DO NOT COVET AND DO NOT DESIRE Part 1

Having spent several months discussing the prohibition of stealing, it is instructive to examine another commandment that pertains to our attitude and relationship to other people's property. Right at the end of the Ten Commandments the Torah instructs us:

"Do not covet (tachmod) your fellow's house. You shall not covet your fellow's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow."

From a simplistic reading of this verse, it would seem that the Torah is prohibiting a person from merely wanting someone else's possessions. However, the Shulchan Aruch states that this is not the nature of this prohibition. Rather, the word, 'tachmod' implies to cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell. This is what the Torah is prohibiting.

Later in the Torah, the Ten Commandments are repeated with slight changes. One of them is in the above mentioned verse. The verse begins; "You shall not covet your fellow's wife," using the same word, tachmod, implying an active effort to attain the item. However the verse continues differently, saying, "you shall not desire (titaveh) your fellow's house..." The Shulchan Aruch explains here the Torah is prohibiting merely thinking and scheming how to pressure one's fellow into selling him the item. Thus, even if one only plans how to attain the item in such a fashion and never proceeds, he nonetheless transgresses the Torah commandment of 'loh titaveh'.

In the coming weeks we will discuss the details of this mitzvo.

THE CHOICE OF LIFE OVER DEATH - NITZAVIM

“See I have placed before you life and good, and death and evil ...I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse; and you shall choose life so that you and your offspring will live .”

The Torah tells us that Hashem has given us a clear choice, the ability to choose life and good, or death and evil, and it is this choice that is the foundation of our capacity to serve Hashem effectively. However, there seems to be a difficulty with the choice outlined in the passuk; the Torah says that there are two pairs of choices, one between good and evil, and one between life and death. In giving us these options, it is evident that we have the ability and inclination to choose either direction. With regard to good and evil this dichotomy is easily understood; a person will find himself in many situations in life where there will be a strong temptation for him to choose what the Torah defines as ‘evil’, because at times the wrong choice seems to be the one that will provide happiness and satisfaction. Thus, the Torah tells us that we are constantly faced with a free will battle to choose good or evil. What is far more difficult to understand is that the Torah sees that there is a difficult ‘choice’ to be made between life and death, implying that a person has a realistic inclination to choose death over life. Surely, no-one will ever find it difficult to choose life over death, there is no temptation to choose death! Accordingly, why is the choice between life and death such a difficult one to make?

Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita explains that when the Torah talks about ‘death’ it doesn’t simply mean the state of not being alive. The Torah is warning us against what death represents. In order to understand what death means we need to develop our understanding of it’s opposite, ‘life’. When the Torah talks about life it does not merely mean breathing, rather life is the process of growing in one’s Avodas Hashem and Avodas HaMidos. Being alive means directly facing the challenges that life presents and using them to become a bigger person. Accordingly, choosing ‘death’ can mean avoiding dealing with those challenges and opting to escape the difficult opportunities that one faces throughout his life. Death is the choice of comfort over effort, of an easy life over a life full of challenge and growth. With this understanding it is easy to comprehend how choosing ‘life’ over ‘death’ constitutes a very difficult choice.

It is important to note that choosing death is not limited to failure to observe the mitzvos. A person can observe the Torah and simultaneously choose ‘death’; if he is not striving to improve himself, and not fighting his yetser hara, then he is choosing the comfortable option that is akin to a form of ‘death‘. What is frightening is that a person may not be completely aware that he is making this choice and can live his life on ‘cruise control’. If he never really pushes himself to further develop his relationship with Hashem, to daven with more kavanna, to be a better husband or father and so on, then he is choosing the comfortable option.

On a slightly deeper level, the choice between comfort and challenge is, in fact the choice between associating with one’s body or soul. Life is a constant struggle between these two contradictory forces that pull us in opposite directions. The body wants to return to the Adama, from where it came; this manifests itself in a desire to lie down, rest, and experience enjoyable and ‘comfortable’ pleasures. In contrast, the soul wants to return to the Shamayim from where it originated. This pull is represented by a desire to expand and grow. Thus, each person is constantly faced with these conflicting forces pulling him in opposite directions. The Torah in this week’s parsha tells him that in order to succeed in his tafkid (life purpose) he must choose life.

On Rosh HaShana we are not judged for our performance of specific mitzvos, rather we face a Din on who we are as a whole - what are our sheifos, what is important to us, what are our goals? The choice between living an essentially comfortable life (even if it is done in a ‘frum’ way) and striving to reach one’s potential is an essential element of the Avoda of Rosh HaShana - it defines a great deal about what is important to us.
May we all be zocheh to attain the Torah’s understanding of Chaim.

TAKING ACHRAYUS FOR OURSELVES - NITZAVIM

“This mitzvo that I command you today - it is not hidden from you and it is not distant. It is not in heaven, [for you] to say, ‘who can ascend to the heaven for us and take it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?’” What is the mitzvo that the Torah refers to in this passuk? The Ramban writes that it is the mitzvo of teshuva; the Torah is telling us that teshuva is not something that is out of our grasp, rather it is easily attainable if only we make the effort. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l asks, if the mitzvo of teshuva is so easy to fulfil, then why are there so few people who do teshuva properly, everyone knows that they make mistakes so why do they not admit their error and repent?!

The following Medrash about the story of Kayin and Hevel can help us answer this question: After Kayin killed Hevel, Hashem did not punish him instantly, rather He said “where is Hevel your brother?” Kayin famously answered, “am I my brother’s keeper?” (ibid. 4:9) The Medrash gives more details of Kayin‘s reply: “You are the protector of all life, and You are asking me?!.. I killed him but You gave me the evil inclination, You are supposed to protect everyone and You let me kill him, You are the one that killed him… had You accepted my offering like his, I would not have been jealous of him.” Why didn’t Kayin do teshuva for his heinous act? Because he refused to accept culpability for his role in the murder - he even blamed it on Hashem! We can now answer our initial question as to why so few people do teshuva properly. We are generally aware that we commit aveiros but there is one factor that prevents us from repenting properly, the ability to accept that the ultimate responsibility for our actions lies with us and us alone. There are many factors to which we can easily attribute our flaws; whether it be our upbringing, our natural inclinations, or our society, we find it extremely hard to accept ultimate responsibility for our failings. The prerequisite for teshuva is a recognition that ’I could have done better, I could have overcome my yetser hara and not sinned.’ Without the ability to make this difficult admission we can not begin to repent properly but with it teshuva is easily attainable.

This inability to admit our guilt lies at the core of the first and most decisive sin in human history which plagues us to this very day - that of Adam HaRishon. We traditionally attribute Adam’s sin to his disobeying Hashem’s instructions not to eat from the fruit, and it was this that caused Adam and Chava to be expelled from Gan Eden with all the accompanying negative consequences. Rav Motty Berger shlita points out that on closer analysis it is clear that they were not punished immediately after the sin. Rather, Hashem engaged Adam in conversation, giving him the opportunity to admit his mistake. However, Adam did not accept this reprieve, instead he said, “the woman whom You gave to be with me - she gave me of the tree and I ate.” Adam avoided responsibility for his sin, shifting it onto Chava and even Hashem himself for giving her to him initially. Then Hashem turned to Chava, also giving her a chance to repent - she too declined the offer, saying, “the serpent deceived me and I ate.” Only then did Hashem punish them for the sin. it is clear that had they taken responsibility for their actions when Hashem confronted them, then surely the punishment would have been far lighter. Who knows how different the course of history could have been!

We see from the stories of Adam and Kayin that the ability to admit one’s mistakes is perhaps even more important than not sinning! Indeed we all err at some point, it is whether we can stand up and admit the truth for our actions that is the true judge of our spiritual level. It was only several hundred years after the sad beginning of history that a man arose who would shoulder the responsibility for his actions and metaken the mistake of Adam HaRishon. The Tosefta says “why did Yehuda merit the Kingship? Because he admitted [to his actions] in the incident of Tamar.” Tamar was about to be burned at the stake for her alleged act of adultery, when she gave Yehuda the chance to admit to his part in the events. He could easily have remained quiet, thereby sentencing three souls to death - Tamar and the twins inside her. However, in a defining moment in history, he bravely accepted accountability, saying, “she is right, it is from me.” It is no co-incidence that this was the key moment in producing the seed of Moshiach. We know that Moshiach is the person who will bring mankind back to its pristine state of before the sin, rectifying the mistake of Adam and Chava. The way in which to repair the damage done by a sin is by correcting the negative midda displayed in that sin. As we have seen, the main flaw present in Adam’s sin was an inability to accept responsibility for mistakes, therefore Yehuda’s success in taking responsibility for his actions was an ideal rectification.

The intrinsic connection between Moshiach and taking responsibility continued strongly amongst Yehuda’s most distinguished descendant, David Hamelech. The Gemara tells us that Shaul sinned once and subsequently lost his kingdom, whereas David sinned twice and remained king. Why was Shaul treated so much more harshly than David? Shmuel confronted Shaul after he had not destroyed all of Amalek as he was commanded. But instead of admitting his mistake, Shaul justified his actions, denying he even sinned. Then he blamed it on the people for pressuring him to leave over some of Amalek’s animals to be offerings. After a lengthy back and forth, Shaul finally did repent but it was too late and Shmuel informed him that he had lost his right to the kingship. In contrast, after David’s sin in the incident of Batsheva, The prophet Natan sternly rebuked him for his actions, and David immediately replied, “I have sinned to Hashem.” David showed his willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes by immediately admitting his guilt unlike Shaul. Therefore he was forgiven and given another chance to continue as King. Moreover, the kabbalistic sources write that David Hamelech is a gilgul (reincarnation) of Adam HaRishon and that his purpose was to metaken Adam’s sin. It seems very apparent that one of the main ways in which David HaMelech was metaken the chet was by taking responsibility for his error so quickly.

We live in a society today that shuns the concept of responsibility - many educated people claim that no-one can be held liable for his behaviour. They argue that essentially we do not have any free will, the person that we become is predestined based on our background, upbringing, genetics and society. Consequently, criminals can be excused of their crimes on the basis that they really had no choice in the matter, and people can tolerate the failings in their relationships and middos as being unavoidable. The Torah outlook strongly rejects this view. If a person is brave enough to admit that he can do better then Hashem will surely help him do so.

We see this from the Gemara about a man called Elazar ben Durdaya. He was a man who was steeped in immorality, however, he suddenly came to a realisation of the error of his ways. The Gemara then proceeds to tell us how he tried to gain forgiveness for his sins. He sat between a mountain and a hill and asked them to request rachamim for him but they refused. He then asked the heavens and earth to request rachamim for him but they also refused. He finally turned to the sun and the moon but they also refused to help him.

Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita brings a drash explanation of this Gemara. The different things whom he asked to pray for him represent different influences on his life; he was trying to shift responsibility for his behaviour onto them. The mountain and hill represent his parents. He argued that his upbringing was responsible for his dire situation, but they refused to acknowledge their guilt. He then turned to the heavens and earth, who represent his environment and tried to blame that for his actions, but they also would not accept responsibility for his sins. He finally turned to the sun and the moon who represent his mazal, his natural inclinations, and claimed that it was impossible to avoid sinning because of his teva. But again, they would not accept culpability for his behaviour. Then the Gemara states that he said “this thing is only dependent on myself.” He finally acknowledged that there was only one source responsible for his aveiros - himself. He could not blame his parents, society or teva, he realised that he had the power to change his ways and he did so. He then did teshuva sheleima and his soul returned to heaven and a Bas Kol came out, proclaiming that Rebbi Elazar ben Durdaya has a place in Olam Haba. The commentaries note that the Bas Kol called him ‘Rebbi’ because he is our Rebbi in teshuva - he teaches us that the only way to do proper teshuva is to admit that the ultimate responsibility for our behaviour lies only with ourselves. If we can do this, then we can hope to do teshuva sheleima.
　

MITZVOS AND MINHAGIM - KI SAVO

Before the lengthy rebuke that characterizes much of Parshas Ki Savo, the Torah promises great rewards for the Jewish people if they follow HaShem’s instructions. This section ends with a warning how the people should not act: “And you shall not turn away from the words that I command you today, to the left or to the right, to go after other gods, to serve them.”
The simple understanding of these words is that they are an exhortation against idol worship. However, the Seforno offers a different explanation. He writes that the Torah was telling the people that they should not confuse Minhagim (customs) that they perform out of habit, with genuine Torah Mitzvos. Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita, explains that the Seforno is including Minhagim that have a genuine basis in Jewish law. The Seforno is saying that Minhagim should be viewed as ways of protecting or facilitating the Mitzvos of the Torah and they should not be viewed as the ikar Mitzvo (an end in and of itself). When this pitfall occurs, a person will fail to differentiate between Torah Mitzvos, and Minhagim or stringencies and this can have dire consequences.
Indeed, probably the most damaging sin in history came about as a result of confusion between stringencies and HaShem’s command. In Parshas Bereishis, HaShem commanded Adam HaRishon not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. However, when the snake asked Chava about the tree, Chava answered that they were commanded not to eat from the tree and to not even touch it and were they to do either, they would die. Why did she add the prohibition to touch the tree when HaShem had said nothing about touching it? Chazal tell us that HaShem instructed Adam not to eat the tree and when he transmitted HaShem’s instructions to Chava, he added the prohibition not to touch the tree. His intentions were noble, in that he wanted to make an extra boundary protecting Chava from eating from the tree. However, his mistake was that he did not tell Chava that the prohibition to touch the tree was not from HaShem, rather it was of his own initiative. Accordingly, when the snake pushed Chava into the tree and nothing happened, the snake proved to her that just as nothing negative happened when she touched the tree, so too nothing would happen if she would eat from the tree. There was nothing necessarily wrong with Adam’s additional instruction in and of itself. However, the fact that he did not inform Chava that it was his own added stringency and not from HaShem led to confusion that had grave consequences.
In addition to not confusing Minhagim with Torah Mitzvos, the Seforno, as explained by Rav Sternbuch, pointed out that one should not forget that Minhagim are not ends in themselves, rather they are supposed to serve the purpose of enabling us to keep Mitzvos. In a similar vein, some Minhagim also serve the purpose of teaching us character traits that are essential to our Avodas HaShem, and again one must be careful not to strictly adhere to the Minhag whilst forgetting its lesson. The following stories demonstrate how easily one can make this mistake.
The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the Minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honored guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of the Gadol. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalized the message of this Minhag!
On another Friday night, one yeshiva bachur was invited to the home of someone for the first time. Before the meal began, the host proceeded to chat with his guests for 45 minutes, leaving the bachur to suffer in his own hunger as he waited for the meal to begin. As they got to the table, the host announced that he was skipping Shalom Aleichem and Eishes Chayil because that was the custom of the Chofetz Chaim zt”l . The host may have forgotten that the reason the Chofetz Chaim would do this was because he did not want to make the hungry guests wait a few extra minutes before they could eat. By ignoring the hunger of his guests for 45 minutes, the host demonstrated that he had not internalized the sensitivity to others that this Minhag was supposed to help instill. He remembered the Minhag but ignored its purpose.
The yetser hara has many ways in which it can lead us astray. We have seen that one of them is to make us observe Minhagim at the expense of keeping Mitzvos properly. This lesson has many applications; a person may have a tendency to focus on Kabbalistic matters, whilst forgetting the most fundamental Mitzvos. Rav Yaakov Hillel Shlita, once met a man who proudly told him that it is forbidden to place the fingers of one’s hand between those of his other hand. In the course of their conversation, it became evident that his man did not keep Shabbos! The yetser hara may make a person overly focus on externalities involved in his or her dress code that do not involve actual Jewish law. Such an overemphasis in one area can often cause an under emphasis in Torah Mitzvos. But, as we have seen, the most basic lesson is that one should remember when something is a Minhag and not a Torah Mitzvo, and that this Minhag is intended to teach him some kind of lesson or help him observe the Torah in a better way. May we all merit to understand the purpose of the Mitzvos and Minhagim.

THE TRUE SOURCE OF SIMCHA - KI SAVO

A great deal of Parshas Ki Savo outlines the devastating punishments that would befall the Jewish people if they do not follow the Torah. In the midst of the tochacha the Torah gives us a deeper insight into the cause of all the terrible punishments enumerated here; “Since you did not serve Hashem, your G-d, with joy and goodness of heart, from rov kol (the abundance of everything). ” The simple understanding of this passuk is that the Jewish people did not perform mitzvos with happiness despite the fact that they were blessed with the abundance of everything .

The Arizal explains the passuk according to the Kabbala in a slightly different way. He says that the Torah is saying that we may have performed mitzvos with a certain degree of happiness, however our ikar joy did not derive from shemiras hamitzvos, rather from the simcha of ‘rov kol’ which refers to all other sources of happiness . Thus, Hashem is telling the Jewish people that the simcha of Avodas Hashem must be far greater than the pleasure derived from other endeavors. This is a lesson that is of great relevance to Rosh Hashana: The main avoda of Rosh Hashana is to make Hashem King. A significant aspect of this is to recognize that Hashem is the only source of meaning, all other ‘sources’ of pleasure are meaningless. This is also a prerequisite to the teshuva process leading up to Yom Kippur. because if a person’s sheifus (desires) are not purely towards Avodas Hashem, then he will find it almost impossible to avoid sin. There will be times when his desires clash with Ratson Hashem and his shemiras hamitzvos will inevitably suffer. Thus, any teshuva he does on Yom Kippur will be tainted by his outlook on life - that Hashem is not the only source of meaning and joy.

It is important to note that even if a person somehow avoids sinning whilst pursuing his other desires he will still face unpleasant consequences. Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita tells a frightening story that illustrates this point. The Chiddushei Harim zt”l once travelled with a man on his carriage that was pulled by two horses. After a few miles, one of the horses died, causing great distress to its owner. A few miles later, the other horse also died. The owner was so distressed at the loss of his horses that meant so much to him that he sat crying for a long time until he cried so much that he died. That night, the Chiddushei Harim had a dream; in that dream he saw that the man who had died, received Olam Haba. But what was his Olam Haba? A lovely carriage with two beautiful horses. This story teaches us that our Olam Haba is created by what we value in Olam Hazeh - for this man, the most important thing in his life was his horses and carriage, therefore, that was what he got for eternity.

One may ask, it does not seem to be so bad for a person to receive in Olam Haba that which he cherishes so much in Olam Hazeh. Rav Frand answers this question. He says that when he was a young child he always wanted a slingshot with which to play with but his parents refused. Imagine if, at the time of his wedding, his parents would come to him and say, “here is the slingshot that you always wanted!” As a child, the slingshot was valuable to him, but now he has grown out of it. So too, we may strive to acquire various pleasures in Olam Hazeh, such as money or kavod, believing that they will provide us with contentment. But when we arrive in Olam Haba we will see the truth of the words of Mesillas Yesharim: “everything else [apart from closeness to Hashem] that people believe are good is nothing but emptiness. ” In the Olam Haemes, we will see with perfect clarity, how meaningless are those things that we put so much energy into acquiring in this world.

The tochacha of Ki Savo is a stark reminder that it is not enough to merely observe the mitzvos, but that it must be the sole driving force in our lives. Kavod, power, money, food and any other ‘pleasure’ are all illusionary sources of meaning - making Hashem King means realizing that He is the only source of true simcha.

ALEI LEHAKIM - KI SAVO

When the Jewish people entered the land, they were to assemble at two mountains for a new acceptance of the Torah, but the command to do so is found already in this week’s parsha. Twelve commandments were to be enumerated, and the people would acknowledge publicly that blessings await those who observe them and curses will befall those who spurn them. Each command discusses a specific act with the exception of the final one. It states: “cursed is the one who will not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them; and all the people shall say, ‘Amen’ .” The commentators ask, what does this seemingly vague command involve? The Ramban brings a Yerushalmi that answers this question. “Rav Assi says in the name of Rebbi Tanchum Bar Chiya, one who learnt, taught, guarded and performed, but, who had the power to strengthen the Torah and did not, is considered ‘accursed.’… Even someone who was a complete tzaddik in his actions but did not strengthen the Torah in the face of those who do not keep it - he is considered ‘cursed’ .

The Chofetz Chaim zt”l wrote an entire Sefer, ’Chomas Hadas’, which was dedicated to urging people to do more to strengthen the Torah against the increasing tide away from Torah that threatened the very future of Torah observance. In his hakdama, ‘Chizuk Hadas’ he enumerates four separate chiyuvim that every Jew is obligated by the Torah to strive to increase observance amongst our fellow Jews . The fourth is based on this Yerushalmi; the Chofetz Chaim argues strongly that this obligation applies to any Jew who has the power to influence others. If a person does so, then he receives the blessings that were said on Har Gerizim and if he does not, chas v’shalom, then he will suffer the curses of Har Eival. He points out how awesome this idea is: The Leviim turned to six hundred thousand people who stood on the two mountains and blessed the people who would keep these commands and everyone present answered ‘amen’. Consequently, anyone who tries to uphold the Torah is blessed by the Kohanim, Leviim and six hundred thousand people, Hashem’s haskamah. And the opposite is true for anyone who does not try to keep this command. He writes that when a person does not try to save the Torah, “that the [heavenly] hashpaa to the whole world is reduced.”

My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita notes that by looking at some of the other sins enumerated in the curses we can begin to get a clearer idea of the seriousness of the failure to uphold the Torah. Amongst the other curses are; one who makes a graven image, one who degrades his parents, one who commits grave immorality, and one who strikes his fellow in private. There would be an inclination to think that failure to uphold the Torah is not such a terrible sin but we see from here that one who fails to uphold the Torah is placed in the same category as one who commits such terrible aveiros as the other sins mentioned in the curses at Har Eival. And the opposite is also true; a person who even tries to influence others to increase their observance is greatly praised by the Torah.

The Yerushalmi brings an example from Tanach of a person who epitomised the desire to mekayem the command of this passuk. Yoshiyahu Hamelech was brought up in a generation that had no knowledge of Torah to the extent that he had never seen a Sefer Torah. When he was a mere child one of the Kohanim, Chilkiah, found a Sefer Torah in the Temple courtyard, it was rolled to the passuk, “cursed is the one who will not uphold the words of this Torah..” When Yoshiyahu heard this he rent his clothes and said, “alei lehakim”, ‘it is my responsibility to uphold the Torah’ . He proceeded to do so and successfully reintroduced Torah learning and observance to the forlorn people. The Netsiv zt“l discusses the actions of Yoshiyahu in the context of his own time. There was already a great flow of people leaving Torah for other ideologies and there seems to have been a difference of opinion as to how the remaining Torah true Jews should react to this. Some people believed that the best course of action was to hide away and focus on their own personal avodas Hashem. The Netsiv wrote a teshuva in which he strongly disagreed with this approach. He believed that this was not the time to focus on one’s own ruchnius whilst the rest of the world was being spiritually destroyed . One of his proofs for his attitude is the story of Yoshiyahu. The passuk says that after Yoshiyahu found the Sefer Torah, he said to the Kohanim and Leviim, “… now go and serve Hashem your G-d and his people, Israel. ’ In what way did he mean for them to serve Hashem and his people? The Netsiv explains, that up till that time, the only people who had maintained their spiritual level were the Kohanim and Leviim and that they had retreated into their own world to avoid the perils of their surroundings. They had devoted themselves to their own spiritual development and relationship with Hashem but had neglected the rest of the people. Yoshiyahu now urged them to change their behaviour and to spread Torah to those who had lost their connection to it. He said that by serving the people in bringing them closer to Torah they would be simultaneously serving Hashem because that was his ratson at this time.

The Netsiv argues that just as in Yoshiyahu’s time there was a great need for the observant Jews to uphold the Torah, the same was true in his time, where people were leaving Torah in droves. If the Netsiv’s era could be compared to that of Yoshiyahu, then, all the more so the case is true in our time. There has never been a situation where so many Jews are so distant from any form of Torah than now. A survey was taken in 1990 of the state of observance in USA; here are some of its results . In 1950 the intermarriage rate in USA was 6%, by 1990 it was 52% and rising. 2 million Jews do not identify themselves as Jews. 2 million self-identified Jews have no Jewish connection whatsoever. For every wedding between two Jews, two intermarriages take place. 625,000 US Jews are now practising other religions. 11% of US Jews go to shul! Every day, dozens of intermarriages take place, which means that in the time that it takes to read this article, some Jews were lost forever! What would the Netsiv say if he were alive today? In Elul we all try to do a cheshbon hanefesh of our shemiras hamitzvos. We learn from this week’s parsha that an essential part of that cheshbon is that each person should ask himself, ‘am I doing enough to uphold the Torah?’ We all may have good excuses as to why we have not done a great deal in this area, but, the Chofetz Chaim asks, would these reasons stand up in court? He says, “at the end of one’s life, when his soul comes in front of Hashem’s throne of glory, and he asks to be honoured [for his mitzvos] in the heavenly Assembly, what will he say if they ask him, ‘why didn’t you care about My honour; in front of your very eyes, people desecrated My honour and that of My Torah.?! ”

The Chofetz Chaim, in his own life, demonstrated his fear of being judged for not doing enough to strengthen Torah observance on many occasions. When a community had weakened in its observance he would stand on the bimah in their shul and describe how he would be summoned to judgement after his death and he would be asked, “Yisroel Meir! You were there at the time. Why didn’t you rebuke the people? At times he would ask the congregation to sign their names to a document saying that he had fulfilled his obligation and rebuked them . On another occasion, during a three week stay in Riga he convinced 300 shopkeepers to close their stores on Shabbos . Another time, upon hearing from Jewish soldiers that on Pesach they had eaten chometz, he immediately set out to write Machane Yisroel which quickly spread among the Jewish soldiers. He founded and raised money for a Kosher Kitchen Fund, and he personally tried to come in contact with soldiers to influence them. A group of soldiers used to pass through Radun every summer. The Chofetz Chaim invited them to a banquet in his home, received them with fatherly love, and gave them a drasho to encourage their Torah observance .

The Chofetz Chaim constantly emphasised that there are many ways in which a person can strive to uphold the Torah, whether it be by giving drashos in front of large audiences, establishing places of learning, or befriending those that are distant from Torah. Each person is blessed with unique abilities to help bring others closer to Torah. At present, there are kiruv organisations that are providing many avenue through which people can increase their involvement in kiruv, even on a part-time basis. They offer classes in kiruv training, opportunities to learn one-on-one with a secular chavrusa, and many other options. With the yom hadin fast approaching may we all be able to learn from Yoshiyahu and say that we genuinely tried to uphold the Torah.

(If you would like to hear more specific details of what you can do to uphold the Torah and whom to contact, then you can contact me on email: Gefen123@smile.net.il Or call me on: 992 4050; 052 761 9935.)
Kol tuv

YOUR BROTHER AND YOUR ENEMY - KI SEITZEI

In Parashas Ki Seitzei, there are a number of Mitzvos instructing us how to react to a fellow Jew who is in some kind of predicament. One of them is the Mitzvo to help unload one’s fellow’s animal when it is suffering under a heavy burden. The Torah tells us: “You shall not see the donkey of your brother or his ox falling on the road and hide yourself from them, you shall surely stand them up, with him.” The commentaries note that this Mitzvo was already mentioned in another place in the Torah, however with a significant difference: In Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah states: “If you see the donkey of your enemy crouching under its burden, would you refrain from helping him? – you shall repeatedly help him.” The obvious question is why, in Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah instructed us to help one’s enemy, whereas in Parashas Ki Seitzei, the Torah discussed helping his brother.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.

DO NOT STAND OVER YOUR BROTHERS’ BLOOD Part 4

In the previous weeks we have examined the details of the Mitzva of: “Do not stand over your brother’s blood.” We have discussed in the past that the Mitzvot are not simply laws that ensure the efficient running of society. Rather they teach us essential principles about how to live our life. This Mitzva is an excellent example of this idea.

No comparable law is found in the secular world that obligates us to help our fellow. Secular law is predominantly focused on preventing people harming others which primarily aim at maintaining and order.

In contrast the Torah teaches us a vital lesson about our relationship with our fellow man. The Torah views refraining from helping others as little better than actively harming them. This Mitzva teaches us a vital principle - that standing by when someone is suffering is considered a sin. We are obligated to do whatever we can to save our friends in need. This principle even applies to our attitudes towards animals: The Talmud discusses the source for the prohibition to harm animals. It concludes that the source is the Mitzva to help unload a donkey that is suffering under a heavy burden. From here it concludes that refraining from helping an animal is considered causing it pain.

We learn from here that Judaism sees that neglecting to help an animal in pain is akin to harming it. Neutrality is not an acceptable stance with regard to our treatment of animals. This is all the more so the case with regard to our fellow man..

We have seen in the past few weeks how a person must strive to help a person in need. In the coming weeks we will see the lengths to which extend the obligation that we must make an effort to help others through the Mitzva of returning lost objects; this teaches us that we must also strive to return lost items of other people. We should all merit to help our friends in every way possible.

MAKING THE MOST OF OUR STRENGTHS - KI SEITZEI

“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even their tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, to eternity. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt, and because he hired against you Bilaam Ben Beor, of Pethor, Aram Naharaim, to curse you. ”

The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!

The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.

There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.

We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.

Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.

The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.

We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.

THE POWER OF HABIT - KI SEITSEI

KI SEITZEI - THE POWER OF HABIT

“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem …. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt. ” The men of Ammon and Moav displayed a great failing in the mida of chesed when they refused to give the Jewish people bread and water. This is one of the reasons that they can never marry into the Jewish people. The Maylitz Yosher notes that their failure to be gracious hosts is all the more difficult to understand when we bear in mind their patriarch - Lot. Lot excelled in hachnasas orchim (hosting people) to the extent that he risked his life to look after the angels who came to Sodom. In light of this, how is it possible that in a few generations this mida completely disappeared and his descendants displayed such indifference? He answers that if a person does chesed because of an internal recognition of its importance and a genuine desire to help others, then it will become ingrained in his descendants for many generations. However, if the chesed comes from habit then it will not be internalized by future generations. Lot did indeed excel in chesed, however this was only because he was brought up in the home of Avraham Avinu. He did not attain an internal recognition of the importance of chesed, it was merely a course of habit for him. Consequently actions such as those of Lot that are not internalized into a person’s soul do not last .

There are two important lessons that can derived from the explanation of the Maylitz Yosher: Firstly, it reveals one of the reasons for the all too common occurrences of youngsters brought up in observant homes leaving the path of Torah. If their parents keep the mitzvos, but their observance comes not out of internalization of what it means to be an Eved Hashem, but out of habit, then the children will surely pick up their parents attitude to mitzvos. At best, they will keep the mitzvos out of rote (which of course is highly undesirable) but at worst, the mitzvos will provide no meaning to their lives and consequently they will turn to other sources to find happiness and meaning.

Secondly, the Maylitz Yosher emphasises that even though Lot performed chesed out of habit he nevertheless did so to the degree that he was willing to give up his life for it! Thus a person may feel that since he is willing to spend much effort, money and time into the performance of mitzvos then this is a proof that he is not doing them out of habit. However, we see from Lot that the force of habit is so powerful that it can even drive a person to risk his life for it!

The Alter of Slobodka brings out another point with regards to Lot’s chesed. In the parsha about the rescue of Lot from Sodom, the Torah says that Hashem remembered Avraham and therefore freed Lot . The Medrash explains that Lot was saved because of a particular chesed that he performed for Avraham. When Avraham and Sarah were in Mitzrayim and Avraham said that Sarah was his sister, Lot could have easily revealed the truth to the Mitzrim and probably earn a great deal of money in return. The Alter asks, Lot was saved from destruction in Sodom for not committing the terrible act of informing on his own uncle to the Mitzrim; but surely his great mesiras nefesh to do hachnasas orchim in Sodom should be the source of his merit. He answers that because Lot’s hachnasas orchim was a result of his upbringing and not something he had internalized himself, it did not reflect in any high level and therefore deserves no reward. In contrast, he had a great natural love for money and this was so great that he felt a great temptation to at least hint to the Mitzrim that Sarah was Avraham’s wife and not his sister. In this area, he did not have the benefit of habit to help him, he had to turn to his own self-control and on this occasion he succeeded through his own efforts to do the right thing. In this instance, his ability to refrain from being an informer is considered greater than his tremendous chesed in Sodom .

We learn from here an example of Rav Dessler zt”l’s principle known as ’Nekudas habechira’ (the free will point). Rav Dessler argues that each person is not judged purely according to his mitzvos and maasim tovim, but to the degree to which he improves himself through his own efforts. Consequently he is judged according to his own standard, which takes into account his upbringing, surrounding influences and natural inclinations. This explains why we can never judge our friend until we stand in his place - we can never understand the nature of the tests that our friend faces because we can never know all the factors in his life.

It is true that there is reward for every mitzvo that is performed, however the main reward is for fighting the battle with the yetser hara and using one’s free will to become a better person. Thus, a person who is brought up in an atmosphere of shemiras hamitzvos and good midos does not receive his main reward for doing what he was naturally brought up to do . As we approach Elul, this is a frightening concept; we presume that all the mitzvos that we perform will be put on the scales against our aveiros, however the power of each mitzvo is judged according to the degree of free will that was exercised in its performance. Consequently, the mitzvos of a person who performs them simply because he was brought up that way, lose a great deal of their potency.

How can we begin to counter the power of habit? Rav Dessler writes that “the Gedolei hamussar and chassidus in the recent generations revealed to us the absolute necessity of limmudim of avodas halev that bring a person to an internalization [of mitzvos]. ” These include learning mussar, studying the meaning of tefilla, and a deepening of avodas Hashem. Of course it is difficult for a person to take on too much at the same time but Elul is an apt time to focus on one area of Avodas Hashem in which habit has taken over and to try to increase the inner meaning in our performance in this area. The rewards for such avoda are great - we can ensure that our external actions will become internalized in ourselves and consequently our descendants will be far more likely to follow in the path of Torah.

DO NOT STAND OVER YOUR BROTHER’S BLOOD Part 3

The Mitzva (commandment) to not stand over your brother’s blood obligates us to do our utmost to help our fellow man in his time of need. Thus far we have seen how this includes helping him if he is in physical danger or faces financial loss.

In truth, the Mitzva encompasses all kinds of situations in which a person may be in need in some kind of help. It is instructive to specify a number of common life situations in which this Mitzva applies.

- If a person is experiencing emotional difficulties then it is incumbent on us to try to help him, either by giving his advice or suggesting a suitable course of action to help his situation.

- If one is struggling with earning a livelihood then those around him should strive to help him find ways of earning more money.

- If a couple are experiencing marital difficulties then we should do what we can to help them improve their relationship. For example, suggesting a possible counselor who can help them resolve their difficulties.

- If a person is struggling in a spiritual sense, then we should try to encourage him in his good deeds and observance of Mitzvos. However, one should be careful not to do this in an aggressive way, rather with love and care.

- If a person is not succeeding in school or college then we should look for ways to help him.

- If a person is associating with the wrong kind of people then we should find ways to help protect him from being badly influenced.

With a little thought we can all think of people that we know who are experiencing one or more of the difficulties enumerated above. It is not sufficient to merely feel bad for them rather it is our responsibility to strive to do whatever we can to lighten their burden.

JUDGING FAVORABLY VERSUS BEING GULLIBLE - SHOFTIM

The Torah tells us “You should go with innocence before Hashem, your G-d .” Rashi explains that a person should accept the lot that Hashem gives him without trying to discern the future, rather he should accept everything with love and innocence. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l would make an inference from the passuk; it says that one should act with innocence with Hashem, but not with other people. During a person’s dealings with others he should use great wisdom and thought and not let himself be duped by untrustworthy people. The example he would bring was that of Yaako Avinu, who was called an ‘ish tam’ and yet acted with great cunning in his dealings with Lavan. On one occasion a number of B’nei Torah complained to the Chofetz Chaim about how they had been tricked out of a large amount of money by dishonest merchants. He told them this passuk and noted that since they had spent so much time in Yeshiva they had become used to going in temimus with Hashem. Their error, however, was that they had thought that it is also possible to go in temimus with their fellow man as well .

This lesson of the Chofetz Chaim zt”l seems very logical, however it needs to be reconciled with the mitzvo of “b’tzedek tishpot es amisecha:” This mitzvo teaches us that we must strive to judge our fellow man favorably, even when it seems that he is acting in a negative way. How is it possible to judge people favorably whilst simultaneously being suspicious of their righteousness? One could answer simply that we must, in our minds, judge our fellow favorably, but at the same time, be careful to take practical precautions to avoid being harmed in the eventuality that the other person is not trustworthy . There are two problems with this approach: Firstly, it seems almost impossible to adopt such a seeming contradictory attitude to the same person - how can a person be expected to genuinely judge his fellow favorably and simultaneously treat him in a suspicious manner ? Secondly, it seems difficult to say that the Torah should command us to give the benefit of the doubt to people of whom there is genuine reason to treat with distrust.

In order to reconcile these concepts it is necessary to analyze the mitzvo of “b’tzedek tishpot es amisecha” on a deeper level. There are many stories in which a person seemed to be acting in a clearly negative way and yet in truth there was some wild explanation for their behavior. Such stories imply that the mitzvo to judge favorably requires that we always strive to find the benefit of the doubt even when doing so seems to defy logic. In truth, this does not seem to be an accurate understanding of what this mitzvo involves.

The Rishonim write that there are different categories of people for whom there are different requirements of judging favorably . There is the ‘tzadik’, the ‘beinoni’, the ‘rasha’ and the ‘eino makiro’, (stranger): The tzadik is someone who hardly ever commits a sin - with regards to him we must judge him favorably even if his actions lean very strongly to a negative interpretation: The beinoni is a person who generally avoids sin but on occasion does falter - we must judge him favorably in situations that could be perceived equally in a positive and negative way, however when his actions seem negative we are not commanded to judge him favorably . The rasha regularly sins and as a consequence we need not judge him favorably even when his actions seem positive. Indeed, Rabbeinu Yonah says that we should judge him unfavorably ! An eino makiro is someone that we do not know - there is no obligation with regards to judging him .

What is difficult about all the above gedarim is that there is no allusion to them in the Torah or Chazal - the Torah makes no differentiation between different people, it simply tells us to judge our fellow favorably, implying that this applies equally to every Jew. Where did the Rishonim see such chilukim between different kinds of people?! My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that the mitzvo of judging favorably does not mean that we should irrationally judge every act in a positive way, rather it is telling us that we should judge people in a logical, reasonable and fair manner; a person may have a tendency to judge others in a harsh manner and not give them a fair judgement, the Torah comes and tells us that this is wrong, however it does not instruct us to judge people in an illogical fashion. Based on this understanding it becomes clear why the Rishonim gave different gedarim to different people: With regard to a tzaddik, even if he does something that seems like an aveiro is logical to assume that he did not do anything wrong. For example, if one sees a person who is known to be very strict on eating kosher, going into a non-kosher restaurant, it is logical to assume that he is not going in, in order to eat non-kosher food. Furthermore, even if we see him putting the food into his mouth it is more logical to say that he needs to eat in order to save his life and therefore it is permitted for him to eat this non-kosher food at this time. In contrast, when a rasha does something that seems positive, it is nevertheless logical that there is a negative way of interpreting his behavior. The same logic applies to the other categories - when it is logical to judge someone favorably the Torah requires that we do so, but when it is not, then there is no Torah obligation to judge favorably and there are even times when one should judge his fellow unfavorably.

With this understanding we can now reconcile the mtizvo of judging favorably with the Chofetz Chaim’s teaching that people should not be naïve. The mitzvo does not tell us to be naïve, in contrast it instructs us to be realistic and at times tells us that we should judge people in an unfavorable manner. Thus, when we are dealing with people in business, for example, ‘b’tzedek tishpot’ teaches us that we should not be naïve, rather we should judge people fairly and accurately. As we noted before, it is important to remember that this in and of itself is no easy task - a person’s natural leaning may be to judge people in a unfair fashion. This, the Torah tells us, is wrong, rather we should strive to see people in a fair light.

OUR INFLUENCE ON OTHERS - SHOFTIM

“Who is the man who is fearful and faint-hearted? Let him go and return to his house, and let him not melt the heart of his fellows to be like his heart. ” The Torah commands anyone who is afraid of going to war to leave the battlefield because of the negative influence his behaviour will have on his fellow soldiers. They will be effected by his fear and consequently become more fearful themselves which will have a detrimental session . The Ramban brings the opinion of the Behag that this is one of the 613 mitzvos . Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l says that the shoresh of this mitzvo is that it is forbidden to act in such a way in any area of life that will negatively influence onlookers. This applies even if the action is justified but can still be interpreted in a negative way - thus he warns of the care a ben yeshiva must take in not missing seder, even when he has a valid reason, because everyone else may not know of this reason and will come to learn to be less makpid in keeping to their own seder . Rav Shlomo-Zalman Auerbach zt”l applied this principle in halacho. He was asked by someone who had a choice of two Shacharis minyanim; one was far slower than the other, allowing for more kavanna, but if he would daven in it he would have to leave before the end. Rav Auerbach answered that he should daven in the slower minyan even though he would have to leave early. However, he told the person that he should make known the reason for his early departure so as to avoid a possible chillul Hashem . Even though the shoel was following the halacho by leaving early, nevertheless he had to be aware of the possible consequences that this could have on others .

One may ask, why should a person be judged by how his actions influence others if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them - we are commanded to keep the 613 mitzvos; if a person does that then why should he suffer from others imitating him in a negative way? Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l writes that in the Shemoneh Esrei of Rosh Hashana we say that Hashem judges the “maaseh ish upekudaso”. Maaseh ish means a person’s own actions, but what does ‘pekudaso’ refer to? He explains that each person has a sphere of influence beyond himself, which includes his family, his students, and any people that come into contact with him. The way he influences these people through his own actions is ‘pekudaso’ and he is judged in that area as well. If, by observing his behaviour, they learn to improve their avodas Hashem then he will receive much reward but if the opposite occurs then he will be judged for his part in their aveiros just as he is judged for his own . A person’s actions do not take place in a vacuum, we are always being noticed by others, consequently we must constantly be aware of the possible effect we can have on others without even directly communicating with them.

This idea is demonstrated in the following story told by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita: “Pesach the shoemaker died and went before the beis din shel maalah. He saw a massive pair of scales in front of him and a deep voice called out, ‘Bring in the mitzvos!” Angels dressed in white brought in several big bags stuffed with mitzvos. They poured them onto the scale, and the side of zechus went down, bringing a big smile to Pesach’s face. A voice then said, ‘bring in the aveiros!’ A couple of trucks full of black, gruesome-looking angels came in and began pouring the aveiros on the other side of the scale. The smile quickly faded from Pesach’s face. In the middle of the procedure he noticed something odd. ‘Wait, wait,’ he cried, ‘some of those aveiros are not mine. I never did that, that or that.’ ‘No,’ responded the beis din shel maalah, ’indeed you did not. Those are the aveiros of people who watched what you did and learned from your actions. You are responsible for their deeds. When you spoke in shul, Velvel saw you speaking and therefore thought it was okay to speak - you get his aveiro. When you left shul early and Chaim the shtreimel maker thought he could leave early as well, you are responsible for that misdeed, too. When you spoke lashon hara and those around you thought it okay to listen because it was you who was talking, you carry the responsibility as well… ”

Thankfully, we can also benefit from this form of din through the positive effect we can have on our fellow: One way in which to do this is by being a positive example in our own behaviour and thereby inspire those around us to emulate us . Rav Aron Kotler zt”l notes that b’zman hazeh it is very difficult to rebuke someone effectively without embarrassing him. He suggests that one way to help him grow without fear of causing pain is rebuke by example; acting in such a way that inspires others to emulate his behaviour . A yeshiva bachur who, for example consistently arrives on time for Shacharis can influence his roommates to want to do the same; a baal habayis who is makpid to be kovaya itim letorah is an example to those who can’t find the time to learn regularly. Or a person who is careful not to speak lashon hara makes it difficult for those around him to do so by his mere presence. Rav Kotler is mechadesh that if a person deliberately excels in a certain area of avodas Hashem in order to effect onlookers, then he has fulfilled the mitzvo of tochacha. And the greater a person is, the more he can influence others in this way. A resolution to bring all of Jewry back to the Torah was found in the satchel of the great baal mussar, Rav Naftali Amsterdam zt”l. When asked how he planned to carry out this resolution, he replied, “I have resolved to keep all the laws of the Shulchan Aruch strictly. In this way I will serve as a living Shulchan Aruch and anyone who wants to keep the Torah will be able to see in me a living example of a complete Jew and learn from me how to return to the Torah .”

Rav Shmuelevitz goes so far as to argue that causing others to fulfil a mitzvo is considered greater than doing the mitzvo oneself. One of his proofs is a Gemara in Sotah : The Gemara says that Yehuda’s body did not find rest until Moshe Rabbeinu prayed for him and mentioned one of his merits; Moshe said to Hashem, “who caused Reuven to confess to his sin [of moving his father’s bed]? Yehuda [when he confessed about the maaseh Tamar].” Rav Shmuelevitz points out that the only zechus that Moshe mentioned in his tefilla is that Yehuda caused Reuven to confess. Why didn’t he mention the great merit of Yehuda’s own confession, an act of great courage that saved the lives of three souls?! We are forced to answer that being mezakeh our fellow is greater than our own deed in and of itself and therefore the effect his deed had on Reuven was greater than the deed itself !

A person can never know when his deeds can influence others, even the smallest actions can have great effect as is demonstrated in the following true stories: Expecting a large crowd in shul on Yom Kippur, the tzaddik, Rav Elya Dushnitzer occupied himself by tearing pieces of toilet paper for public use in the large Petach Tikva shul’s bathroom. A secular Israeli stopped to watch what appeared to him as somewhat peculiar. “Why are you doing that,” he asked. “Tomorrow there is going to be a big crowd, and I don’t want anyone to be inconvenienced.” After becoming a baal teshuva, the Israeli explained what moved him to make a life change. “It was that rabbi. Every rip of paper made a tear deep in my heart. ”

Unsure of whether to attend yeshiva full-time or to pursue a regular career, young Moshe decided to go to a yeshiva and see what the guys were like. As he was walking through the lunchroom, a bachur bumped into him, causing Moshe to spill his coffee on another boy seated at a table. Without a moment’s hesitation, the boy jumped up and called out, “Hey, Shimon, quickly bring another cup of coffee for Moshe!” Moshe decided that if this is what yeshiva bachurim are like, then he’s going to stay. He went on to become Rav Moshe Shwab, the mashgiach of Gateshead Yeshiva .

The people in these stories who were the catalyst for the great changes people made in their lives, do not merely gain reward for their single action. The Mishna in Avos writes that a person who is mezakeh others receives incredible benefits ; It begins by saying that ‘sin will not come to his hand,’ - many commentators explain this to mean that he will receive great siyata dishmaya to avoid sin . The Mishna then describes Moshe Rabbeinu as an example of a mezakeh d’rabim and says that he receives reward for all the mitzvos that he caused to be done as if he fulfilled them himself. Thus, Rav Aaron Kotler notes that one who is mezakeh others with mitzvos receives incredible reward for his deeds. “one can not imagine the great gain a person receives through this; he is zocheh to extra heavenly protection to not stumble in sin and also to a great number of merits, something which would have been impossible for him to achieve through his own bechira . He writes further that this can help us in din; The Gemara says that the Sifrey Chaim and Sifsey Meisim are opened on Rosh Hashana. Tosefos explains that the dead are also judged . For what are they judged? Rav Kotler answers that even after a person’s death, the actions he committed in the world can still effect others , both positively or negatively. Thus, if a person helps others in such a way that the benefits are long-lasting, he can continue to reap the reward for this even after his own death . May we all be zocheh to the favourable din of the mezakeh harabim.

MOURNING: THE BODY AND THE SOUL - RE'EH

In Parshas Re’eh, the Torah outlines certain acts of mourning that were practiced by the non-Jews in those times. Some would make cuts in their body, whilst others would tear out hair between their eyes. The Torah forbids such actions, saying: “You are children of G-d, do not cut yourselves, nor tear out hair between your eyes over a death.” Similarly, in Parshas Kedoshim, the Torah tells us: "You should not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am Hashem." These mitzvos teach that it is wrong to make a cut in one's body as a sign of mourning. In contrast, there is a positive commandment to tear one's clothing on the occasion of the death of a close relative (this is known as kriah). The Shulchan Aruch states: "Someone whose relative has died, (if it is a relative that one is required to mourn over), must tear [their garment] for them." It is striking how very similar actions of tearing are regarded so differently in Jewish law, to the extent that cutting one's flesh is forbidden and yet, tearing one's clothing is obligatory?

In order to understand the difference between cutting one's body and cutting one's clothing, it is necessary to analyze the first event in the Torah in which clothing plays a role - that of the chet (sin) of Adam Harishon. The Torah tells us that before the chet, Adam and Chava did not wear any clothes, yet they felt no shame. However, after they ate from the fruit, they then realized that they were naked and they wore clothes to cover their shame. What change took place as a result of the sin? We know that man is comprised of two, contrasting features; a body and a soul. It seems that it was always understood that it was inappropriate for one's essence to be exposed, and therefore there was the necessity of some kind of 'covering', or clothing. Before the sin, Adam primarily identified himself as a soul, and his body took on the role of a kind of 'clothing' for the soul. Accordingly, there was no need for garments to act as clothing for the body, because the body was a kind of clothing in and of itself. However, after the sin, man's primary identity shifted to being that of a body. Once he viewed his body as being the ikar , he felt embarrassed when it was uncovered. Accordingly he needed clothing to cover himself.

With this insight into the relationship between body and soul, we can now gain a deeper understanding of the significance of tearing one's clothing or cutting one's body. Since the chet of Adam Harishon, man lives his life primarily focusing on himself as a body. Thus, when a person dies, one could mistakenly think that his whole being is gone forever. However, this is a serious mistake - he has only lost his body, but his soul remains extant. Accordingly, he is commanded to tear his clothing to remind him in his time of grief, that his loved one's essence has not disappeared. Only his body, which was the clothing for his soul, has been lost, however his soul is intact. This explains why it is forbidden to make a cut in one's flesh. To do so indicates a belief that this person ceases to exist in all forms.

The Torah's directives about mourning teaches not only about the correct attitude to death but also to how one should approach his life as well. With regard to death, we learn that death is not the end of a person's existence. We recognize that a person’s loved one has moved on to a higher plain of existence. Making cuts in one's body symbolizes a belief that the deceased ceases to exist in any form. Accordingly, it is a totally inappropriate action.

With regard to life, these lessons remind a person that he should not lose sight of the fact that his soul is the primary source of his identity and his body is a temporary vessel whose job is to facilitate the well-being of the soul. Accordingly, whilst one must provide for the basic physical needs of the body, he should not do so as an end in itself, rather to strengthen is so person to be in a healthy physical state to embark on his spiritual endeavors. This is very difficult, given the state of man after the sin of Adam Harishon, however, the more one strengthens his recognition of the primacy of the soul, the more he will be able to put this lesson into practice.

May we all merit to understand the Torah approach to life and death.

DO NOT STAND OVER YOUR BROTHER’S BLOOD Part 2

DO NOT STAND OVER YOUR BROTHER’S BLOOD Part 2

Last week we began discussion of the Mitzva, ‘Do not stand over your brother’s blood’. We saw that this obligates us to do whatever is in our power to help our fellow when he is in difficulty. We discussed that one aspect of the Mitzva is to save him from physical harm.

Another aspect of the Mitzva is to save him from financial loss whenever possible. For example, if he plans to use his money in a way that you know is likely to have negative results, then you must try to prevent him from embarking on his plan.

This Mitzva is so important that it even allows us to speak lashon hara (negative speech) when necessary. For example, if you see that a person plans to be involved in business with an untrustworthy person then, if certain conditions are fulfilled, you are allowed, and in fact obligated to inform him that he should not trust this person. However, one must be very vigilant to ensure that he observe all the conditions that allow one to speak lashon hara for constructive reasons. Without any of these conditions, it is forbidden to speak out even to prevent one’s fellow from harm. The conditions are listed below.

1.We cannot make any critical statement about a person on the basis of information obtained through hearsay. Only through first-hand information may one assume that someone’s character or behavior is wanting . Even if we have personally witnessed seemingly unacceptable behavior we must not hastily pass judgment. Circumstances must be carefully investigated before we can be sure that we understand a situation correctly .

2.Before we relate negative information we must carefully consider whether or not our words will in fact bring about the desired result. For example, we may seek to discourage a a potentially harmful business association but often a final decision has already been make and speaking negatively of the other party will serve no constructive purpose.

3.Before speaking about a person with others, we must, if at all feasible, first discuss the issue with that person himself. For example, if someone is acting in an anti-social way speaking to the person himself may be effective, precluding the need to speak lashon hara. This condition does not apply if speaking to the sinner might make it more difficult to achieve the desired result through other means. An example of this is if we suspect someone of certain dishonesty - speaking to him may only succeed in causing him to be more careful not to get caught. In such a situation, we should not speak to him first.

4.If in addition to personal reproof, any other option exists that could preclude the necessity to speak negatively, it must be pursued.

5.Even if speaking negatively is necessary we should choose the least blatant means by which to communicate that information. Directing someone to where he will become aware of information on his own is preferable to expressing it verbally.

6.While derogatory information may be related for a constructive purpose, slander cannot be justified. In particular we must be very careful not to exaggerate - this is included within the definition of slander.

7.Having fulfilled all the above conditions we must be certain that his sole intent is for a constructive purpose. However, if we know that in our heart we are pleased to cast the person in a bad light then we are not permitted to speak - even though the purpose cannot be accomplished any other way. It is necessary first to eradicate any negative feelings towards that person and only then can the negative information be spoken.

HOW TO GIVE TO OTHERS - RE'EH

This week’s Parsha is the source of the mitzvo to give tzedaka. The Torah tells us that we should give a person “enough for his lack which is lacking to him. ” Chazal learn out from the words, “to him” at the end of the passuk that we must give according to each individual’s specific needs. For example, if a person who was wealthy and used to an extravagant lifestyle then became poor, we must try to give him to the extent that he can live according to his previous standing . In this vein, Chazal tell us of a man who had been accustomed to traveling on a carriage with servants running in front of him. When he lost his money, Hillel HaZaken ensured that he have a carriage to ride and even ran in front of the carriage himself !

This concept teaches us a fundamental principle in chesed - that we must give according to the specific needs of the other person. A significant part of the avoda of chesed is to discern each person’s unique requirements and strive to fulfill them. This is not an easy task because each person views the world through his own eyes and one can easily project his own desires and needs onto others. Consequently he may provide them with what would be important to the giver but is not so important to the receiver. For example, if a person likes apples he may presume that others also do and therefore he will feel he is doing a great chesed by giving them apples. However, the recipient of his ‘chesed’ may prefer oranges, thus the giver did not truly satisfy his friend’s needs because he presumed that he had the same tastes as himself.

This concept, however, seems to contradict the most fundamental mitzvo in bein adam lechaveiro; that of ‘love your neighbor like yourself’. Hillel interpreted this mitzvo to primarily mean, ‘‘that which is hateful to you do not do to your friend”. This teaches us that the mitzvo is to treat one’s friend in the same way that one would like to be treated himself. This implies that one does not have to try to understand his fellow’s specific needs, rather the mitzvo is limited to treating the receiver according to the giver’s own personal preferences. This would indicate that if a person likes apples then he should give apples to his friend because he would like his friend to do the same to him, and the fact that his friend actually prefers oranges is irrelevant.

The Chofetz Chaim zt”l raises this question in the context of hilchos lashon hara : He writes that some statements are not objectively lashon hara, rather they depend on the subject of discussion. For example, to say that Ploni learns 4 hours a day could be a positive statement or a transgression of lashon hara. It depends about who is being spoken about. If one would say that a working man learns 4 hours a day, then that would be a praiseworthy statement, however to say the same thing about an avreich would be lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim then says that one may ask the aforementioned kasha; a person who works himself may argue that he would like people to say about him that he learns 4 hours a day, therefore it should be permissible to say the same thing about someone who is supposed to learn the whole day. The proof of this argument is Hillel’s statement that it is only forbidden to do to someone what we would not like him to do to us, but in this case we would very much like to be spoken about in such a way. The Chofetz Chaim answers that when Hillel said, “that which is hateful to you do not do to your friend”, he meant that if you were on his level or in his situation, then this would be hateful to you, even if it is not actually hateful to you at your present standing. This teaches us that the mitzvo of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ does not in fact contradict the concept of doing chesed according to the other person’s needs. Rather it means that, just like we would like our fellow to do what is beneficial in our eyes, and avoid what it hateful in our eyes, so too, we must treat him in a way that is beneficial in his eyes.

Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l taught and demonstrated the importance of understanding other people’s needs and situations throughout his life. On one occasion, a talmid saw Rav Salanter conversing with someone about mundane matters, which was very out of character for him, because he would generally only speak words of Torah. Later, during a discussion on idle speech, the talmid asked Rav Salanter why he was speaking about such mundane matters. He explained that the man with whom he was speaking was dpressed and it was a great chesed to cheer him up now. Said Rav Salanter, “how could I cheer him up? With talk of Mussar and fear of G-d? The only way was with light, pleasant conversation about worldly matters. ” He understood the needs of this man and acted accordingly.

We have seen how the foundation of true chesed is understanding our fellow’s needs and trying to fulfill them, rather than presuming that that which is important to us is also important to them. This avoda occurs constantly in every kind of relationship. In marriage, it is very common that husband and wife have different interests; for example, when the wife talks about something that is important to her, the husband may not feel a great deal of enthusiasm in this particular topic. However, he or she should recognize that this is important to the other one and therefore express interest in that which is important to her. Similarly, children have very different interests than their parents and their parents may not be so fascinated by the childish pursuits of their children. Nonetheless it is essential that they do not dismiss their children’s enthusiastic discussion because to do so shows a severe lack of empathy and concern with their children’s needs. There are countless likewise situations throughout our lives and it is vital to work on this area in order to become genuine baalei chesed.

THE VALUE OF FRIENDLINESS - RE'EH

The parsha discusses the mitzvo of tzedaka and promises a special bracha to one who fulfils this mitzvo b’simcha: “You will surely give to him [the poor man] and you should not feel bad in your heart when giving him; because of this thing (davar hazeh) Hashem, your G-d will bless you in all your deeds and your every undertaking. ” The Gemara discusses the amount of brachos one receives when he gives tzedaka: “Rebbi Yitzchak says, ‘one who gives a prutah to a poor person is blessed with six brachos and one who speaks kindly to him [whilst giving the prutah] is blessed with [an additional] eleven brachos .” The Gra explains that these 17 brachos are alluded to in the passuk - the Torah says that a person will receive the blessing, “because of davar hazeh” - the word hazeh is gematria of 17, thus alluding to the maximum amount of brachos one can receive if he gives tzedaka in the optimum manner .

However, this Gemara seems difficult to understand: It says that a person receives nearly double as many brachos for speaking in a friendly manner as for giving money - of course being friendly is a good hanhaga but why does the Gemara consider it so much greater than providing a poor person with the money he so desperately needs?! There is an Avos d’Rebbi Nosson which discusses a similar inyan that can help us answer this question. It says, “one should greet every man with a friendly countenance… if a person gives to his friend all the gifts in the world, but his face is sullen, it is considered as if he gave nothing. But one who greets his fellow with a friendly countenance, even if he gave him no gifts, it is considered as if he gave him all the best gifts in the world. ” The Sifsei Chaim explains that what people want more than anything is for others to show an interest in and care about them. A gift is merely an indication that the giver thought about the needs of his fellow and how he could give him joy. However, without an accompanying show of warmth the ikar tachlis of the gift is lost because the person does not feel as if he is being genuinely cared about. In contrast when a person is friendly to his fellow even without giving any gifts, then he is providing him with his ikar need, the desire to feel cared about . This explanation can also be used to answer our question. A person who gives tzedaka with a friendly attitude is giving much more than money, he is nourishing the poor man with a sense of importance by showing that he is cared about.

We learn from here how showing an interest in our fellow is one of the greatest possible chasadim we can do, even greater than giving tzedaka. There are a number of places where Chazal stress the importance of being friendly. The Gemara tells us that Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai greeted everyone before they could greet him, even the non-Jew in the market-place . Rav Dan Roth Shlita explains what we can learn from this Chazal: Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai was the greatest Sage in his time and was the nasi, the highest ranking position amongst the Jewish people. And yet, despite his high rank and prestige, he never failed to greet other people first. He recognised the power of a friendly greeting - wishing someone ‘good morning’ shows that you acknowledge who he or she is. In a world where people are often not appreciated enough, by greeting someone we show that we see him as something of worth. This applies to non-Jews and especially to those people that we tend not to notice or acknowledge such as taxi drivers, street cleaners and security guards . The following true stories demonstrate how important it is to learn from Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai.

A Jew was working in a meat-packing plant in Norway. Towards the end of the day he went into one of the freezers to do an inspection. The freezer door slipped off its safety latch and closed, trapping the man in the freezer. He tried banging on the door and yelling but no avail. Most of the workers had already gone home and the sound was muffled anyway by the heavy freezer door. He was in the room for five hours and on the verge of death. Suddenly the door opened. The security guard put his head in and came to his rescue and saved his life. The security guard was later asked why he thought to open that freezer door. He explained, “I have been working here for thirty-five years. Hundreds of workers come to this plant every day. This Jew is the only one who says hello to me in the morning and good-bye in the evening. All the other workers treat me as invisible. Today he said hello, but I never heard the good-bye. I wait for that hello and good-bye every day. Knowing I never heard it, I realised that he must be somewhere in the building so I searched for him. ’’ A simple ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’ were so important to this security guard that he waited for them every day. We should strive to be like the Jew who greeted him so regularly and NOT like everyone else who treated him as if he didn’t exist.

Rav Wolbe zt”l tells over the following story in Alei Shor . There was a baal teshuva in a yeshiva and his friends asked him who influenced him to be chozer b’teshuva. He answered, “I grew up in a mainly secular neighbourhood, but there was one religious Jew there. The residents of my area did not extend greetings to each other, the only exception being this one religious man. Every morning on my way to school I passed by this man he greeted me with a warm ’shalom’. I began to think to myself, ‘why is it that of all my neighbours only the religious man greets me - there must be something to his Torah!’ This was the start of how I came to complete teshuva.” It is clear from these stories that a friendly greeting can often have wonderful consequences. Moreover, it is a very great Kiddush Hashem when an observant Jew demonstrates that the Torah teaches us to show great warmth to our fellow man.

It should be noted that these inyanim are not merely middos chassidus, rather they are obligations that are incumbent upon every Jew. Rav Dessler zt”l points out that the Mishna in Avos which tells us to greet people in a friendly manner is said in the name of Shammai. It would have seemed more appropriate for Hillel, who is associated with chesed to say this maamer than Shammai who is known for his midos hadin. Rav Dessler explains that this comes to teach us that greeting our fellow in a friendly way is a chiyuv gamoor . Moreover, the Gemara states that anyone who knows that his friend regularly greets him should strive to be the one to initiate the greeting and that if his friend greets him first and he does not return the greeting then he is called a thief . Rav Dessler explains that when one refrains from returning his friend’s greeting, he is stealing his self-worth and this is a terrible sin. When we are doing teshuva for the various forms of stealing he should include the aveiro of ’gezeilas shalom’ and commit to being more friendly in the future.

There is another way of expressing an interest in others - smiling. The Gemara says that one who smiles to his friend is better than one who feeds him . This teaches that showing simcha at seeing someone gives him more joy than providing gashmius . The Gedolim spoke very strongly about the importance of smiling. The Alter of Slobodka said that someone who walks in public with a gloomy face is like a ’bor bereshus harabim’ (a hole in a public area) - when he is in public he has no right to force others to see his gloomy face . Moreover, he saw an inability to smile a negative mida; a senior talmid from a famous yeshiva in Poland stopped by in Slobodka on his way back from Lithuania. The Alter told him several times to smile. The talmid, who had been trained all his life to be serious and tense, could not change his habit, and did not smile. The Alter regarded this as a serious character flaw and refused to allow his grandson to cross the border n the company of that talmid . In a similar vein, the Sefer Yireim writes that just as there is an issur of onaas devarim, causing pain with hurtful words, so too there is a form of ‘onaah’ in showing an unhappy face . One may argue that there is a requirement of yiras shamayim that seems to contradict the requirement to be constantly smiling. The Gedolim also dealt with this issue at length . In short their maskana is that a person should internally feel an element of seriousness about life, but externally they must show happiness. Rav Yitzchak Blazer zt”l brings a story from his Rebbe, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l to show just how important it is to avoid letting one’s own coved rosh effect other people. One Erev Yom Kippur, Rav Salanter was walking to shul for Kol Nidrei. Whilst walking he turned to speak to someone he knew, but the person was in the midst of aimas hadin and did not reply. Rav Salanter commented, “why should I suffer because of his aimas hadin?!”

We have seen how there is a clear obligation to show warmth in our interactions with our fellow man and that by doing so we can give him a true sense of self-worth. How can a person strive to improve in this vital area of avodas Hashem? Sifsei Chaim suggests that in the area of smiling, we should utilise the principle that our external actions effect our internal being. Therefore a person should try to smile even if he doesn’t feel in the state of mind to do so. By showing an expression of simcha, he should begin to feel genuine simcha in his heart. In the area of greeting one’s fellow, it is recommended to notice anyone in our neighbourhood who doesn’t seem to know many people and to try to befriend them. This applies especially to new members of the Kehilla who naturally feel unknown and unimportant in their new neighbourhood. But it is even worthwhile to say a friendly word to anyone in the community with whom we have thus far not made any effort to do so.

May we all be zocheh to treat our fellow in the way that he deserves.