays the punishment from taking place immediately giving a person a chance to do teshuva; it causes the onesh to be handed out in smaller, more manageable doses; and it gives us the opportunity to do teshuva and thereby gain complete forgiveness. There is, nonetheless, judgement for every outcome and an awareness of this should cause a person to be far more zahir from sinning . Offering a korban also helped rectify the attitude that Hashem is a vatran. By going through the arduous process of offering the korban, the person would see that he could not gain forgiveness without teshuva.
We do not have the opportunity to offer korbanos for our inadvertent sins, and as a result we do not have this essential tool to help make us aware of the reality of chet. How can we engrain this into ourselves? There are many accounts of Gedolim who saw the spiritual world as tangibly as the physical world: On one occasion, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was asked to leave the Beis Medrash in order to take an important phone call from another country, but he could not get to the phone because somebody was davenning the Shemoneh Esrei in front of the door and his ‘dalet amos’ was blocking the exit. When asked why he would not leave for such an important and costly call, he said that there was a wall blocking him and he could not walk through a wall. For Rav Moshe, ‘dalet amos’ was not some vague concept, it was a clear reality. His Gadlus in Torah was surely the cause of such a tangible sense of Yiras Shamayim - it was not just that he knew all of Torah, but that he allowed it to become so much a part of him that it became so real in his mind. A person can learn Torah in an intellectual way and not let it filter into his being - that kind of learning will probably not be so effective in increasing one’s yiras Shamayim - learning with an appreciation that it is discussing reality and trying to apply it to our lives will hopefully enable a person to be more real with the spiritual world.
A second aitsa is that of Rav Yisroel Salanter - that if a person wants to develop more of a sensitivity in a certain area of halacho, he should learn that area in depth - this will naturally bring him to a much greater awareness of his actions in that area. For example, whenever Rav Yisroel would find himself in a situation that could lead to yichud, he would learn the sugyas of yichud in great depth, in this way assuring himself that he would maintain constant awareness of any possibility of yichud. One particular area where this principle is very important is that of lashon hara: There is such a constant nisayon to speak lashon hara that without learning the laws of lashon hara it is extremely difficult to avoid the numerous pitfalls that arise. By learning the laws, as well as knowing what constitutes forbidden speech, a person will develop a far greater sensitivity in his speech.
There is one final exercise that can help increase our level of zehirus: Imagine if someone offered a Torah observant person $100 to speak lashon hara - the person would immediately refuse. What if he offered $1000, or $10,000 or $1000,000?! A person with a clear Torah hashakfa will refuse any amount of money rather than commit a sin because he is intellectually aware that the onesh for speaking lashon hara will be infinitely greater than anything finite. And yet, a person may often speak lashon hara for no money at all! The difference between the two situations is that when a person is clear that what he will do is an aveiro he has intellectual clarity that this is very bad for his neshama. However, without such clarity, b’shaas maaseh, a person rationalizes that what he is about to say is not really lashon hara and allows himself to say it regardless of the possible consequences of such a severe sin. We see from here that a person has the strength to withstand sin when he has total clarity that what he is about to do constitutes an issur. Developing a sense of clarity and intellectual honesty as to when we are committing an aveiro will enable us to tap into this koyach and give us the strength to withstand sin.
We do not have the gift of korbanos anymore, but the lessons that we learn from them can help us develop a strong sense of yiras shamayim that can prevent us from the damage of chet.
It still needs to be understood what is the root cause of the carelessness that leads to inadvertent sins and why bringing korbanos helped atone for it. In order to answer this, it is instructive to compare how we conduct ourselves in the physical world with how we act with regard to spiritual matters. If a person is aware that a poisonous substance may be present in the food that he intends to eat he would be extremely careful to avoid any remote possibility of consuming the poison. This is because he is well aware of the dire consequences of eating poison. Just as there are natural consequences to our actions in the physical world, there are also natural consequences to actions in the spiritual world. Therefore, a person who is faced with the possibility of eating food that is forbidden, such as chelev, should have the same level of zehirus to avoid doing something that will cause him grave spiritual damage. When a person stumbles and sins inadvertently or puts himself in a position where he is in doubt as to whether he sinned, he demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the spiritual consequences of his actions; he is not fully cognizant of the spiritual reality that negative actions inevitably have negative results.
There seem to be two main reasons as to why it is far more difficult to attain the same awareness of cause-and-effect in the spiritual world as in the physical world: Firstly, the physical world is completely tangible to us - we can easily see the results of our actions, for example, when a person eats poison, he is visibly damaged. In contrast, the spiritual world is not tangible and we cannot see the results of our actions - for example, a person is less aware of the spiritual consequences of breaking Shabbos b’shogeg, because he has never visually seen them. If he could see what happens in the spiritual realm for turning a light on, forgetting that it is Shabbos, then he would surely never allow himself to commit that sin b’shogeg.
Giving a korban for committing such an aveiro helped a person metaken this flaw of not being real with spiritual consequences. He had to go through a lengthy and expensive process of paying for, and bringing a korban to Yerushalayim, and go through the dramatic process of offering up the korban and seeing its blood. This process surely made it very clear that there are dramatic consequences to one’s actions.
The second reason why it is difficult to live with the awareness that there are consequences to all our actions in the spiritual world, is that we are so familiar with Hashem’s ‘mida‘ of Rachamim that it is easy slip into the trap of thinking that Hashem will automatically forgive us for our sins. As a result, a person will be less fearful of the consequences of sinning. The Gemara in Chagiga observes that there is a natural yetser hara to presume that there is automatic forgiveness for sinning - it states, “If the yetser hara will tell you, ‘sin and Hashem will forgive you,’ do not listen to him. ”
The Mesillas Yesharim addresses this attitude at length and stresses that it is incorrect - Hashem is a ‘Kel Emes’ who judges every action. Hashem’s rachamim does not contradict the concept of reward and punishment: Rachamim does three things; it delays the punishment from taking place immediately giving a person a chance to do teshuva; it causes the onesh to be handed out in smaller, more manageable doses; and it gives us the opportunity to do teshuva and thereby gain complete forgiveness. There is, nonetheless, judgement for every outcome and an awareness of this should cause a person to be far more zahir from sinning . Offering a korban also helped rectify the attitude that Hashem is a vatran. By going through the arduous process of offering the korban, the person would see that he could not gain forgiveness without teshuva.
We do not have the opportunity to offer korbanos for our inadvertent sins, and as a result we do not have this essential tool to help make us aware of the reality of chet. How can we engrain this into ourselves? There are many accounts of Gedolim who saw the spiritual world as tangibly as the physical world: On one occasion, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was asked to leave the Beis Medrash in order to take an important phone call from another country, but he could not get to the phone because somebody was davenning the Shemoneh Esrei in front of the door and his ‘dalet amos’ was blocking the exit. When asked why he would not leave for such an important and costly call, he said that there was a wall blocking him and he could not walk through a wall. For Rav Moshe, ‘dalet amos’ was not some vague concept, it was a clear reality. His Gadlus in Torah was surely the cause of such a tangible sense of Yiras Shamayim - it was not just that he knew all of Torah, but that he allowed it to become so much a part of him that it became so real in his mind. A person can learn Torah in an intellectual way and not let it filter into his being - that kind of learning will probably not be so effective in increasing one’s yiras Shamayim - learning with an appreciation that it is discussing reality and trying to apply it to our lives will hopefully enable a person to be more real with the spiritual world.
A second aitsa is that of Rav Yisroel Salanter - that if a person wants to develop more of a sensitivity in a certain area of halacho, he should learn that area in depth - this will naturally bring him to a much greater awareness of his actions in that area. For example, whenever Rav Yisroel would find himself in a situation that could lead to yichud, he would learn the sugyas of yichud in great depth, in this way assuring himself that he would maintain constant awareness of any possibility of yichud. One particular area where this principle is very important is that of lashon hara: There is such a constant nisayon to speak lashon hara that without learning the laws of lashon hara it is extremely difficult to avoid the numerous pitfalls that arise. By learning the laws, as well as knowing what constitutes forbidden speech, a person will develop a far greater sensitivity in his speech.
There is one final exercise that can help increase our level of zehirus: Imagine if someone offered a Torah observant person $100 to speak lashon hara - the person would immediately refuse. What if he offered $1000, or $10,000 or $1000,000?! A person with a clear Torah hashakfa will refuse any amount of money rather than commit a sin because he is intellectually aware that the onesh for speaking lashon hara will be infinitely greater than anything finite. And yet, a person may often speak lashon hara for no money at all! The difference between the two situations is that when a person is clear that what he will do is an aveiro he has intellectual clarity that this is very bad for his neshama. However, without such clarity, b’shaas maaseh, a person rationalizes that what he is about to say is not really lashon hara and allows himself to say it regardless of the possible consequences of such a severe sin. We see from here that a person has the strength to withstand sin when he has total clarity that what he is about to do constitutes an issur. Developing a sense of clarity and intellectual honesty as to when we are committing an aveiro will enable us to tap into this koyach and give us the strength to withstand sin.
We do not have the gift of korbanos anymore, but the lessons that we learn from them can help us develop a strong sense of yiras shamayim that can prevent us from the damage of chet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
