USING THE YETSER HARA FOR THE GOOD - VAYISHLACH

Upon his return to Eretz Yisroel, Yaakov Avinu sends a peace-making message to his hostile brother, Esav. He begins the message saying, “I lived with Lavan and have lingered here until now.” Chazal elaborate on Yaakov’s words, “I lived with Lavan and nevertheless I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways.” The commentaries ask, everything else that Yaakov says to Esav is very conciliatory, but this message seems quite antagonistic - how does it fit in with everything else that Yaakov said? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l answers by interpreting the words of Chazal in a novel fashion; when Yaakov said that he kept the mitzvos but did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways he was criticizing himself. He argued that Esav had nothing to fear from him because, although he had kept mitzvos, he did not keep them with the same zrizus with which Lavan performed his evil acts. When he said that he did not learn from Lavan’s ways, he meant that he did not push himself in his maasim tovim to the same degree that Lavan did in his maasim raaim.

We learn from here that our performance of good deeds is judged in comparison to that of reshaim in committing their aveiros. There is a big kitrug on us if they go about their evil with more zest than we show in doing good. This concept can help explain another difficult Chazal. When Bilaam Harasha set off to curse the Jewish people the Torah tells us that he got up (vayakam) early in the morning. The Medrash Tanchuma says that on seeing this, Hashem exclaimed, “Rasha! Avraham their father already superseded you’ as it says [in the story of the Akeida], “Vayashkem baboker.” The words ‘vayakam’ and ‘vayashkem’ both mean getting up from sleep, however ‘vayashkem’ implies getting up even earlier than ‘vayakam’, thus Hashem was telling Bilaam that Avraham arose earlier in the morning on the way to the Akeida than Bilaam did on the way to cursing the Jewish people. What is the significance of this Medrash? Rav Chanoch Harris Shlita explains that Bilaam was trying to portray the Jewish people in a negative light by showing that he would act with greater eagerness in his evil than they did in their Avodas Hashem. However, Hashem told him that the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, already demonstrated greater eagerness in doing ratson Hashem than Bilaam did in contradicting it. Consequently, Avraham’s descendants inherited his characteristic of zrizus and possessed enough merit to withstand’s Bilaam’s kitrug.

In the Shema, we say that we must love Hashem with all our hearts. The Gemara darshans from this passuk that we should love Hashem with both our yetsers - our yetser hatov and our yetser hara. One way of utilizing the power of the yetser hara is to observe our zrizus in following its temptations and try to apply that to our yetser hatov. The following true story is an excellent example of the power of the yetser hara. A number of American yeshiva bochrim studying in Eretz Yisroel missed the good food that they enjoyed in America. So they gave $50 each to one bochur and sent him back to America to buy a really good meal from one of the most expensive restaurants there and to come back immediately with the food! Their love for good food caused them to go to remarkable lengths in order to fulfill their desires. By observing this we can perhaps tap into this drive and transfer it to the realm of ruchnius.

The same applies with regard to people who devote untold hours to try to satisfy their desire for money and honor. People will often endure sleepless nights in order to meet their deadlines - what about doing the same to meet the deadline of learning that we set for ourselves? We too can look into our own lives and find areas in which we feel more excitement and zeal than in Avodas Hashem, whether it be food, work, sport, or something else. We need to try to internalize what we already know - that shemiras hamitzvos provides far more satisfaction than anything else - then we can begin to ‘learn from the evil ways of Lavan and his ilk.’
　
　

EDUCATION THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT - VAYISHLACH

The Parsha ends with an account of the genealogy of Esav. In the midst of this we are told of the birth of Amalek, the progenitor of the nation that would constantly strive to destroy Klal Yisroel. “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz and Eliphaz gave birth to Amalek..” The Gemara in Sanhedrin informs us of the background to this terrible occurrence. “Timna was a Princess, but she wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov [to convert] but they would not accept her. She then became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said that it was better to be a maidservant to this nation rather than be a powerful woman in another nation. [As a result] Amalek, who would cause Yisroel great pain, was born from her. What is the reason [that this incident produced Amalek]? Because they [the Avos] should not have distanced her.” Rashi explains that the Gemara means that they should have allowed her to convert.

It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature. Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him. It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.

Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away.

We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked.” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.

We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’. By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.

We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.
　
　

THE KEY TO MESIRAS NEFESH - VAYEITSEI

-
Chazal tell us that when Yaakov Avinu left his parents to go to the home of Lavan, he learnt Torah in the Yeshivos of Shem and Ever for fourteen years. During that time he was so engrossed in his learning that he never once slept! This poses a difficulty - the Torah tells us that for the previous 63 years of his life Yaakov was a ‘yosheiv ohalim’, he spent all his time learning Torah. However, we do not see that he never slept. What happened that enabled Yaakov to attain such a level of mesiras nefesh to forgo sleep in those 14 years that surpassed what he had achieved up till that time? My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Bervkovits Shlita answers, that Yaakov knew that he would be faced with great challenges during his time living with the evil Lavan; Lavan would provide great tests to his midos and his spiritual level and he would need to rise to a higher spiritual level in order to be able to withstand being influenced by Lavan. Consequently, he recognized that he had to utilize every available second in these 14 years of Torah learning. There is no doubt that in the previous 63 years of his life, he learnt with great hasmada, but there was a far greater sense of urgency that permeated his learning in the 14 years before he went to live with Lavan. We learn from here that being in a challenging situation can be a great motivating factor in increasing the level of mesiras nefesh in one’s Avodas Hashem.

This can also help explain an interesting halacho brought by the Rambam. During a war, a common tactic is to beseige the enemy, thus starving him of vital supplies. The Rambam writes that a Jewish army may not surround the enemy from all four sides, rather it must leave one side open so that the enemy soldiers have the option of fleeing to safety. This seems like a strange hanhago in the midst of a war! The Meshech Chochma explains that this is indeed a shrewd tactical move; when a person is placed in a highly pressurized situation such as being besieged on four sides he has no option but to find new cochos that can enable him to fight with far greater courage and zeal. Therefore the Torah commands us to leave one side open so that the enemy will not be forced in a situation where it can pose a real threat. This also explains the behavior of the Zealots at the time of the Roman siege of Yerushalayim that led to the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash. The inhabitants of Yerushalayim had great food supplies that would enable them to last a very long time even whilst under siege. However, the impatient Zealots wanted to arouse everyone to fight the Romans, so they burnt all the food supplies with the intention of forcing everyone to fight for their lives with a great sense of urgency.

Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita explains that this phenomena led to the incredible mesiras nefesh of Jews who lived through the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. He tells of how Jews that were trying to learn Torah were faced with incredible nisyonos - they would suddenly be visited by KGB agents who would warn them that their jobs were at stake if they would continue in their ‘foolish ways’. If they continued anyway, they would be paid another visit, and this time the safety of their children would be threatened. And yet, amidst such pressure, they were able to find the strength to continue regardless. The following story demonstrates how far their mesiras nefesh went. It was forbidden to perform bris mila on babies, nonetheless many Jews tried to do so at great risk. On one occasion a baby boy had been unwell for the first several months of his life, until finally, aged 10 months the bris was performed. After the bris, the baby’s mother went up to him and kissed him, she then promptly fainted! When she awoke she explained to the bewildered onlookers what had led her to faint. When her baby was born she promised herself that her baby would have bris mila. But she knew that this was no easy task and she feared that she may not have the courage to go through with it. In order to ensure that she would not give up, she swore that she would never kiss or hug her baby until bris was performed! That is why, after waiting so long, she fainted after kissing her little boy! Rav Frand wonders whether we -who are able to practice our religion with ease and in freedom - could contemplate not kissing or hugging our children for so long for the sake of a mitzvo. We do not live with that same sense of urgency that Yaakov Avinu felt as he headed to the house of Lavan, and we cannot relate to the levels of mesiras nefesh that the Jews in the Soviet Union attained.

But how can we tap into the koach of urgency to help improve our own Avodas Hashem? The Mishna in Avos provides a number of answers:“Rebbi Tarfon says; the day is short; the workload is great; the workers our lazy; the reward is great; and the Baal Habayis is pushing.” In this Mishna, Rebbi Tarfon is trying to imbue us with that sense of urgency that will motivate us to learn and grow more. He begins that “the day is short.” Life is short, before we know it, it has passed us by and all of that time is lost forever. Moreover, we never know when our life will end - a recognition of this should certainly help motivate us. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l notes that the Mishna does not say that our ‘days’ (in the plural) are short, rather, ‘the day.’ He says that this comes to teach us that each individual day has its own function and potential - if a person wastes one part of one day then he has lost that time forever - when a person recognizes that each moment is passing by and will never return he will surely be more careful with his time.

The Mishna continues that, “the work is great“. It is self-evident that every area of Avodas Hashem requires great effort for the workload is endless. This most obviously applies to learning where there is no limit to the depth and breadth that a person can attain. But it also applies to growth - the ladder of Avodas Hamidos is never-ending - there are always more opportunities for character refinement. Moreover, we are also judged as to whether we fulfill our potential - Chazal tell us that there is a heavenly image of each person - this is the image of what he can become if he reaches his full potential. When we proceed to shamayim at the end of our lives, we will be shown that that image and judged as to why we did not fit it.

“The reward is great.” If we were more real of how much reward we receive for mitzvos then our Avoda would drastically improve. Other Mishnayos in Avos discuss this concept: “Be careful with a light mitzvo just as you are with a serious mitzvo, because you do not know the reward for the mitzvos.” Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the reason one should be extremely careful with even the ‘lighter’ mitzvos is because he has no real conception about how great the reward is even for that. Later in Avos, we are told that, “one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Haba is greater than all the pleasure of Olam Hazeh.” Rav Dessler zt”l goes to great lengths to demonstrate how all the pleasure that was ever experienced in Olam Hazeh cannot match one whiff of Olam Haba.

It is understandably difficult to make this concept real but we can at least act in accordance with an intellectual recognition of this. Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita suggests a way of doing so; when a person is tired and ready to head off for bed after the Friday night meal, he should try to motivate himself to learn for an extra five minutes and say to himself - “if I could receive $1000 to learn for another five minutes then I would certainly do so. I realize, at least intellectually, that the reward in Olam Haba for doing so is worth infinitely more than that .”

“The Baal Habayis is pushing.” Hashem is expectant of us to do our job and play our role in perfecting the world. The Gemara says that each person should say that “the world was created for me” - this means that responsibility for the world is placed upon me and I must act with that recognition. Hashem expects a great deal from us and we must produce results.

Baruch Hashem, Jews who live in democratic countries can practice our religion with total freedom. However this can lead to a sense of comfort that can prevent us from tapping into the sense of urgency that is needed to motivate ourselves to strengthen our Avodas Hashem. Gedolim became who they were because they did feel this sense of urgency. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt”l was once asked how he became such a great talmid chochom. He answered that he looked at every day of his life as if it could be his last. With such an outlook he was able to push himself to reach incredible heights. May we too find it in ourselves to tap into this tremendous koach.
　

THE DESIRE FOR GREATNESS - VAYEITSEI

“And Hashem remembered Rachel, and Hashem listened to her, and opened her womb. And she became pregnant and she bore a son, and she said Hashem has gathered in my disgrace. And she called his name Yosef , saying, ‘May Hashem bear me another son.”

After many years of barrenness, Rachel Imanu finally merits to give birth to a son. She reacts to this joyous event by asking for another child. This reaction seems somewhat surprising - It appears analogous to when a parent gives a child a gift, the child asks for another one instead of thanking the parent! However, in truth, it seems that Rachel’s desire for more children was not merely a desire for more in the realm of gashmius (physicality), rather it was a result of her great sheifa (desire) to strive in ruchnius (spirituality); for Rachel, having children meant playing a key role in the building of Klal Yisroel. Her request to have more children was a reflection of her own desire to merit to play a greater role in building Klal Yisroel. Thus it was not comparable to a child asking for another gift, rather it was more akin to one who has just completed a piece of learning asking Hashem to help him complete another one; that is not a sign of ingratitude, rather it is an expression of the person’s desire to grow more in ruchnius.

This idea can also help us understand another difficult passage in the Parsha. After Leah gives birth to four sons in quick succession, the Torah tells us that Rachel was jealous of her elder sister. Rashi explains that Rachel was jealous of Leah’s good deeds, because she felt that it was in the merit of her righteousness that Leah was granted so many children. Based on this reasoning, it would seem logical that Rachel strive to improve her own maasim. However, she does not seem to do this, rather she requests from Yaakov Avinu that he pray for her to have children. Why does she not immediately strive to improve her maasim instead of asking Yaakov to help her? Perhaps we can explain that included among the ‘good deeds’ that Rachel was jealous of was Leah’s intense desire and efforts to have children and thereby play a part in building Klal Yisroel. Consequently, Rachel strived to emulate Leah’s great desire to have children. One way of doing this was to request of a great Tzaddik, Yaakov Avinu, to pray for her to have children - this action in and of itself represented a way of improving her own maasim tovim.

In yet another section in the Torah we learn a further lesson about the power of the desire of the Imahos to build Klal Yisroel. After Leah has four sons, the Torah tells us that she stopped giving birth. Nonetheless she did not stop in her efforts to have more children. She was even willing to give her son’s dudaim to her sister Rachel in exchange for an extra opportunity to have more children. After these intense efforts the Torah writes: “And Hashem heard Leah and she became pregnant, and bore a fifth son to Yaakov.” The commentaries note that there is no mention of Leah praying to have more children, so why does the Torah say that Hashem heard Leah - she didn’t say anything?! Rashi explains that in this sense, the word ‘vayishma’ refers to ‘perceiving’ - “Hashem perceived that Leah desired and strived to create more tribes and as a result of that desire He granted her another child.” We learn from here that Hashem responds to an intense desire for spiritual accomplishment which is accompanied by great effort, even when a person does not pray to Hashem.

These examples demonstrate the importance of developing an intense desire to grow in spiritual matters. Without such a desire, a person can not achieve anything of great significance in the spiritual realm. The following story gives a great example of the importance of desire and a willingness to attain great achievements in the spiritual realm. There was once a meeting of many of the Gedolim of the generation and the descendants of the leaders of the previous one, including the Chofetz Chaim zt”l. Rav Yechezkel Sarna zt”l, the great Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron stood up to speak and he surprised everyone, saying that there was one person who had achieved more for Klal Yisroel than everyone present and their illustrious ancestors. Moreover, this person never learnt a daf of Gemara. And he confidently asserted that once he would tell the audience who it was, they would all agree. Who was this great person? It was Sarah Shenirer; she was a seemingly ordinary woman who lived at a time where there was no formal Torah education for Jewish girls. Consequently, young women from observant families were leaving Torah in great numbers. The scale of this tragedy was magnified by the fact that many Torah scholars were unable to find a good shidduch given the lack of suitable women. It is no exaggeration to say that the very future of Yiddishkeit was in great danger. Sarah Shenirer recognised the threat and founded the first network of Torah schools for girls, Bais Yaakov. She faced great opposition at the time but, with guidance of Gedolim such as the Chofetz Chaim and Gerrer Rebbe, she succeeded beyond her wildest expectations and, effectively assured the future of Torah observance. Thus, when Rav Sarna revealed to the audience the identity of this saviour of Klal Yisroel they unanimously agreed with his assertion that she had done more for the Jewish people than anyone else. How did she merit this? Rav Sarna explained that it was because she was willing to cry for the Jewish girls who were being lost to Klal Yisroel. Her pain at the churban that was taking place and her desire to improve the situation was the key in giving her the impetus to save them. Moreover, it seems clear that Hashem ‘heard’ her intense desire to improve the situation and gave her great siyata dishamaya in all her efforts.

A person can live an observant life and, to a certain extent, live on a kind of ‘automatic pilot’- going through the motions of keeping mitzvos but without any great desire to achieve spiritual greatness. We learn from the Imahos that the only way to achieve greatness is to develop great sheifos in ruchnius and to act upon them. May we all merit to emulate the Imahos and attain true greatness.

YITZCHAK AVINU - TOLDOS

The Torah devotes three parshios to Avraham Avinu and Yaakov Avinu. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Yitzchak Avinu. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Yitzchak and no other Av; the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Phlishtim. This is an account of how Yitzchak is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rivka, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Plishtim sealed wells that Avraham had dug, and how Yitzchak re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Plishtim and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Yitzchak Avinu. The most striking aspect of Yitzchak’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Avraham’s time he headed for Mitzrayim; Yitzchak planned to do the same thing until Hashem told him not to leave Eretz Yisroel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them. Rabbeinu Bachya states that from Yitzchak’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Yitzchak did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita explains Yitzchak’s role among the Avos: Avraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Yitzchak’s avoda was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of mesora. Yitzchak’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine comes to the land, he immediately thinks of going to Mitzrayim because his father did so. And when he comes to Gerar he digs the same wells and gives them the same names that Avraham had given them.

However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha. This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path in his Avodas Hashem.

We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is no contradiction; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many approaches to Judaism that emphasize different forms of Avoda and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity.

There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality. Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression.

This emphasis on encouraging a student to develop his individuality permeated the teachings of Slobodka talmidim. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt”l, always emphasized the importance of independence in learning. While not denigrating the importance of a talmid’s devotion to his rebbe, he stressed that this should not prevent the student from developing independently his own powers of analysis and reaching his own conclusions. He used to say that Rav Baruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l, would have made even greater contributions to the understanding of the Torah if he had adopted his own original approaches in addition to developing the ideas of his Rebbi, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l. Reb Yaakov related that as a young man, Reb Baruch Ber destroyed all the chiddushim that he had written prior to studying under Reb Chaim.

Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva!

The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jew to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, one is development of one‘s personality: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths. Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel. Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else. And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora.

What are the benefits of encouraging a person to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim. And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of enabling ourselves, our children and our students to live happier and more successful lives.
　
　
　
　

THE SOURCE OF BRACHA - TOLDOS

When famine strikes Eretz Yisroel, Yitzchak Avinu plans to go to Mitzrayim. However, Hashem instructs him to remain in Eretz Yisroel and go to the land of the Plishtim and Hashem assures him of great blessing: “I will increase your offspring like the stars of the heaven; and I will give to your offspring all these land; and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring. Because Avraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards (Mishmarti), My Commandments, My decrees and My Torahs.”

The commentaries differ on the meaning of the word, ‘mishmarti’ in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s righteousness. The Seforno offers a novel interpretation of ‘Mishmarti’. He writes that this refers to the trait ‘that is guarded (mishmeres) to me’, which is that of chesed, thus Hashem is praising Avraham for being so proficient in emulating Hashem’s own mida of chesed. The whole foundation of Hashem’s creation is chesed, and Avraham emulated this trait by doing the greatest possible chesed of giving others the opportunity to get close to Hashem.

The Seforno continues in the same section to address a very difficult problem with this passuk: On two occasions in the Parsha, Hashem blesses Yitzchak, but only in the merit of Avraham. The first is the passuk above and the second is after Yitzchak’s travails with the Plishtim; “.. I will bless you and increase your offspring because of Avraham my servant.” The Seforno contrasts this with both Avraham and Yaakov who were always blessed in their own merit and not in that of their fathers. He explains that Avraham and Yaakov were both involved in teaching others from early in their lives. Avraham’s exploits are well-known and Seforno writes with certainty that Yaakov taught people who came to the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever. Accordingly, they were blessed in their own merit throughout their lives. In contrast, up to this point, Yitzchak did not call out in the name of Hashem, and consequently did not merit to be blessed in his own merit. He is blessed in his own merit only after he emulates his father and does call out in the name of Hashem: “He built an altar there, and called in the name of Hashem.” Soon after, Avimelech approaches him to make peace and ends by calling him, the “Blessed of Hashem.” It is at this point, the Seforno writes, that Yitzchak is blessed in his own merit.

Rav Elyashiv shlita comments on the implication of this Seforno. Yitzchak Avinu was one of the three Avos, who was willing to give up his life for Hashem in the Akeida, and who was so holy that he could never leave Eretz Yisroel. Yet the Torah writes about him as if he has no merit until he calls out in the name of Hashem! Rav Elyashiv writes; “We see from here the incredible merit and reward that one receives for spreading Yiras Hashem to the people.”

It still needs to be understood why exactly Yitzchak’s great righteousness was not sufficient to earn him the right to be blessed in his own merit until he spread Hashem’s name. Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l writes that ‘bracha’ means ribui (abundance). Thus, the purpose of bracha is to cause an increase or continuation in something. Based on this, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that a person is only worthy of receiving the bracha of ribui if he himself contributes to causing ribui and continuity in the world by causing others to follow the Derech Hashem. Accordingly, despite all his great acts, Yitzchak only received blessing in his own merit when he himself contributed to the increase of people who would follow the derech Hashem.

The question remains as to why Yitzchak refrained from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point. Rav Elyashiv suggests that the explanation for this is that since his father had already spread awareness of Hashem, there was no need for him to do so. However, Rav Elyashiv points out, we see the great reward that Yitzchak later received for doing so even though his father had already done so.

We learn from here a lesson that is highly relevant in the world today - that the fact that there are some people who devote time and effort to spreading Torah does not exempt everyone else from also contributing in some form. A person may argue that since there are people already involved, there is no need for him to do so. The problems with this argument are twofold: Firstly, we see from the Seforno that in a person needs to be involved in bringing others close to Hashem for his own benefit and to be worthy of bracha. Secondly, there are a tremendously small number of people who are involved in any form of Kiruv rechokim (including part-time Kiruv, such as learning a few hours a week with a beginner or having secular people for Shabbos) in comparison to the numbers of secular Jews who are leaving Judaism in the millions. The only possible way to stem the tide is if every Jew takes upon himself to devote some amount of time to Kiruv.

Indeed a little known fact is that the Gedolim have demanded that every ben-Torah must contribute some of his precious time to being mekarev secular Jews: 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 vigor. 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.” 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.

Great talmiday chachamim have always taken every opportunity to emulate Avraham Avinu’s efforts to bring people close to Hashem. The well-known Maggid Shiur, Rav Mendel Kaplan zt”l made great efforts to befriend and teach secular Jews whenever he encountered them. His outreach even extended to children. A non-religious secretary in the yeshivah once brought her nine-year old son with her to work. When Reb Mendel saw the little boy playing in the hall, he called him over, pointed to a Chumash and asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Sure” the boy answered, “it’s a Bible.” “No,” answered Reb Mendel, “this is a Chumash.” He then pulled up two chairs and sat with the boy for an hour, teaching him Chumash on a level that the child could understand and appreciate. Later that day someone asked him why he had devoted so much of his precious time to a nine-year old boy. Answered Reb Mendel, “I hope that I’ve a planted a seed that will grow years from now.” We may think, that we cannot have any positive effect on unaffiliated Jews, however one can never know what seeds he plants that may bloom in a seemingly unconnected way many years later. Rav Kaplan was a great talmid chacham who reached great heights in his own Torah learning and general righteousness. However, he recognized that this did not absolve him of his responsibility to look for opportunities to ‘call in the name of Hashem’.

We learn from the Seforno that even a great tzaddik is not worthy of bracha unless he spreads G-d awareness in the world. Rav Elyashiv further teaches us that there is no validity to the argument that others are already doing so is. May we all be zocheh to play our role in being vayikra b’shem Hashem.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

GRATITUDE

The significance of the trait of gratitude in Torah thought is very apparent. Three times a day we thank Hashem in the 'Modim' prayer; every time we eat, we thank Hashem for providing us with the food. Also, in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro, there is great emphasis on showing gratitude to those who help us. The mitzvos of kibud av v'eim and kibud Rav, for example, are largely based on a recognition of how much are parents and teachers have done for us. Yet it is no easy task to retain a constant feeling of hakaras hatov for all the kindnesses that Hashem, and, lehavdil, other people do for us. How can a person develop himself so that he excels in this most important trait?

Rav Noach Orlowek shlita, says that the single most revealing text about gratitude is the Haggada that we read on Seder night. Numerous halachos pertaining to the mitzvo of recounting Yetsias Mitzrayim teach us about how to attain the trait of gratitude.

In order to fulfill the mitzvo of recounting our leaving Egypt, the gemara tells us that we must begin by mentioning the 'genus' (bad) before we begin talking about the 'shevach' (good). There is a machlokes as to what exactly this entails; Rav says discussing the 'bad' means that before we begin thanking Hashem for taking us out of Egypt, we must first mention how our ancestors originally served idols. Shmuel argues that the 'bad' refers to the initial slavery that we suffered in Egypt before we left. We appear to pasken like both opinions, because both aspects of the 'genus' are in the Hagaddah. It seems that both opinions teach us a fundamental lesson about how to develop a proper feeling of gratitude.

Shmuel's opinion that we must begin with the slavery teaches us that in order for a person to feel truly thankful for everything he has, he must first be able to contrast his present positive situation with the past suffering that he endured. In order for us to truly appreciate Hashem's chesed in taking us out of Mitzrayim, we must first focus on the terrible suffering that we endured in the slavery in Egypt. By doing this, we can avoid the trap of taking for granted the physical and spiritual freedom that we experienced after leaving Mitzrayim. So too, in our daily lives, when things are going smoothly, it is very easy to forget what Hashem has done for us, and how He continues to constantly protect and sustain us. For example, when a person's financial situation is stable, he naturally may take for granted his situation and refrain from sufficiently thanking Hashem. However, were he to think about the times when he did not know how he would support himself, it is far easier for him to contrast his past difficulties with his current security. This should help him feel gratitude to Hashem.

It is less obviously apparent how Rav's explanation of discussing the 'genus' inculcates us with the mida of gratitude. How does mentioning the fact that our descendants served idols bring us to a greater appreciation of Hashem? It seems that one of the main factors that prevents a person from showing gratitude is a sense of arrogance. A person who feels arrogant will have an attitude that he deserves all the kindness that Hashem, or people, bestow upon him. Accordingly, there is no 'hakaras hatov', recognition of the good that others have done for him. He does not feel that they have done anything special, rather he has every right to expect them to serve him. In contrast, a humble person feels that he is not deserving of anything. Therefore, he views anything that is done for him, as a particularly kind act, therefore, he truly recognizes the good done for him. With this understanding, we can explain how reminding ourselves of our former lowly state can bring us to a greater appreciation of Hashem. We acknowledge that we are not great people with tremendous yichus, rather our heritage is nothing to be particularly proud of. Moreover, we acknowledge that any spiritual accomplishments that we have achieved are due to Hashem's chesed. when we say in the Hagaddah, "From the beginning our forefathers worshipped idols, and now HaMakom [Hashem] has brought us close to serving Him." By stressing our humble background we make ourselves far more able to properly appreciate kind deeds done for us.

Rav Shlomo Brevda shlita points out that he knew many Gedolim, each one greatly different from the other. However, one trait that they all possessed in abundance, was that of gratitude. This is perhaps because they all felt so humble that they viewed themselves undeserving of anything done for them. May we merit to emulate them and grow in our capacity to show gratitude to other people, and, most importantly, to Hashem.
　

CHESED - THE KEY TO SHALOM BAYIS - CHAYEI SARAH

Avraham Avinu's loyal servant, Eliezer, arrives at Aram Naharaim in search of a wife for Yitzchak Avinu. Immediately he prays to Hashem to help him find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. He even asks Hashem to give him a sign for the identity of the prospective wife, requesting that she treat him with great chesed. The commentaries note that Eliezer deliberately wanted to ascertain that Yitzchak's wife excel in the trait of chesed in particular. Why was this mida, above all others, so important to Eliezer?

The Maharal provides us with the key to answering this question. After Eliezer decides that Rivka is the fitting wife for Yitzchak, he immediately bestows her with gifts; "And it was when the camels had finished drinking, the man took a golden nose ring, its weight a beka, and two bracelets on her arms, ten gold shekels their weight." Rashi tells us that there were deeper allusions contained in these gifts. The beka mentioned in the passuk, alludes to the future mitzvo of giving half a shekel, where the Torah instructs the Jewish people to give a "beka per head", a beka being half the weight of a shekel. The two bracelets alluded to the two Luchos (Tablets) given at Sinai, and the ten gold shekels hinted at the Ten Commandments. The Maharal explains that Eliezer was alluding to the three pillars of Torah, Avoda (service of G-d) and Gemillut chasadim, upon which the world stands. The shekalim referred to the pillar of kindness, whereby everyone gave money. The reference to the nose alludes to the smell present in every korban offered in the Beis HaMikdash. Accordingly, Eliezer was hinting at the pillar of Avoda, with this gift. Finally, the Luchos were references to Torah.

The Maharal continues that Eliezer was hinting to Rivka that since she excelled in one of the three pillars, that of chesed, she would also merit to receive the pillars of Avoda and Torah. Her connection to Avoda would be through her marriage to Yitzchak, who epitomized that trait, and her connection to Torah would be through Yaakov Avinu who represents Torah. The Maharal explains that chesed is the pillar through which all others midos derive, accordingly, Rivka merited all the pillars through her excelling in the one pillar of chesed. With this explanation we can understand why the mida of chesed was so important to Eliezer - he recognized that of all the positive traits, the most fundamental was that of chesed because it was the root of all good traits. Accordingly, this was the most important mida to be found in the prospective wife of Yitzchak.

The Maharal makes a similar point in Parshas Lech Lecha. Hashem promises Avraham that his name would be mentioned in the chasima of the first bracha in the Shemoneh Esrei. Why should his name be mentioned any more than those of Yitzchak or Yaakov? Maharal explains that Avraham's mida of chesed contains within it the midos of Yitzchak and Yaakov.

The idea that chesed is the root of all other traits is strongly supported by the famous gemara in which a prospective convert asks Hillel to teach him the Torah 'on one foot'. Hillel answers him, "that which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend, the rest is commentary, go and learn it." The commentaries understand that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew the mitzvo of 'love your neighbor as yourself', the most fundamental of all the mitzvos relating to bein adam lechaveiro. However, they ask how this encapsulated the numerous mitzvos that do not fall within the realm of bein adam lechaveiro? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew a profound lesson. A person who is self-centered will never try to step out of his own way of thinking and viewing the world. Consequently, he will never relate to the thoughts and opinions of other people. Such a person will be unable to properly keep the Torah. This is because in order to follow the Torah, and the outlook prescribed by it, a person must step out of his own way of viewing the world, and subjugate his opinions to those of Hashem. One who cannot relate to the views of those around him will surely not be able to truly accept the views of Hashem. Hillel was teaching the non-Jew that only by stepping out of one's selfish world, can he begin to come to accepting the Torah.

The Chazon Ish's explanation helps us understand how the mida of chesed lies at the root of seeing the truth of the Torah. A baal chesed is one who can step out of his own world, and appreciate the needs and thoughts of others. Therefore, he can also, more easily step out of his own biases to shift his outlook to fit with that of the Torah. We also see this idea in the Torah's focus on Avraham Avinu's midos. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita points out that Chazal characterize Avraham for his incredible desire to seek truth, as well as his great chesed. The Torah goes to great lengths to teach us about Avraham's kindness but there is no mention of his philosophical quest for the truth. It is Chazal who point out this aspect of Avraham. Rav Berkovits explains that the root of Avraham's ability to find the truth was his mida of chesed. It was his very selflessness that brought him to the truth. Since his chesed lay at the root of his greatness, the Torah stressed that aspect of his personality as opposed to the intellectual honesty that came as a result.

It is also clear that the midos of Avoda (service of G-d) and gevurah (strength) epitomized by Yitzchak also stem from chesed. Yitzchak is most praised for his total self-sacrifice. This self-sacrifice emanated from his desire to do G-d's will. Thus, his self-discipline and self-sacrifice stemmed from his desire to do chesed, (so to speak) to Hashem. Even the mido of din, (strict judgment) in fact comes from chesed. We know that the reason Hashem created a world of judgment whereby one can falter, is because of the concept of 'bread of shame'. A person feels far less satisfaction when he receives something without having worked for it. Only by earning it through his own efforts does he really feel joy at his acquisitions. In this way, even Hashem's strict judgment derives from His desire to bestow chesed on his creations.

We have seen many sources that the root trait is that of chesed. This is why Eliezer was so focused on finding this mida in Yitzchak's wife. In a similar vein, one renowned talmid chacham pointed out that when his daughters were dating, he would often be told about the brilliance of their prospective husbands. He would say that their intellect was far less important to him than how they would treat his daughters.

It is clear how important the trait of chesed is in all relationships, and in marriage in particular. By working on one's chesed, a person will immeasurably enhance his marriage. To the degree that he (or she) remains ensconced in his own world he will be unable to understand and meet his spouse's needs. This indeed seems to be the cause of many of the problems that plague bad marriages. In contrast, when a spouse strives to relate to his wife, then, in time, their bonds will grow stronger and stronger. May we all merit to marriages filled with chesed.

THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL - CHAYEI SARAH

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.

We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.

The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!

We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.

Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.

What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good. ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.

The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav. He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

CHESED AND CHACHMA - CHAYEI SARAH

　
Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ her will You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master.”

The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly.

In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak.
The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.

The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people. The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them.

The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!

Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.

MARRIAGE - REMOVING THE OBSTACLES TO SHALOM BAYIS

Parshas Vayeira begins with the story of the Malachim's visit to Avraham Avinu. After Avraham has given them a sumptuous meal, the Malachim surprise him with the prediction that he and his wife, Sarah Imanu would bear a child. Sarah overhears this bold prediction and reacts with skepticism: “And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have withered shall I again have delicate skin? And my husband is old!” Hashem immediately informs Avraham of Sarah’s skepticism, but does not reveal the full content of her words. He omits the part about Avraham being old, and only mentions Sarah’s own perceived inability to have children. Rashi brings the gemara that tells us that Hashem himself changed what Sarah had said, for the sake of maintaining Shalom Bayis (family peace) between Avraham and Sarah. We learn from here a general principle that a person is allowed to change the truth in order to maintain harmony in a marriage.

There are numerous lessons to be learnt from this incident and Chazal’s explanation. One of them is the great value of Shalom Bayis, to the degree that it is preferable to alter the truth rather than cause a possible rift in a marriage. This lesson is magnified when one bears in mind the great value placed on the trait of honesty in Torah thought.

There is another, less obvious lesson that can be derived from this story. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita asks, why could Sarah’s comment about Avraham’s age have possibly caused a rift in their precious marriage. There was nothing vindictive in her observation, she was merely noting an obvious fact, that Avraham was aged. He answers, that we learn from here, that even a very innocent statement with the slightest hint of negativity can cause some kind of weakening in the relationship between man and wife. It is certain that Avraham would not have been upset with Sarah had Hashem informed him of her observation about his age. Nonetheless, the Torah teaches us that on some minute level, it demonstrated a certain lacking in Sarah’s great respect for her righteous husband. If this is true with regard to a tzaddik on the level of Avraham Avinu, how much more is it relevant to a normal person. The Torah is teaching us that even a factual observation about one’s spouse can cause harm in a marriage if it can be perceived to be negative in any way.

Of course, it is very difficult for a person to reach a level where he never says anything that could minutely imply a lack of respect of his spouse. Initially, a more realistic goal is to try to reduce more blatant types of criticism that cause so much damage in a marriage. Whilst such comments are unfortunately commonplace, it is impossible for a couple (or people in any other relationship) to develop a truly loving relationship. This is borne out by an observation of Rav Noach Weinberg on the verse that contains the mitzvo to love one’s fellow man. The passuk says: “Do not take revenge, and do not bear a grudge, and love your neighbor as yourself - I am Hashem.” It is not a coincidence when Mitzvos are placed in the same verse - there must be some kind of connection between them. What is the connection between the mitzvo of love thy neighbor with the commands not to take revenge or bear a grudge? Rav Weinberg explains that the Torah is teaching us that in order to properly love other people, one must remove the negativity that plagues inter-personal relationships. When a person is unforgiving of other people's flaws and mistakes, he will never be able to develop a genuinely positive relationship with them. This is particularly relevant in a marriage. If the spouses are constantly focusing on their partner's failings and begrudging them their mistakes, they will never be able to have a truly happy marriage. Only by removing petty negativity, can they attain the Torah's view of marriage.

The practical applications of this lesson are obvious - reduced criticism is the key to improving a marriage. How can a person reduce his criticism of his spouse? The root of criticism is focusing on the negative aspects of someone else’s behavior. In order to begin to reduce one’s critical words, he must first cut down his critical thoughts. One couple were plagued by constant criticism and bickering about minor matters. They were advised that whenever one such insignificant issue arose and they felt a need to make a comment, they should hold back and remain quiet. Initially, this exercise proved very difficult but as the couple persisted, they found that they looked at each other in a less judgmental and critical fashion. Perhaps this is one way in which the negativity in a marriage can be reduced and enable the relationship to flourish.
　

In response to a question I received with regard to my essay about bris mila being on the 8th day - The source of the Chazal about mila versus Shabbos is the Yalkut, Yeremyahu, Ch.33, Simun 325, quoted in Michtav M'Eliyahu, Chelek 1, p.226-7. (I do have footnotes for all my essays - it is timeconsuming to put them on the blog as well. Anyone who would like to see my Divrei Torah with the footnotes can email me on: Gefen123@smile.net.il and I can put you on my email list which has all the footnotes.

BRIS MILA - REMOVING THE ORLAH

The mitzvo of bris mila involves cutting off the orlah (foreskin). The Torah views the orlah as more than merely an unnecessary part of the body, rather it represents a very negative aspect of human nature. For example, in Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem tells Avraham Avinu, "Go before me and be complete". The Medrash tells us that Hashem was commanding Avraham to perform bris mila, because until he would remove the orlah he was considered as being spiritually blemished. What exact flaw does orlah represent and how does removing it, rectify the problem?
Rav Dessler zt"l explains that orlah represents how a person's bodily desires, or unbridled character traits, are covered up by his intellect. He can use his mind to justify any form of immorality and negative character traits. Cutting off the orlah means removing the warped way of thinking that validates following one's base desires. In this vein, Rav Dessler brings a Zohar that calls the Greek nation the name 'orlah'. This is because they used their sechel (intellect) to validate various forms of immorality and cruel behavior. Chanukah saw the battle of this philosophy with that of the Torah, whereby the intellect is guided by the Torah and thereby reveals the truth, rather than cover it up. This explains why the Greeks made a particular effort to forbid bris mila. They placed great value on the ability of the intellect without the need for any objective sense of right and wrong. Accordingly, the lesson of bris mila, that one should not use his mind to validate immoral behavior, was particularly threatening to them.

The contrast between the Torah attitude to using one's sechel and that of the secular world is beautifully illustrated by the Malbim in Parshas Vayeira. Avraham Avinu travels to the land of the Plishtim (Philistines). Fearing that the people would kill him in order to take his wife, Sarah, he says that she is his sister. The King of the Plishim, Avimelech takes Sarah for himself. That night, Hashem appears to him in a dream, strongly warning him to return to her husband. A furious Avimelech confronts Avraham, demanding to know why Avraham felt it necessary to lie about Sarah's true identity. Avraham answers him, saying, ".. Because I said, 'only there is no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife.'"

The Malbim explains the underlying debate between Avimilech and Avraham. Avimelech expressed his distaste at being suspected by Avraham of unethical behavior such as murdering a man in order to take his wife. He pointed out that the Plishtim were moral people who had a code of ethical behavior. Avraham answered that it was true that the Plishtim were philosophers who espoused virtuous conduct. However, the Malbim adds, Avraham also pointed out that "one who attains good character traits through his own intellect, and he performs justice and kind deeds, completely as a result of his intellect; despite all this, we cannot trust such a man or such a nation, at such a time when his desires persuade him to do evil, that his intellect will overcome his lust. The opposite will happen, because at the time that the fire of lust burns in him, then his intellect will cause him to murder, commit adultery and do all kinds of evil."

Avraham recognized that an ideology that was purely guided by intellect may express admirable values. However, when the desires of a person who espoused such an ideology would overcome him, he would use his intellect to justify all kinds of immoral behavior. Accordingly, Avraham feared that were the Plishtim to see a woman who attracted them, they would easily find a justification to kill her husband. Avraham continued that only an outlook that was guided by an objective morality as defined by G-d, could avoid this terrible phenomena. A person with this outlook would never be at risk of rationalizing immoral behavior because of his desires. His sechel would be constantly guided by the Torah's objective value system.

The Malbim's distinction between the philosophy of the Plishtim and of Avraham, fits perfectly with Rav Dessler's explanation of the detrimental nature of orlah and how it epitomizes the misuse of sechel. Perhaps it is no coincidence that one of the only times in which the word orlah is associated directly with another nation, is in connection with the Plishtim. David HaMelech describes Goliath as "the uncircumcised Plishti."

We have seen the significance of removing the orlah. It is not merely a physical act, rather it represents avoiding the misuse of sechel as a justification for immoral behavior. This is a very relevant lesson to every Jew, no matter what level of his observance. The yetser hara is ingenious at creating rationalizations to justify actions that contradict the absolute values espoused in the Torah. We must strive to use our intellect to help us adhere to the Torah's values, not to get around them. May we all merit to learn and live the lessons of bris mila.
　
　

UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d.” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d.

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah. A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot.” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him. However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus. However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA

The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests). The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?

Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.

We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.

We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.

Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.

There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.

There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.