Parshas Behaalosecha begins with the Jewish people on the threshold of entering Eretz Yisrael but ends with a series of aveiros that culminate with the sin of the spies and the decree to spend forty years in the desert. Included in the sins that Klal Yisrael committed in this Parsha are their over-eagerness to leave Mount Sinai after learning Torah there for nearly one year and the sin of ’basar taiva’ ('meat of lust), where they complained about the manna and demanded to be given meat instead. Taken on a superficial level, these sins paint a very critical picture of the actions of the Jewish people. They are portrayed as lustful people, desirous of base physical pleasures who did not appreciate the deeper satisfaction offered by learning Torah at Har Sinai and the spiritual benefits of eating manna from heaven.
This cannot in truth be the case for it is clear that the Jewish people were clearly on a very high spiritual level. They had experienced numerous miracles throughout Yetsias Mitzrayim and had recently heard Hashem directly communicate with them. Based on this, it is impossible to understand the events in the parsha on a superficial level. As in all the aveiros enumerated in the Torah, it is clear that there must have been understandable reasons guiding the people’s behavior and their actual sin was very subtle.
The Toras Avraham zt”l answers these problems. He explains that the Jewish people had been living a lifestyle that was beyond the laws of nature. They did not eat regular food, they did not need to involve themselves in domestic chores such as washing clothes, there was no need for them to farm the land, and they were constantly witnessing open miracles. This is not generally the way of life Hashem confers on human beings - we are supposed to live in the world of nature and physicality and strive to elevate the physical world by using it for spiritual motives. Hashem does not want us to be like Malachim (angels) who are free of the tests that befall man, rather He wants us to use our free will to pass these tests and thereby earn our relationship with Him. However, Hashem, in His wisdom, ‘decided’ that it was necessary for the generation of the desert to live a life that was indeed similar to that of the Malachim. They needed that time of pure spirituality in order to prepare themselves for their future life of living within the laws of nature. This would enable them, at a later point in time, to be involved in the physical world and yet remain connected to the purpose of connecting to Hashem.
The seeming ‘downside’ of this situation is that whilst they were living a supernatural lifestyle they were not subject to the tests and subsequent of opportunities of developing a relationship to Hashem by overcoming the yetser hara. Rather they were spoon fed a relationship with Him without having earned it. This is the background leading up to the events of this week’s Parsha. After having spent nearly a year immersed in pure spirituality, they felt that they were now ready to reenter the physical world. Their motivation was essentially leshem shayamim (for altruistic reasons); they wanted to apply all the spirituality that they had absorbed at Har Sinai to enable them to elevate the physical world. This is the reason for their eagerness to leave Har Sinai, it was not motivated by a childish desire to ’escape’, rather a yearning to live a life where they could elevate the physical world. This also helps us understand why they rejected the manna and desired to eat meat. The manna epitomized a supernatural lifestyle and they felt ready to leave that temporary state and begin an existence where they ate normal food and live a life within the laws of nature. This, they felt, would enable them to get closer to Hashem because they would be faced with all the tests that accompany a physical existence.
We have now developed a far more sophisticated understanding of the sins of the Jewish people in the desert. Nonetheless they were severely punished for their actions indicating that there must have been a subtle flaw in their reasoning. The Toras Avraham explains that the time for them to return to a normal existence had not yet arrived. They still needed a little more time of living in a supernatural fashion in order to sufficiently prepare them for the challenges that would await them. Their desire to leave was a little premature and consequently had Hashem fulfilled it at that time, then the consequences would have been grave because they would not have been able to pass the tests that they would face. Moreover, it seems that their punishment was particularly severe because they should not have made their own calculations as to when they were ready to leave the supernatural existence, rather they should have trusted Hashem’s judgement.
The Toras Avraham derives two vital lessons from his explanation of the sins in the desert. Firstly, that we need a time of spiritual preparation where we are sheltered from the numerous challenges that characterize the ‘outside world’, and it is essential that we do not leave this situation prematurely because to do so means to place ourselves with challenges that we are not yet on the level to overcome. Secondly, he writes that we also learn that there is a point in time where we must, in some fashion, leave that spiritual ‘bubble’ and enter the physical world of challenges. Hashem does not want us to permanently live like Malachim, He wants us to elevate the physical world and thereby attain true closeness to him.
These lessons vary greatly according to each person but the general principles seem to apply to everyone. We do not have the opportunity to live a supernatural life like the generation of the desert, however, the modern day equivalent is time spent focusing on spiritual growth where one is shielded from the numerous distractions of daily life. This is commonly represented by time spent in yeshiva or seminary where a person can focus on building himself spiritually without having to be overly burdened by physical concerns. It is highly recommended for anyone who has the opportunity to spend a certain amount of time (there is no ‘correct’ length of time) in yeshiva or seminary to do so. A person can grow more in a relatively short time in this spiritual haven than years of trying to learn and grow whilst simultaneously be in involved the in the daily challenges of life. For those that do not have this opportunity or whom have already passed that phase in life, the message of the Toras Avraham is still relevant. The time spent in the Beis Hamidrash or shul represents a microcosm of that time of spiritual preparation. It is stressed by Rabbanim that in this time it is essential that a person shut himself off from his outside life and devote himself totally to his spiritual pursuits in this time each day. For example, it is advised that we should turn off our mobile phones whilst learning and davenning so that we cannot be sidetracked by our daily business.
The second lesson of the Toras Avraham is also relevant to our lifestyle. In some form there is a time when everyone is required to leave the hallowed existence of pure spirituality. This does not necessarily mean stopping learning or teaching Torah full-time, it can manifest itself in the form of getting married and having children. These stages in life invariably require a person to involve himself in less obvious spiritual pursuits such as running the finances of a family, feeding children and reading bedtime stories. However, since Hashem requires us to enter these phases in life it is clear that they represent a key part of our Avodas Hashem. For other people, this phase may require them to enter into the world of work where they face new challenges accompanied by new opportunities for growth that were not attainable in yeshiva. Examples of this include the test of being honest in business and maintaining appropriate levels of tznius.
However these lessons manifest themselves the lessons of the Toras Avraham are clear. May we be zocheh to apply them correctly to our lives.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
SHAVUOS - EATING ON SHAVUOS
The Gemara in Pesachim teaches us a fascinating lesson about Shavuos; the Gemara brings a machlokes (disagreement) between Rebbe Yehoshua and Rebbe Eliezer with regard to how a person should conduct himself on the Yamim Tovim. Rebbe Yehoshua holds that one should devote part of his time to spiritual pursuits, and the rest of his time to physical enjoyment. Rebbe Eliezer argues that it is impossible to be involved in both ruchnius (spirituality) and gashmius (physicality) , rather one must choose to totally focus on one or the other. The implication of Rebbe Eliezer's approach is that one should focus purely on spiritual activities such as learning and praying, to the exclusion of physical pleasures such as eating and drinking. However, the Gemara then points out with regards to Shavuos, even Rebbe Eliezer agrees that one should also involve himself in eating and drinking. The reason given is that this is the day that the Torah was given.
The commentaries find great difficulty with this Gemara, in particular they ask why the fact that the Torah was given on Shavuos means that one should eat and drink more. It would have seemed more appropriate that one should totally devote himself to spiritual pursuits on this holy day. The emphasis of physical enjoyment on Shavuos indicates that there must be some deeper connection between physicality and Shavuos.
The key to understanding this connection is a Gemara in Shabbos: The Gemara tells us that after the Giving of the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim (heaven) in order to learn the entire Torah from Hashem. However, the Malachim (angels) took exception to the appearance of a mere human being in the higher realms. They argued that man is not deserving of the holy Torah because of his lowly physical nature, rather they should be its recipients. Hashem instructed Moshe Rabbeinu to refute their argument. He did so by pointing out numerous aspects and laws of the Torah that are clearly directed at physical beings; for example, the Torah commands that one should not do melacha (forbidden activity) on Shabbos but they do not do any melacha at any time so how is Shabbos relevant to them?!. Hashem and the Malachim themselves accepted this argument.
Rav Chaim Friedlander zt"l, discusses at length the interaction between the Malachim and Moshe Rabbeinu. He points out that the Malachim's desire to receive the Torah instead of man is difficult to understand. They were surely aware of the Torah's contents and realized that they were clearly directed at physical beings so how could they hope to receive it themselves?! He explains that the Torah can be understood on many levels, and that the simple understanding that we relate to is just one of many ways of understanding it. Accordingly, the Torah also applies to Malachim on their level of existence; for example there is a spiritual version of refraining from melacha on Shabbos that relates to them, and so is the case with every word in the Torah. The Malachim argued that it should remain in Shamayim where they could learn it on a far deeper level, untainted by Olam HaZeh (this world).
Moshe Rabbeinu understood that this was the Malachim's argument, nevertheless he argued that the Torah was made to be understood and applied on a physical level. He proved this by mentioning numerous Mitzvos that demonstrated that the Torah was deliberately written in such a way that it could be applied by physical beings. The reason for this is that there is a far greater increase of Kavod Shamayim when a human being overcome his physical nature in order to fulfill Ratson Hashem (Hashem's will) than when a purely spiritual being acts according to his nature. Thus, Moshe proved to the Malachim that they could not properly fulfill the Mitzvos in the Torah in such a way that would bring about the most Kavod Shamayim in the world.
This Gemara teaches us of the central nature of the body with regard to receiving the Torah. The fact that human beings are attached to the physical world was the very reason that we merited to receive the Torah. We can now understand the connection between Shavuos and the focus on one's body. Shavuos is the very day that the spiritual world and physical world combined at Har Sinai. On this unique occasion, the purely spiritual Torah was clothed in physical garb in order that we could elevate ourselves through its observance.
We asked why Rebbe Eliezer agrees that on Shavuos we must also provide enjoyment for our bodies. The Beis HaLevi answers that we must show an extra level of gratitude to our bodies because they were the cause of Moshe's victory over the Malachim. We therefore deliberately involve ourselves in physicality. It is possible to add that Rebbe Eliezer argued that on other Yom Tovim one cannot combine spiritual pursuits with physical involvement. It seems that he held that an excessive focus on gashmius would inevitably harm one's ruchnius. However, he agreed that Shavuos was different - on Shavuos there is a special energy whereby physicality and spirituality need not contradict each other, rather they can work together to bring about a greater revelation of Kavod Shamayim. In this vein, the Maharal notes that Shavuos is the only festival in which we offer a Communal Korban Shelamim. He explains, writing that "on this day there is peace and a strong connection between the upper and lower worlds."
We have seen how Shavuos involves a unique connection between the body and soul and that everyone agrees that it is appropriate to be involved in physical pursuits on this Holy day. This lesson can also be applied to the rest of the year through our efforts to elevate our physical activities. Nonetheless, it is no easy task to attain the correct balance between the two and a person is always at risk of overly focusing on gashmius for its own sake. Rav Avigdor Miller zt"l offered a way of avoiding this possible pitfall; he suggested that at least one action we perform each day should be done with a conscious effort to be leshem Shamayim. He suggests applying this exercise specifically in the area of one's eating. For one time in the day, a person should try to focus on eating so that he will be strong and healthy to perform Avodas Hashem as opposed to satisfying his more base physical desires. Through efforts at self-growth such as this a person will be able to elevate his physical pursuits.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
THE FREEDOM OF TORAH - NASSO AND SHAVUOS
The parsha discusses the mitzva of Nezirus, whereby a person takes a vow to abstain from wine, to avoid coming into contact with a dead body, and to let his hair grow. The author of Toras Avraham, Rav Avraham Grodzinki zt”l, discusses a number of difficulties with regard to the spiritual standing of the Nazir. He notes that at one point the Torah describes him as ’holy’ for depriving himself of physical pleasure. However, soon after, in the process of describing the sacrifices that he brings, it tells us that he must bring a sin-offering to atone for a certain aveira that he has committed. What is that aveira? Rashi brings the opinion of Rebbe Elazar Hakappa that his sin was that he caused himself pain by depriving himself of the enjoyment of drinking wine. Thus there is a blatant contradiction as to whether the Nazir is doing a great mitza or is in fact committing an aveira.
The Toras Avraham answers that the Nazir is doing the right thing - he is someone who feels an unhealthy tendency towards physical pleasure, and therefore deems it necessary to make the drastic step of taking a vow of Nezirus. However, there is an element of sin in this action that requires atonement; the Toras Avraham explains that G-d created man with a body and soul and that it is wrong for man to totally neglect his body. Man‘s job in this world is to live in the physical world but to elevate it. The Nazir feels that he cannot do this without totally abstaining from wine. He is correct for acting this way, but in doing so, he causes his body considerable discomfort because it has a certain level of shibud (attachment) to the physical world and feels pain at being deprived of the pleasures that the physical world has to offer. Consequently, he is considered ‘holy’ for undertaking such a bold process of purification, but simultaneously needs to bring a sin offering for causing pain to his body.
Having explained the duality in the act of Nezirus, the Torah Avraham then poses a new problem. He brings the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim who writes that it is not sufficient to merely observe mitzvas but live a life full of indulgence, rather the Torah requires us to ’be holy’. To fulfill this mtizva, he writes that one must abstain from physical pleasures. He even equates the holy man to the Nazir who is described as being holy for abstaining from wine. However, he makes absolutely no allusion to any sin committed by abstaining from physical pleasures even though it seems to cause pain to the ’holy’ man’s body. The Toras Avraham writes that this Ramban is discussing the level of a ‘Talmid Chacham’, a person who strives to separate himself from the luxuries of this world. This leads to the obvious question: What is the difference between the Nazir who sinned by abstaining from wine, and the Talmid Chacham who commits no sin in following a similar process?!
The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the prishus (separation) of the Nazir and that of the Talmid Chacham. The Nazir is subject to a strong physical drive for the baser pleasures such as wine. It is painful for him to withdraw from partaking of them, therefore he is considered to be sinning by causing himself pain. In contrast the Talmid Chacham feels no pain at avoiding physical self-indulgence because he is not bound to his physical drives. He has such a strong recognition of the futile and transient nature of physical pleasures that it is not difficult for him to abstain from them. Thus, whilst the Nazir needs atonement for causing himself pain, the Talmid Chacham is not considered to have committed any kind of misdemeanour.
We learn from here a fundamental principle; that the ideal way of separating from physical pleasures should not involve a painful process of self-deprivation. Rather it should emanate from a natural sense of the ultimate futility of physical gratification. This stands in stark contrast to the secular attitude to self-deprivation. This is most manifest in the widespread attempts of people to lose weight through intense diets. These largely fail and it seems that a significant reason for this is that denying oneself food is a cause of great self-affliction. The dieter does not free himself of a desire for pleasant tasting foods, rather often his craving for them actually increases. Thus he goes through a painful process of self-deprivation which invariably cannot last indefinitely. It seems that the Torah approach to food should automatically enable a person to eat healthily and even lose weight. If a person frees himself from his shibudim to physical pleasures, then abstaining from them will become a painless process. One ben Torah who was somewhat overweight and was known to eat large amounts of food, undertook to reduce his food intake through a gradual process of reducing his shibudim to food - in the process he lost about thirty pounds in a few months!
It still needs to be understood how a person can reach the level of the Talmid Chacham and be able to separate from physical pleasures without causing himself discomfort. The key seems to be that if one develops a strong appreciation for spirituality then he automatically frees himself of a shibud to physicality.
A bocher once asked Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he change this? Rav Orlowek answered him that he should deepen his appreciation for tefilla and by doing so he would automatically reduce his preference for lunch.
This dichotomy is highly relevant to our relationship with Torah that we celebrate on Shavuos. The Mishna in Avos exhorts us that the way of Torah is to eat bread and salt, drink water and sleep on the ground. This does not necessarily mean that to become a Talmid Chacham one must live in this fashion, rather the Mishna is telling us that we should develop such a deep appreciation for Torah that the baser pleasures become meaningless. Consequently, for a person to aspire to be a Talmid Chacham he must be willing and able to live in a sparse way. Thus, even if he does have access to a higher standard of living he will nevertheless be able to focus on the higher pleasure of learning Torah. However, if he feels a great pull to physical comfort then it will be impossible for him to sufficiently devote himself to Torah.
This principle of freeing oneself from physical pleasures is connected to Shavuos in another way. The Magen Avraham discusses the widespread Minhag for men to stay awake on the night of Shavuos. He suggests that the reason for this is based on a Medrash that the Jewish people slept the whole night before Mattan Torah and Hashem had to wake them up. We try to metaken (fix) this error by staying awake for the whole night. What is the underlying meaning in this Minhah? It seems that whilst the Jewish people were ready to receive the Torah, nonetheless on a certain level, they also felt a degree of apprehension at the implications of doing so. It would require a high level of self-deprivation and place great demands on them. This apprehension manifest itself through sleep which represents the ultimate escape from the challenges of life. It is very common that when a person feels troubled or depressed he turns to sleep as a way of escaping his problems. The Jewish people were excited about receiving the Torah and knew that it offered them a far deeper and more meaningful form of existence but deep down they also felt a shibud to the physical pleasures that they would now have to forsake. In order to metaken this ‘sin’, we deprive ourselves of sleep to demonstrate that the joy of receiving the Torah far outweighs the loss of physical comforts such as sleep.
We have seen how there are two ways in which a person can deprive himself of physical pleasures. The Nazir’s self-deprecation causes him considerable discomfort, whilst the Talmid Chacham feels no pain in refraining from such pleasures. Our goal is to reduce our shibudim to the physical world through a heightened sense of appreciation for spirituality. Shavuos is an apt time to work on developing this love of spirituality by recognizing that the joy of learning Torah all night far outweighs that of sleeping!
The Toras Avraham answers that the Nazir is doing the right thing - he is someone who feels an unhealthy tendency towards physical pleasure, and therefore deems it necessary to make the drastic step of taking a vow of Nezirus. However, there is an element of sin in this action that requires atonement; the Toras Avraham explains that G-d created man with a body and soul and that it is wrong for man to totally neglect his body. Man‘s job in this world is to live in the physical world but to elevate it. The Nazir feels that he cannot do this without totally abstaining from wine. He is correct for acting this way, but in doing so, he causes his body considerable discomfort because it has a certain level of shibud (attachment) to the physical world and feels pain at being deprived of the pleasures that the physical world has to offer. Consequently, he is considered ‘holy’ for undertaking such a bold process of purification, but simultaneously needs to bring a sin offering for causing pain to his body.
Having explained the duality in the act of Nezirus, the Torah Avraham then poses a new problem. He brings the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim who writes that it is not sufficient to merely observe mitzvas but live a life full of indulgence, rather the Torah requires us to ’be holy’. To fulfill this mtizva, he writes that one must abstain from physical pleasures. He even equates the holy man to the Nazir who is described as being holy for abstaining from wine. However, he makes absolutely no allusion to any sin committed by abstaining from physical pleasures even though it seems to cause pain to the ’holy’ man’s body. The Toras Avraham writes that this Ramban is discussing the level of a ‘Talmid Chacham’, a person who strives to separate himself from the luxuries of this world. This leads to the obvious question: What is the difference between the Nazir who sinned by abstaining from wine, and the Talmid Chacham who commits no sin in following a similar process?!
The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the prishus (separation) of the Nazir and that of the Talmid Chacham. The Nazir is subject to a strong physical drive for the baser pleasures such as wine. It is painful for him to withdraw from partaking of them, therefore he is considered to be sinning by causing himself pain. In contrast the Talmid Chacham feels no pain at avoiding physical self-indulgence because he is not bound to his physical drives. He has such a strong recognition of the futile and transient nature of physical pleasures that it is not difficult for him to abstain from them. Thus, whilst the Nazir needs atonement for causing himself pain, the Talmid Chacham is not considered to have committed any kind of misdemeanour.
We learn from here a fundamental principle; that the ideal way of separating from physical pleasures should not involve a painful process of self-deprivation. Rather it should emanate from a natural sense of the ultimate futility of physical gratification. This stands in stark contrast to the secular attitude to self-deprivation. This is most manifest in the widespread attempts of people to lose weight through intense diets. These largely fail and it seems that a significant reason for this is that denying oneself food is a cause of great self-affliction. The dieter does not free himself of a desire for pleasant tasting foods, rather often his craving for them actually increases. Thus he goes through a painful process of self-deprivation which invariably cannot last indefinitely. It seems that the Torah approach to food should automatically enable a person to eat healthily and even lose weight. If a person frees himself from his shibudim to physical pleasures, then abstaining from them will become a painless process. One ben Torah who was somewhat overweight and was known to eat large amounts of food, undertook to reduce his food intake through a gradual process of reducing his shibudim to food - in the process he lost about thirty pounds in a few months!
It still needs to be understood how a person can reach the level of the Talmid Chacham and be able to separate from physical pleasures without causing himself discomfort. The key seems to be that if one develops a strong appreciation for spirituality then he automatically frees himself of a shibud to physicality.
A bocher once asked Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he change this? Rav Orlowek answered him that he should deepen his appreciation for tefilla and by doing so he would automatically reduce his preference for lunch.
This dichotomy is highly relevant to our relationship with Torah that we celebrate on Shavuos. The Mishna in Avos exhorts us that the way of Torah is to eat bread and salt, drink water and sleep on the ground. This does not necessarily mean that to become a Talmid Chacham one must live in this fashion, rather the Mishna is telling us that we should develop such a deep appreciation for Torah that the baser pleasures become meaningless. Consequently, for a person to aspire to be a Talmid Chacham he must be willing and able to live in a sparse way. Thus, even if he does have access to a higher standard of living he will nevertheless be able to focus on the higher pleasure of learning Torah. However, if he feels a great pull to physical comfort then it will be impossible for him to sufficiently devote himself to Torah.
This principle of freeing oneself from physical pleasures is connected to Shavuos in another way. The Magen Avraham discusses the widespread Minhag for men to stay awake on the night of Shavuos. He suggests that the reason for this is based on a Medrash that the Jewish people slept the whole night before Mattan Torah and Hashem had to wake them up. We try to metaken (fix) this error by staying awake for the whole night. What is the underlying meaning in this Minhah? It seems that whilst the Jewish people were ready to receive the Torah, nonetheless on a certain level, they also felt a degree of apprehension at the implications of doing so. It would require a high level of self-deprivation and place great demands on them. This apprehension manifest itself through sleep which represents the ultimate escape from the challenges of life. It is very common that when a person feels troubled or depressed he turns to sleep as a way of escaping his problems. The Jewish people were excited about receiving the Torah and knew that it offered them a far deeper and more meaningful form of existence but deep down they also felt a shibud to the physical pleasures that they would now have to forsake. In order to metaken this ‘sin’, we deprive ourselves of sleep to demonstrate that the joy of receiving the Torah far outweighs the loss of physical comforts such as sleep.
We have seen how there are two ways in which a person can deprive himself of physical pleasures. The Nazir’s self-deprecation causes him considerable discomfort, whilst the Talmid Chacham feels no pain in refraining from such pleasures. Our goal is to reduce our shibudim to the physical world through a heightened sense of appreciation for spirituality. Shavuos is an apt time to work on developing this love of spirituality by recognizing that the joy of learning Torah all night far outweighs that of sleeping!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
STAYING AWAKE - SHAVUOS
One of the most prominent features of Shavuos is the universal Minhag (custom) for men to stay awake all night learning Torah. The Magen Avraham explains the reason for this Minhag; he brings Chazal who say that the Jewish people went to sleep on the night of Matan Torah (the giving of the Torah) and Hashem had to wake them up in order to receive the Torah. Accordingly, we stay up all night in order to rectify this failing of our ancestors. The Arizal states that one who stays awake learning Torah on Shavuos night is guaranteed that he will complete the year without experiencing any harm.
This explanation seems quite difficult: How can we understand that such great people would oversleep on the most momentous occasion of their lives? We know that they were willing to receive the Torah to the extent that they accepted its laws before they were even aware of its content so why would they act in such an unenthusiastic fashion on the night leading to Matan Torah?! It also needs to be understood how staying awake all night rectifies their error.
The commentaries explain that the Jewish people deliberately went to sleep on that night; they felt that they could reach a higher level of connection to G-d in a state of sleep. This explanation fits with an important principle that whenever great people sinned, they had seemingly valid reasons for choosing their course of action. Nonetheless, the fact that they ultimately sinned indicates that on a subtle level, there was some kind of yetser hara that pushed them towards their error. What was this underlying motivation that caused them to sleep on this fateful night?
The Jewish people clearly wanted to receive the Torah, as indicated by their pronouncement of 'Naaseh v'nishma' (we will do and we will hear). However, it is possible that on a subtle level they also felt a degree of uneasiness about receiving the Torah. They realized that accepting the Torah would enforce numerous obligations and responsibility upon them. It is certainly true that whilst the life of a Torah observant Jew provides the ultimate satisfaction, it nonetheless involves a great amount of effort and self-growth. Thus a person may be tempted to ‘escape’ these challenges in various manners. One of the most common forms of ‘escape’ is sleep - by sleeping a person can, at least temporarily, avoid the challenges of life. Accordingly, people who experience pain or difficulty have a tendency to want to sleep more than their bodies require. This is in fact a manifestation of their desire to escape their pain.
In this vein, it is possible that, on a subtle level, the Jewish people were apprehensive of the new accountability that was soon to be thrust upon them. Thus, on a subconscious level they sought to ‘escape’ from the daunting specter of receiving the Torah. This desire to escape manifested itself in its ultimate form - sleep.
The Minhag to stay awake all night learning Torah is a rectification of this subtle flaw. Remaining awake whilst we are tired shows that we are willing to face the responsibilities that accompany Torah observance. We realize that whilst fulfilling the Torah is no easy task, it is ultimately the most rewarding path. Escaping the challenges does not provide true satisfaction, rather facing them head on is the only way of achieving life fulfillment. Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would consistently instill in his students that nothing meaningful in life is achieved without difficulty. Any truly meaningful experience inevitably involves a great amount of hard work and self-sacrifice. This is particularly the case with regard to the learning and observing of the Torah; the greatest geniuses failed in Torah learning if they were unwilling to exert tremendous effort in understanding the depths of Torah. Only those who were prepared to push themselves experienced the true pleasure of Torah learning and attained greatness.
There are people who disagree with the Minhag to remain awake all night learning Torah. They point out that a person probably learns for less time by staying awake in the night than if he would keep to his regular schedule of sleeping. In an arithmetical sense this claim seems correct. Those that do not sleep in the night commonly sleep for a few hours on Erev Shavuos, then sleep after Shacharis, and often go to sleep a further time after the Yom tov morning meal! However, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita points out the error of this argument; if the goal of Shavuos was to learn as much Torah as possible then this claim would be correct and it would be more sensible to sleep in the night and learn more in the daytime. However, this is not the purpose of learning on Shavuos. As we have seen , its purpose is to inculcate in ourselves the readiness to meet head-on the challenges that the Torah presents. By sacrificing sleep on this one night, we show that we have no desire to ‘escape’, rather we recognize that the only path to true meaning is to face difficulties head on and surpass them. May we all merit to receive the Torah with complete eagerness and anticipation.
This explanation seems quite difficult: How can we understand that such great people would oversleep on the most momentous occasion of their lives? We know that they were willing to receive the Torah to the extent that they accepted its laws before they were even aware of its content so why would they act in such an unenthusiastic fashion on the night leading to Matan Torah?! It also needs to be understood how staying awake all night rectifies their error.
The commentaries explain that the Jewish people deliberately went to sleep on that night; they felt that they could reach a higher level of connection to G-d in a state of sleep. This explanation fits with an important principle that whenever great people sinned, they had seemingly valid reasons for choosing their course of action. Nonetheless, the fact that they ultimately sinned indicates that on a subtle level, there was some kind of yetser hara that pushed them towards their error. What was this underlying motivation that caused them to sleep on this fateful night?
The Jewish people clearly wanted to receive the Torah, as indicated by their pronouncement of 'Naaseh v'nishma' (we will do and we will hear). However, it is possible that on a subtle level they also felt a degree of uneasiness about receiving the Torah. They realized that accepting the Torah would enforce numerous obligations and responsibility upon them. It is certainly true that whilst the life of a Torah observant Jew provides the ultimate satisfaction, it nonetheless involves a great amount of effort and self-growth. Thus a person may be tempted to ‘escape’ these challenges in various manners. One of the most common forms of ‘escape’ is sleep - by sleeping a person can, at least temporarily, avoid the challenges of life. Accordingly, people who experience pain or difficulty have a tendency to want to sleep more than their bodies require. This is in fact a manifestation of their desire to escape their pain.
In this vein, it is possible that, on a subtle level, the Jewish people were apprehensive of the new accountability that was soon to be thrust upon them. Thus, on a subconscious level they sought to ‘escape’ from the daunting specter of receiving the Torah. This desire to escape manifested itself in its ultimate form - sleep.
The Minhag to stay awake all night learning Torah is a rectification of this subtle flaw. Remaining awake whilst we are tired shows that we are willing to face the responsibilities that accompany Torah observance. We realize that whilst fulfilling the Torah is no easy task, it is ultimately the most rewarding path. Escaping the challenges does not provide true satisfaction, rather facing them head on is the only way of achieving life fulfillment. Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would consistently instill in his students that nothing meaningful in life is achieved without difficulty. Any truly meaningful experience inevitably involves a great amount of hard work and self-sacrifice. This is particularly the case with regard to the learning and observing of the Torah; the greatest geniuses failed in Torah learning if they were unwilling to exert tremendous effort in understanding the depths of Torah. Only those who were prepared to push themselves experienced the true pleasure of Torah learning and attained greatness.
There are people who disagree with the Minhag to remain awake all night learning Torah. They point out that a person probably learns for less time by staying awake in the night than if he would keep to his regular schedule of sleeping. In an arithmetical sense this claim seems correct. Those that do not sleep in the night commonly sleep for a few hours on Erev Shavuos, then sleep after Shacharis, and often go to sleep a further time after the Yom tov morning meal! However, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita points out the error of this argument; if the goal of Shavuos was to learn as much Torah as possible then this claim would be correct and it would be more sensible to sleep in the night and learn more in the daytime. However, this is not the purpose of learning on Shavuos. As we have seen , its purpose is to inculcate in ourselves the readiness to meet head-on the challenges that the Torah presents. By sacrificing sleep on this one night, we show that we have no desire to ‘escape’, rather we recognize that the only path to true meaning is to face difficulties head on and surpass them. May we all merit to receive the Torah with complete eagerness and anticipation.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
DEFINING TALMUD TORAH - SHAVUOS
Shavuos is a time of appreciation for the Giving of the Torah; where we demonstrate our love for Torah by spending the whole night immersed in the greatest Mitzvo, that of Talmud Torah. As we approach this holy day it is instructive to make sure that we develop an accurate understanding of what the Mitzvo of Talmud Torah entails. A person may believe that by learning Torah in great depth he fulfills the Mitzvo in its entirety, however, on closer analysis it seems that there is another aspect to this Mitzvo that can be overlooked. In Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam defines the Mitzvo in the following way: "He commanded us to learn Torah and teach it, this is what is called Talmud Torah, as it says, 'and you shall teach it to your children'; and it is written in the Sifri, 'your children, these are students.." It is evident from the Rambam that a proper kiyum of the Mitzvo of Talmud Torah involves teaching Torah as well as learning it.
There are many sources in Chazal which emphasize the importance of teaching Torah. One of the most striking is the Gemara in Sanhedrin which speaks extremely harshly about one who learns but does not teach. In Parshas Shelach the Torah, in describing one who worships idols, says that "he disgraced the word of Hashem." The Gemara ascribes this degrading description to a number of hanhagos, including learning and not teaching; "Rebbe Meir says; one who learns Torah and does not teach it is included in the category of, 'for he disgraced the word of Hashem'." It is very difficult to understand why learning and not teaching can be placed in the same category as truly terrible sins such as denying that the Torah is from Hashem! The Ben Ish Chai zt"l explains that the Torah is eternal and is intended to be passed on through all the generations. However, "one who learns for himself and doesn't strive to give over his learning to his fellow, damages in a mida mesuyemes, the eternal nature of the Torah." Similarly, the Maharal explains the Gemara that Kavod HaTorah is greatly enhanced when one spreads the word of Hashem to others, One who does not do so prevents Torah from being learnt by others, therefore, he disgraces the word of Hashem because through his inaction he hinders the enhancement of Kavod Hashem.
Other sources in Chazal indicate that teaching Torah is a fundamental part of each person's Avodas Hashem: The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 23b says that one who learns and does not teach is like a myrtle tree in the desert. The Maharal explains that the myrtle is the most pleasant smelling tree and it is in the world for people to benefit from its pleasant smell. A myrtle that is in the desert does not fulfill its purpose because no-one can benefit from it. So too, Torah is there to be taught over to others and one who does not do so cannot fulfill his purpose in life. He writes: “The main aspect of the Torah is wisdom that by its very nature is there to teach others and if it is not taught over then it is a waste, because the essence of wisdom is to be given over to everyone.”
Similarly, the Mishna in Pirkei Avos states: “If you have learnt much Torah, ‘al tachzik tova’ to yourself, because that is why you were created.” The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach.”
Accordingly, numerous Gedolim have instructed Bnei Torah to devote some of their time to teaching those less learned than themselves, especially in light of the spiritual churban that has engulfed Klal Yisroel for decades. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l issued a ‘call to action’ to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no-one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigour. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no-one else, so too must our yeshiva students …. there are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.”
Many other Gedolim have issued similar ‘calls to action’. In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe zt”l exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visit the homes of secular families and show them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit. Our present-day Gedolim are not the first to instruct benay Torah to devote some time to helping the ruchnius of other Jews. The Chofetz Chaim zt“l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l wrote extensively on these matters, using very strong language to stress the urgency of the situation and the need for significant contributions of time and effort.
Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l demanded that yeshiva bochrim commit to at least two weeks in the course of the year to helping save the Sefardic Jews from the attempts of the Zionists to secularize them. He promised them that their own learning would not be harmed as a consequence. “It was impossible that those who devoted themselves to the Torah learning of others would lose their own as a consequence.” One may think that it is improper or unnecessary for learned people to teach beginners - perhaps those who are less learned should do this whilst the more advanced should focus on their own learning or high level teaching. The Chazon Ish was once asked such a question: was it appropriate for talmidei chachamim to teach basically unlearned Jews Chumash and Mishna. He replied that it was not only permissible but an obligation of ‘learning for the purpose of teaching.” As a consequence of this psak many distinguished kollel scholars would travel to different settlements in Israel to teach secularized Sefardic Jews.
There are many ways in which a person can share his Torah with others; he (or she) can strive to develop chavrusas (study partners) with people on a lower level of learning. There are numerous outreach organizations, Yeshivas, shuls etc who are in need of people to take out a short time from their schedule in order to teach those less learned than themselves. A mere phone call to one of these organizations may be all the effort necessary to find a suitable chavrusa. Moreover, one need not restrict himself to teaching people face to face; with the added technology available now, one can easily learn with someone in another country on the phone or other mediums. Furthermore, the written medium is another effective way of teaching many people at the same time by writing a short Dvar Torah on the Parsha or some other topic. It is also important to note that teaching Torah need not be limited to formal settings - there are countless opportunities to share Torah wisdom with others in one's daily interactions in life, whether it be with colleagues at work, with the taxi driver, or with friends.
Another aspect of this lesson is the importance of passing on to our children the correct attitude to Torah learning. Rav Wolbe zt”l expressed his views on educating our children in their attitude to learning Torah. “I think that we must teach this to youngsters already from the time that they enter into yeshiva katana. Immediately in the first year, we must say to them that they are intrinsically connected to Klal Yisroel, and that they are obligated to give over to Klal Yisroel all the Torah that they will learn in yeshiva katana and yeshiva gedola. This is their avoda - not just to think about themselves. One must know that he must give over his Torah to Klal Yisroel.’ It is clear that Rav Wolbe believed that approaching our learning with a recognition that we must also teach is not just a maaleh, rather it is a prerequisite to our relationship with Torah.
As we approach Zman Matan Toraseinu, it is worthwhile to remember that Hashem does not simply want us to learn Torah for ourselves, rather He wants Torah to be learned by everyone. May we arrive at the day when every Jew learns and teaches Torah.
There are many sources in Chazal which emphasize the importance of teaching Torah. One of the most striking is the Gemara in Sanhedrin which speaks extremely harshly about one who learns but does not teach. In Parshas Shelach the Torah, in describing one who worships idols, says that "he disgraced the word of Hashem." The Gemara ascribes this degrading description to a number of hanhagos, including learning and not teaching; "Rebbe Meir says; one who learns Torah and does not teach it is included in the category of, 'for he disgraced the word of Hashem'." It is very difficult to understand why learning and not teaching can be placed in the same category as truly terrible sins such as denying that the Torah is from Hashem! The Ben Ish Chai zt"l explains that the Torah is eternal and is intended to be passed on through all the generations. However, "one who learns for himself and doesn't strive to give over his learning to his fellow, damages in a mida mesuyemes, the eternal nature of the Torah." Similarly, the Maharal explains the Gemara that Kavod HaTorah is greatly enhanced when one spreads the word of Hashem to others, One who does not do so prevents Torah from being learnt by others, therefore, he disgraces the word of Hashem because through his inaction he hinders the enhancement of Kavod Hashem.
Other sources in Chazal indicate that teaching Torah is a fundamental part of each person's Avodas Hashem: The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 23b says that one who learns and does not teach is like a myrtle tree in the desert. The Maharal explains that the myrtle is the most pleasant smelling tree and it is in the world for people to benefit from its pleasant smell. A myrtle that is in the desert does not fulfill its purpose because no-one can benefit from it. So too, Torah is there to be taught over to others and one who does not do so cannot fulfill his purpose in life. He writes: “The main aspect of the Torah is wisdom that by its very nature is there to teach others and if it is not taught over then it is a waste, because the essence of wisdom is to be given over to everyone.”
Similarly, the Mishna in Pirkei Avos states: “If you have learnt much Torah, ‘al tachzik tova’ to yourself, because that is why you were created.” The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach.”
Accordingly, numerous Gedolim have instructed Bnei Torah to devote some of their time to teaching those less learned than themselves, especially in light of the spiritual churban that has engulfed Klal Yisroel for decades. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l issued a ‘call to action’ to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no-one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigour. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no-one else, so too must our yeshiva students …. there are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.”
Many other Gedolim have issued similar ‘calls to action’. In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe zt”l exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visit the homes of secular families and show them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit. Our present-day Gedolim are not the first to instruct benay Torah to devote some time to helping the ruchnius of other Jews. The Chofetz Chaim zt“l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l wrote extensively on these matters, using very strong language to stress the urgency of the situation and the need for significant contributions of time and effort.
Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l demanded that yeshiva bochrim commit to at least two weeks in the course of the year to helping save the Sefardic Jews from the attempts of the Zionists to secularize them. He promised them that their own learning would not be harmed as a consequence. “It was impossible that those who devoted themselves to the Torah learning of others would lose their own as a consequence.” One may think that it is improper or unnecessary for learned people to teach beginners - perhaps those who are less learned should do this whilst the more advanced should focus on their own learning or high level teaching. The Chazon Ish was once asked such a question: was it appropriate for talmidei chachamim to teach basically unlearned Jews Chumash and Mishna. He replied that it was not only permissible but an obligation of ‘learning for the purpose of teaching.” As a consequence of this psak many distinguished kollel scholars would travel to different settlements in Israel to teach secularized Sefardic Jews.
There are many ways in which a person can share his Torah with others; he (or she) can strive to develop chavrusas (study partners) with people on a lower level of learning. There are numerous outreach organizations, Yeshivas, shuls etc who are in need of people to take out a short time from their schedule in order to teach those less learned than themselves. A mere phone call to one of these organizations may be all the effort necessary to find a suitable chavrusa. Moreover, one need not restrict himself to teaching people face to face; with the added technology available now, one can easily learn with someone in another country on the phone or other mediums. Furthermore, the written medium is another effective way of teaching many people at the same time by writing a short Dvar Torah on the Parsha or some other topic. It is also important to note that teaching Torah need not be limited to formal settings - there are countless opportunities to share Torah wisdom with others in one's daily interactions in life, whether it be with colleagues at work, with the taxi driver, or with friends.
Another aspect of this lesson is the importance of passing on to our children the correct attitude to Torah learning. Rav Wolbe zt”l expressed his views on educating our children in their attitude to learning Torah. “I think that we must teach this to youngsters already from the time that they enter into yeshiva katana. Immediately in the first year, we must say to them that they are intrinsically connected to Klal Yisroel, and that they are obligated to give over to Klal Yisroel all the Torah that they will learn in yeshiva katana and yeshiva gedola. This is their avoda - not just to think about themselves. One must know that he must give over his Torah to Klal Yisroel.’ It is clear that Rav Wolbe believed that approaching our learning with a recognition that we must also teach is not just a maaleh, rather it is a prerequisite to our relationship with Torah.
As we approach Zman Matan Toraseinu, it is worthwhile to remember that Hashem does not simply want us to learn Torah for ourselves, rather He wants Torah to be learned by everyone. May we arrive at the day when every Jew learns and teaches Torah.
THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM - BAMIDBAR
In the Torah’s account of the Tribe of Levi it reviews the tragic deaths of Aaron Hakohen’s righteous sons, Nadav and Avihu. On this occasion it adds a hitherto unmentioned detail - that they died without any sons. The Gemara extrapolates from here that had they had sons then they would not have died. The Chasam Sofer zt”l explains that Nadav and Avihu had reached such a high level of closeness to Hashem that they had fulfilled their potential, and there was no further need for them to live in Olam Hazeh. However, had they had children then they would have been needed to stay alive in order to bring them up and provide for their needs.
We learn from here that even if a person reaches total perfection in his own personal Avoda, he is nevertheless kept alive so that he can benefit his children. Moreover, it seems from the yesod of the Chasam Sofer that there are two levels in Avodas Hashem - the first is a person’s development of his Torah, midos and relationships to Hashem, and the second, his responsibility to his children. In the ‘pisuchay chosam’, the Chasam Sofer adds that a great tzaddik can be kept alive in order to guide his talmidim as well as his children, implying that a person‘s second stage of avoda is not limited to helping his children, but also his talmidim.
We find an example of the dualistic nature of avodas Hashem in Parshas Vayishlach. After Yaakov Avinu emerged from the tremendous challenges of living with Lavan and facing his hostile brother Esav, the Torah describes him as being ’shalem’ - Chazal understand this to mean that he was spiritually complete; he had withstood the spiritual threats of Lavan and Esav and emerged totally pure of any lacking. Yet, the rest of his life is plagued by the difficulties he endured as a result of the mistakes and shortcomings of people around him - his daughter’s lack of tznius in going out resulted in her abduction by Shechem and its eventual destruction by Shimon and Levi. This was followed by the incident with Reuven moving Bilhah’s bed, and the sale of Yosef. It is striking that after emphasizing Yaakov’s individual greatness, it then outlines in great depth the imperfections of the world around us. This shows us that whilst he had completed his own personal Avoda, he remained on this world in order to rectify the lacking of those around him.
Many Gedolim spent a great portion of their lives focused largely on their own personal avoda, but when the time was right, they devoted great amount of energy into serving the Clal. Rav Shach zt”l is a perfect example of this, he learnt b’hasmada for many years but when he emerged as a Gadol he literally made himself hefker to Klal Yisroel, and never turned away people in need of his help.
The two forms of Avoda also require two different attitudes and approaches; this is demonstrated in the creation of mankind. Whilst all the animals were created in one maamer, man and woman were created in two separate maamarim; my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that each maamer represented a new stage in creation. The maamer creating man represented the aspect of man’s avoda as an individual and his relationship with himself. The maamer creating woman led to a new stage of creation known as society, whereby man has to interact with those around him. These two stages require very different mindsets - with regard to his attitude towards himself, man has to apply a certain degree of din on himself., involving self-analysis an striving to improve oneself. When he endures suffering he should stress the need to trust in Hashem and to strive to improve his ways. In contrast, man must have a very different view towards other people - when someone else suffers, he must not tell them that it is all from Hashem and that they should strive to grow, rather he should focus on caring for them and acting as if they are not being looked after by anyone, including Hashem. The Brisker Rav zt’l made this point in a remarkable way. He posited that every negative trait has a positive aspect to it - when asked what was the positive aspect of the trait of of kefira, he answered that it helps us act properly when out friend is in need. We cannot tell him to have trust in Hashem that everything will be fine, rather we must act, so to speak, as if G-d is not involved in his life and we must take responsibility.
Gedolim also demonstrated a dualistic attitude in their lives - to themselves they were demanding and self-critical, hiding from kavod and refusing help from other people, but to their fellow man, they were kind, caring, tolerant, and full of praise. Nadav and Avihu never had the responsibility of guiding others, and therefore their avoda was limited to self-perfection. May all of us merit to perfect ourselves in both levels of Avodas Hashem - perfecting ourselves and the world around us.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
THE GREATNESS OF INNOVATION - BECHUKOSAI
In the midst of the devastating tochacha, Hashem comforts us, saying: “And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov, and even my covenant with Yitzchak and I will even remember my covenant with Avraham..” The obvious question here is, why were the Avos mentioned in reverse order? Rashi, quoting the Toras Kohanim explains that the merit of Yaakov, who is the ‘smallest’ of the Avos should suffice, but if it does not, then Yitzchak’s merit should hopefully suffice, and if that is not enough, then Avraham’s great merit will surely be sufficient - thus, Yaakov is mentioned first because the Avos are mentioned in ascending order of merit. There are two ways in which we can understand the meaning of Yaakov being the ‘smallest’ of the Avos: Some translate it to mean the ‘youngest’, but a number of commentaries write that it means he is the lowest in the spiritual sense. The problem with this explanation is that Chazal tell us that Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, the only one whose progeny was completely righteous, whereas Avraham and Yitzchak had descendants who would not merit to be part of the Jewish people. Accordingly, how can we understand that Yaakov’s merit in redeeming the Jewish people from their suffering is weaker than those of Avraham and Yitzchak? It also needs to be explained why Avraham is considered greater than Yitzchak in this context.
It seems that the fact that Yaakov may have been the most perfect of the Avos in terms of midos, does not necessarily mean that he had the greatest merit. Merit is derived from achievement in relation to the difficulty of one’s task - it is possible to argue that whilst Yaakov reached the highest level of the Avos, he did in fact have an easier task than his great predecessors. In what way was Yaakov’s task easier than that of Yitzchak and that of Yitzchak easier than Avraham’s? Avraham was born into a world of Avoda Zara - his great challenge was to create from nothing a whole new outlook and way of life - to begin a new epoch in history. To do such a thing constituted an incredible test, because it meant that he had to fight against all the prevalent attitudes and lifestyles and begin something on a very lowly scale and slowly and patiently develop it. Yitzchak was born into a world in which the new outlook had already been created - he did not need to mechadesh any novel life approach. However, Rav Mattisyahu Salamon Shlita writes that he did have to be mechadesh one thing - the concept of mesorah; that a son faithfully follows the guidelines set by his father. Yaakov, in contrast, did not have to begin a new religion or the concept of Mesorah - he clearly faced great challenges in his life but in this regard he seems to have had an easier task than his forebears. Thus, although Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, his merit in redeeming the people from suffering is less.
Rav Salamon speaks at length about out how one of Avraham Avinu’s main strengths was his power of hischadshus - his ability to innovate. He notes that in the Rambam’s description of Avraham’s contribution to the world it he uses the word, ‘maschil’ no less than five times in quick succession. Rav Salamon writes that “Avraham was a ‘mashcil’, a person who began things. He was a revolutionary, a pioneer… He was the originator and founder of the Jewish people. Avraham was the first in everything he did. He had no father that he could follow, and thus, he was always breaking new ground.”
When trying to emulate Avraham we traditionally strive to learn from his great mida of chesed. We learn from here that his ‘koyach hahischadhus’, his ability at initiating, is also a mida that needs to be developed.
The Cli Yakar also places great emphasis on the greatness of hischadshus. In Bereishis, the account of every day of the seven days of creation the Torah concludes with a description that it was ’good’ or ’very good’ with the exception of the second day. A number of explanations are given as to this anomaly - the Cli Yakar writes that nothing completely new was created on the second day, therefore, it cannot be described as ‘tov’. It is apparent from this interpretation that something is described as good when it is associated with newness.
There are a number of ways in which the ability to innovate is important in our lives. It is natural for a person to get into a habit of how he conducts his life, with regard to many aspects of his life, including his growth in Torah and midos, his relationships, and his ability to create and build. There are times when it is beneficial to step back and assess whether there is a necessity for a new approach in these areas. New approaches often provide alternative ways of dealing with situations and can meet with great success. An example of this is told over by a leading educator in the area of Shalom Bayis. There was a woman who was highly dissatisfied with her husband’s behavior and eventually decided that she wanted a divorce. This educator suggested to her, that before she take such a drastic step, she should try a new approach - she should focus completely on her own behavior and strive to be as good a wife as possible. Within a very short time of following this instruction, she saw a drastic change in her husband. Her willingness to try a new approach was the key to a huge improvement in her marriage.
One of the most important areas in which the ‘koyach hahischadshus’ is so important is the creation and development of new ideas, movements, or organizations that can provide great benefit for Klal Yisroel. A tremendous example of this is that of Sara Shenirer zt”l - her idea of a Torah oriented educational structure was so revolutionary that it met with great opposition. Nonetheless, she had the vision and persistence to continue with her innovative idea and in doing so, had an incredible effect on the Jewish people.
Another proof that new beginnings can be very beneficial is that the yetser hara makes it very difficult to push through with a new start, which is the reasoning behind the concept that ‘kol hashchalos kashos’ - all beginnings are difficult. As well as taking on a new approach, it is essential to be willing to see it through to the end despite the challenges that one may face in the process.
Avraham Avinu may not be described as the ’greatest’ of the Avos, but in the area of hischadshus he certainly leads the way. May we all be zocheh to learn form him and make successful new beginnings when they are called for.
It seems that the fact that Yaakov may have been the most perfect of the Avos in terms of midos, does not necessarily mean that he had the greatest merit. Merit is derived from achievement in relation to the difficulty of one’s task - it is possible to argue that whilst Yaakov reached the highest level of the Avos, he did in fact have an easier task than his great predecessors. In what way was Yaakov’s task easier than that of Yitzchak and that of Yitzchak easier than Avraham’s? Avraham was born into a world of Avoda Zara - his great challenge was to create from nothing a whole new outlook and way of life - to begin a new epoch in history. To do such a thing constituted an incredible test, because it meant that he had to fight against all the prevalent attitudes and lifestyles and begin something on a very lowly scale and slowly and patiently develop it. Yitzchak was born into a world in which the new outlook had already been created - he did not need to mechadesh any novel life approach. However, Rav Mattisyahu Salamon Shlita writes that he did have to be mechadesh one thing - the concept of mesorah; that a son faithfully follows the guidelines set by his father. Yaakov, in contrast, did not have to begin a new religion or the concept of Mesorah - he clearly faced great challenges in his life but in this regard he seems to have had an easier task than his forebears. Thus, although Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, his merit in redeeming the people from suffering is less.
Rav Salamon speaks at length about out how one of Avraham Avinu’s main strengths was his power of hischadshus - his ability to innovate. He notes that in the Rambam’s description of Avraham’s contribution to the world it he uses the word, ‘maschil’ no less than five times in quick succession. Rav Salamon writes that “Avraham was a ‘mashcil’, a person who began things. He was a revolutionary, a pioneer… He was the originator and founder of the Jewish people. Avraham was the first in everything he did. He had no father that he could follow, and thus, he was always breaking new ground.”
When trying to emulate Avraham we traditionally strive to learn from his great mida of chesed. We learn from here that his ‘koyach hahischadhus’, his ability at initiating, is also a mida that needs to be developed.
The Cli Yakar also places great emphasis on the greatness of hischadshus. In Bereishis, the account of every day of the seven days of creation the Torah concludes with a description that it was ’good’ or ’very good’ with the exception of the second day. A number of explanations are given as to this anomaly - the Cli Yakar writes that nothing completely new was created on the second day, therefore, it cannot be described as ‘tov’. It is apparent from this interpretation that something is described as good when it is associated with newness.
There are a number of ways in which the ability to innovate is important in our lives. It is natural for a person to get into a habit of how he conducts his life, with regard to many aspects of his life, including his growth in Torah and midos, his relationships, and his ability to create and build. There are times when it is beneficial to step back and assess whether there is a necessity for a new approach in these areas. New approaches often provide alternative ways of dealing with situations and can meet with great success. An example of this is told over by a leading educator in the area of Shalom Bayis. There was a woman who was highly dissatisfied with her husband’s behavior and eventually decided that she wanted a divorce. This educator suggested to her, that before she take such a drastic step, she should try a new approach - she should focus completely on her own behavior and strive to be as good a wife as possible. Within a very short time of following this instruction, she saw a drastic change in her husband. Her willingness to try a new approach was the key to a huge improvement in her marriage.
One of the most important areas in which the ‘koyach hahischadshus’ is so important is the creation and development of new ideas, movements, or organizations that can provide great benefit for Klal Yisroel. A tremendous example of this is that of Sara Shenirer zt”l - her idea of a Torah oriented educational structure was so revolutionary that it met with great opposition. Nonetheless, she had the vision and persistence to continue with her innovative idea and in doing so, had an incredible effect on the Jewish people.
Another proof that new beginnings can be very beneficial is that the yetser hara makes it very difficult to push through with a new start, which is the reasoning behind the concept that ‘kol hashchalos kashos’ - all beginnings are difficult. As well as taking on a new approach, it is essential to be willing to see it through to the end despite the challenges that one may face in the process.
Avraham Avinu may not be described as the ’greatest’ of the Avos, but in the area of hischadshus he certainly leads the way. May we all be zocheh to learn form him and make successful new beginnings when they are called for.
HURTFUL WORDS - BEHAR
On two occasions in Parshas Behar the Torah instructs us not to afflict our fellow Jew. In the first instance, the Torah states: “When you sell an item to one of your people or buy from one of your people, a man should not afflict his brother.” A few passukim later, the Torah seemingly repeats itself: “Do not afflict your people and fear your G-d, because I am Hashem, Your G-d.” Chazal explain that there are two different types of onaah (affliction); the first passuk refers to onaas mammon - affliction relating to money. The second relates to onaas devarim - hurting someone through words. In general Chazal do not compare two specific mitzvos and say that one is greater than another, however, in this instance they compare the two forms of onaah. Initially, one would think that onaas mammon is more severe than onaas devarim because when a person is hurt verbally he does not lose any tangible object, however when he is afflicted financially then he suffers a real loss.
However, surprisingly, the Gemara says that onaas devarim is considered a greater sin than onaas mammon for three different reasons. Firstly, with regard to onaas devarim the passuk says, and you should fear your G-d” but it omits this when discussing onaas mammon. The Maharsha explains that people are more likely to notice when someone is trying to commit onaas mammon but that it is far easier to conceal one’s true intentions to harm people verbally. Someone who harms another financially is aware that people will likely recognize what he is doing but continues regardless. He shows a lack of yiras Hashem because he is unconcerned that Hashem is totally aware of his actions but he also demonstrates no fear of what people think of his actions. A person who harms people in a concealed way demonstrates that he fears people more than Hashem - he is only concerned that people not think he is a cruel person, but he is unconcerned that Hashem knows his true intentions. He is considered on a lower level than one who harms financially because he demonstrates greater concern for the opinion of other people than for Hashem.
Secondly, the Gemara says that onaas mammon merely harms people’s property, whereas onaas devarim is worse because it harms someone’s very being. This particularly refers to a person’s emotional well-being - the damage done to them by a careless word can penetrate to their very essence. A frightening example of this is related by Rav Dov Brezak Shlita: He relates how a well-respected Talmid Chacham in his forties required counseling because of a traumatic childhood experience - on one occasion his mother called him ‘tamay’. That single labeling damaged him so deeply that it stayed with him for the rest of his life. This provides ample indication that harmful words can cause untold damage.
The Gemara continues with a third aspect in which onaas devarim is worse than onaas mammon - if a person deceitfully extracts money from his fellow he can repair the damage by simply returning that which he unjustly took. However, when one harms someone else with words, no amount of apologizing can change the past - those words can never be taken back. It is a common occurrence in relationships, especially in marriage, that a few insensitive words have long-lasting damage and that damage can never be fully healed because those words can never be fully taken back. Perhaps a corollary of this aspect of the severity of onaas devarim is that once harmful words are spoken they can rapidly have a ‘domino effect’ whereby the consequences of these few words can be so far-reaching that it is impossible to ever undo the damage those words had done.
The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, involves a situation where a few cruel words nearly had far-reaching consequences but they were averted by a few kind words: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbinic but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbinic, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim.” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do - it caused this girl great pain and anger, and very nearly prevented her from becoming more observant. It also demonstrates how much good a few thoughtful words can do.
It is very clear from the Gemara how serious the sin of onaas devarim can be, howover it is a very difficult mitzvo to observe properly - we are constantly involved in conversation with other people and it is very easy to hurt their feelings through a thoughtless statement. Moreover, because we speak so much we can forget how serious a sin it is to hurt other people’s feelings. The Chazon Ish once witnessed a man strongly rebuke his young son for moving something on Shabbos that may have been muktza. The Chazon Ish told the man that his son may have transgressed a Rabbinical mitzvo, but that the father had definitely transgressed the Torah mitzvo of onaas devarim.
One technique to help be more watchful of this mitzvo is to develop the attitude that we should be just as careful in it as in all other mitzvos such as kashrus - we would never eat something without being certain that it was permitted to eat it. So too, we need to try to develop a sense of vigilance that what we are about to release from our mouth is permitted. The best way of doing this is by learning the halachos and hashkafo behind it.
It is instructive to end with one final saying of the Chazon Ish - he used to remark that one of the greatest possible sources of joy is that he lived his whole life without causing pain to his fellow Jew - may we all be zocheh to only do good with our speech..
However, surprisingly, the Gemara says that onaas devarim is considered a greater sin than onaas mammon for three different reasons. Firstly, with regard to onaas devarim the passuk says, and you should fear your G-d” but it omits this when discussing onaas mammon. The Maharsha explains that people are more likely to notice when someone is trying to commit onaas mammon but that it is far easier to conceal one’s true intentions to harm people verbally. Someone who harms another financially is aware that people will likely recognize what he is doing but continues regardless. He shows a lack of yiras Hashem because he is unconcerned that Hashem is totally aware of his actions but he also demonstrates no fear of what people think of his actions. A person who harms people in a concealed way demonstrates that he fears people more than Hashem - he is only concerned that people not think he is a cruel person, but he is unconcerned that Hashem knows his true intentions. He is considered on a lower level than one who harms financially because he demonstrates greater concern for the opinion of other people than for Hashem.
Secondly, the Gemara says that onaas mammon merely harms people’s property, whereas onaas devarim is worse because it harms someone’s very being. This particularly refers to a person’s emotional well-being - the damage done to them by a careless word can penetrate to their very essence. A frightening example of this is related by Rav Dov Brezak Shlita: He relates how a well-respected Talmid Chacham in his forties required counseling because of a traumatic childhood experience - on one occasion his mother called him ‘tamay’. That single labeling damaged him so deeply that it stayed with him for the rest of his life. This provides ample indication that harmful words can cause untold damage.
The Gemara continues with a third aspect in which onaas devarim is worse than onaas mammon - if a person deceitfully extracts money from his fellow he can repair the damage by simply returning that which he unjustly took. However, when one harms someone else with words, no amount of apologizing can change the past - those words can never be taken back. It is a common occurrence in relationships, especially in marriage, that a few insensitive words have long-lasting damage and that damage can never be fully healed because those words can never be fully taken back. Perhaps a corollary of this aspect of the severity of onaas devarim is that once harmful words are spoken they can rapidly have a ‘domino effect’ whereby the consequences of these few words can be so far-reaching that it is impossible to ever undo the damage those words had done.
The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, involves a situation where a few cruel words nearly had far-reaching consequences but they were averted by a few kind words: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbinic but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbinic, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim.” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do - it caused this girl great pain and anger, and very nearly prevented her from becoming more observant. It also demonstrates how much good a few thoughtful words can do.
It is very clear from the Gemara how serious the sin of onaas devarim can be, howover it is a very difficult mitzvo to observe properly - we are constantly involved in conversation with other people and it is very easy to hurt their feelings through a thoughtless statement. Moreover, because we speak so much we can forget how serious a sin it is to hurt other people’s feelings. The Chazon Ish once witnessed a man strongly rebuke his young son for moving something on Shabbos that may have been muktza. The Chazon Ish told the man that his son may have transgressed a Rabbinical mitzvo, but that the father had definitely transgressed the Torah mitzvo of onaas devarim.
One technique to help be more watchful of this mitzvo is to develop the attitude that we should be just as careful in it as in all other mitzvos such as kashrus - we would never eat something without being certain that it was permitted to eat it. So too, we need to try to develop a sense of vigilance that what we are about to release from our mouth is permitted. The best way of doing this is by learning the halachos and hashkafo behind it.
It is instructive to end with one final saying of the Chazon Ish - he used to remark that one of the greatest possible sources of joy is that he lived his whole life without causing pain to his fellow Jew - may we all be zocheh to only do good with our speech..
Saturday, May 2, 2009
THE PRECISION OF DIN - EMOR
The Parsha ends with the incident involving the blaspheming of the mekalel. The Torah tells us that after he committed his heinous sin, he was placed in a cell to await the punishment he was to recieve. Rashi, quoting a Medrash, writes that at the same time there was another sinner awaiting his fate - the mekoshesh - who was placed in a separate cell. There was a key difference in the situations of the two men. It was known that the mekoshesh was chayav misa, but it was not known by which form of misa he would be executed. In contrast, with regard to the mekalel, they did not know whether he was chayav misa at all. Sifsey Chachamim explain that had they put the two together it could have caused the mekalel undue pain because he would have expected to receive the death penalty just like the mekoshesh. In order to spare him from any unnecessary pain he was put in a separate cell. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt’l goes even further and says that putting the two in the same cell could have possibly even caused the mekoshesh undue pain - had the mekalel been exempt from the death penalty and the mekoshesh would have been aware of this he would have been caused even more pain because a person feels worse about a bad situation when he knows that his fellow is not suffering to the same degree. Consequently the mekoshesh was kept unaware of the fate of the mekalel.
This example teaches us the degree of sensitivity which the Torah requires - these two men committed terrible sins and yet they were treated with the utmost concern. A less obvious lesson is that even when a person is deserving of punishment we must be extremely careful not to cause him more pain than he deserves - these men were deserving of terrible onshim but they did not deserve to suffer one iota of pain more than the halacho required.
There are a number of examples of this yesod throughout the Torah, Chazal, and halacho: For example, a person who commits a sin that is chayav malkus receives 39 lashes but the Torah strictly prohibits striking him even a single time more than the proscribed number. The Sefer HaChinuch explains that it is unjust to strike a human being more than he deserves. Another case where one must be very careful not to cause undue damage is speaking lashon hara for constructive purpose. There are times when it is permitted to speak negatively about a person and if necessary, cause him a certain degree of harm, in order to protect other people. However, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l warns that it is forbidden to cause him more damage than he deserves according to Jewish law. Even though speaking out could prevent damage, nonetheless one cannot do so if the perpetrator will unduly suffer.
Furthermore, it seems that when a person is careful not to cause anyone undue harm he fulfills the mitzvo of ’v’halachto b’drachav’ because Hashem always punishes a person to the exact degree necessary. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l brings out a striking example of this; The Torah in describing the sale of Yosef Hatzadik to the Yishmaelim mentions the seemingly insignificant point that their wagons were carrying pleasant smelling spices. The Medrash explains that the passuk is showing us how Hashem did not want Yosef to have to endure unpleasant smells, therefore He arranged that these wagons carry spices instead of the regular merchandise. This is very difficult to understand: At this time Yosef was experiencing incredible physical and emotional pain - he had been stripped of his clothing by his own brothers and thrown into a pit full of snakes and scorpions. Now he was flung into a wagon alone and helpless - in the light of such great hardship the fact that the wagon at least smelt pleasant does not seem to have provided much consolation to Yosef! However, this teaches us the exacting nature of midos Hadin. Hashem, in His Infinite wisdom, decreed that Yosef needed to undergo the pain of being thrown in to the pit, sold to the Yishmaelim, and all the other difficulties that he went through in Mitzrayim. However, he did not deserve to sit in a wagon that had an unpleasant fragrance, and therefore Hashem caused a hidden miracle to enable him to enjoy a pleasant smell on his journey to Mitzrayim.
Our Gedolim demonstrated a similar sensitivity to applying appropriate punishment or rebuke appropriate to the situation. On one occasion, Rav Shach zt”l was greatly displeased with a certain Rosh Yeshiva and traveled a considerable distance in order to rebuke him. However, after he arrived at where the Rosh Yeshiva was staying, he only remained for a short time and then left without saying anything. He explained that the wife of this Rosh Yeshiva was present throughout the visit and Rav Shach did not want to rebuke him in front of her. Rav Shach evidently felt that this Rosh Yeshiva was deserving of a certain level of rebuke to the extent that he was willing to travel a long distance in order to deliver it. However, he forsook this course of action when he perceived that it would cause unwarranted damage.
There are many examples in daily life where it may be necessary to rebuke or punish someone, particularly children or students. However it is essential to avoid punishing them overly harshly and it seems from the above examples, that it would be safer and more advisable to refrain from rebuke if there is the likelihood that to do so would cause more pain than deserved. The fact that the Torah deems it significant to mention the degree to which the mekalel and mekoshesh were spared any excessive suffering teaches us how careful we must be in our dealings with our fellow Jews not to cause them any unnecessary pain.
This example teaches us the degree of sensitivity which the Torah requires - these two men committed terrible sins and yet they were treated with the utmost concern. A less obvious lesson is that even when a person is deserving of punishment we must be extremely careful not to cause him more pain than he deserves - these men were deserving of terrible onshim but they did not deserve to suffer one iota of pain more than the halacho required.
There are a number of examples of this yesod throughout the Torah, Chazal, and halacho: For example, a person who commits a sin that is chayav malkus receives 39 lashes but the Torah strictly prohibits striking him even a single time more than the proscribed number. The Sefer HaChinuch explains that it is unjust to strike a human being more than he deserves. Another case where one must be very careful not to cause undue damage is speaking lashon hara for constructive purpose. There are times when it is permitted to speak negatively about a person and if necessary, cause him a certain degree of harm, in order to protect other people. However, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l warns that it is forbidden to cause him more damage than he deserves according to Jewish law. Even though speaking out could prevent damage, nonetheless one cannot do so if the perpetrator will unduly suffer.
Furthermore, it seems that when a person is careful not to cause anyone undue harm he fulfills the mitzvo of ’v’halachto b’drachav’ because Hashem always punishes a person to the exact degree necessary. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l brings out a striking example of this; The Torah in describing the sale of Yosef Hatzadik to the Yishmaelim mentions the seemingly insignificant point that their wagons were carrying pleasant smelling spices. The Medrash explains that the passuk is showing us how Hashem did not want Yosef to have to endure unpleasant smells, therefore He arranged that these wagons carry spices instead of the regular merchandise. This is very difficult to understand: At this time Yosef was experiencing incredible physical and emotional pain - he had been stripped of his clothing by his own brothers and thrown into a pit full of snakes and scorpions. Now he was flung into a wagon alone and helpless - in the light of such great hardship the fact that the wagon at least smelt pleasant does not seem to have provided much consolation to Yosef! However, this teaches us the exacting nature of midos Hadin. Hashem, in His Infinite wisdom, decreed that Yosef needed to undergo the pain of being thrown in to the pit, sold to the Yishmaelim, and all the other difficulties that he went through in Mitzrayim. However, he did not deserve to sit in a wagon that had an unpleasant fragrance, and therefore Hashem caused a hidden miracle to enable him to enjoy a pleasant smell on his journey to Mitzrayim.
Our Gedolim demonstrated a similar sensitivity to applying appropriate punishment or rebuke appropriate to the situation. On one occasion, Rav Shach zt”l was greatly displeased with a certain Rosh Yeshiva and traveled a considerable distance in order to rebuke him. However, after he arrived at where the Rosh Yeshiva was staying, he only remained for a short time and then left without saying anything. He explained that the wife of this Rosh Yeshiva was present throughout the visit and Rav Shach did not want to rebuke him in front of her. Rav Shach evidently felt that this Rosh Yeshiva was deserving of a certain level of rebuke to the extent that he was willing to travel a long distance in order to deliver it. However, he forsook this course of action when he perceived that it would cause unwarranted damage.
There are many examples in daily life where it may be necessary to rebuke or punish someone, particularly children or students. However it is essential to avoid punishing them overly harshly and it seems from the above examples, that it would be safer and more advisable to refrain from rebuke if there is the likelihood that to do so would cause more pain than deserved. The fact that the Torah deems it significant to mention the degree to which the mekalel and mekoshesh were spared any excessive suffering teaches us how careful we must be in our dealings with our fellow Jews not to cause them any unnecessary pain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
