The Torah devotes three whole Torah portions to the lives of the forefathers, Abraham and Jacob. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Isaac. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Isaac and no other forefather; that is the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Philistines. This is an account of how Isaac is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rebecca, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Philistines sealed wells that Abraham had dug, and how Isaac re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Philistines and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Isaac. The most striking aspect of Isaac’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Abraham’s time he headed for Egypt; Isaac planned to do the same thing until God told him not to leave the land of Israel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them . Rabbeinu Bachya states that from Isaac’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Isaac did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon explains Isaac’s role among the forefathers: Abraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Isaac’s job was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of following the mesora (tradition). Isaac’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine came to the land, he immediately thought of going to Egypt because his father did so. And when he came to Gerar he dug the same wells and gave them the same names that Avraham had given them .
However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha . This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path in his Avodas Hashem.
We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is no contradiction; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many approaches to Judaism that emphasize different forms of Avoda and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity .
There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality . Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression .
This emphasis on encouraging a student to develop his individuality permeated the teachings of Slobodka talmidim. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt”l, always emphasized the importance of independence in learning. While not denigrating the importance of a talmid’s devotion to his rebbe, he stressed that this should not prevent the student from developing independently his own powers of analysis and reaching his own conclusions. He used to say that Rav Baruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l, would have made even greater contributions to the understanding of the Torah if he had adopted his own original approaches in addition to developing the ideas of his Rebbi, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l. Reb Yaakov related that as a young man, Reb Baruch Ber destroyed all the chiddushim that he had written prior to studying under Reb Chaim .
Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva !
The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jew to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, one is development of one‘s personality: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths. Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel . Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else . And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora.
What are the benefits of encouraging a person to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim . And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of enabling ourselves, our children and our students to live happier and more successful lives.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
DO NOT COVET AND DESIRE PART 2
In part one of the prohibition of coveting the items of one's fellow, we saw that there were in fact two separate prohibitions; 'loh tachmod' (do not covet) and 'loh tisaveh' (do not desire). Loh tachmod prohibits cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell. Loh titaveh prohibits 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'.
Do these prohibitions also apply to pressuring a person to give an item as a gift? Many authorities say that this does indeed constitute a transgression of these Mitzos. For example, a son asked his father-in-law to forgo trading his car, and rather give it to him. The father explained that the car was expensive. Nevertheless the son-in-law persisted in making the request, and finally the father was cornered into giving away the car. The son-in-law was guilty of 'loh sachmod'. Similarly, many authorities prohibit pressuring someone to rent out an item to them, or to loan them money.
The prohibitions of loh tachmod and loh titaveh do not apply to the acquisition of property from non-Jews. In order to understand this law, it is necessary to discuss a principle that underlies the Torah outlook towards inter-personal relationships. The Torah stresses that every human being is created in the Image of G-d and accordingly, must be treated in a respectful manner. However, it is understood that people treat members of their family in a more favorable manner than everyone else. Thus, it is normal for people to lend each other money and charge interest, whereas one would not charge interest on a loan to his brother or son.
The Torah teaches us that the Jewish people are equivalent to one 'family'. Although all Jews are not necessarily genetically related to each other , nonetheless we are spiritually related in a common covenant that makes us like one family. Accordingly, whilst a Jew treats everyone with care and concern, he acts towards his fellow Jew with extra consideration. Thus, for example a Jew is forbidden from lending his fellow Jew with interest . Similarly, it is normal for non-Jews to pressure one another to sell items, so too Jews are not obligated to act any differently from how non-Jews act between themselves. However, one must be very careful that all his business interactions are conducted in a respectable manner, to engender a kiddush HaShem (sanctification of G-d's name) and avoid causing a chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d's name).
Do these prohibitions also apply to pressuring a person to give an item as a gift? Many authorities say that this does indeed constitute a transgression of these Mitzos. For example, a son asked his father-in-law to forgo trading his car, and rather give it to him. The father explained that the car was expensive. Nevertheless the son-in-law persisted in making the request, and finally the father was cornered into giving away the car. The son-in-law was guilty of 'loh sachmod'. Similarly, many authorities prohibit pressuring someone to rent out an item to them, or to loan them money.
The prohibitions of loh tachmod and loh titaveh do not apply to the acquisition of property from non-Jews. In order to understand this law, it is necessary to discuss a principle that underlies the Torah outlook towards inter-personal relationships. The Torah stresses that every human being is created in the Image of G-d and accordingly, must be treated in a respectful manner. However, it is understood that people treat members of their family in a more favorable manner than everyone else. Thus, it is normal for people to lend each other money and charge interest, whereas one would not charge interest on a loan to his brother or son.
The Torah teaches us that the Jewish people are equivalent to one 'family'. Although all Jews are not necessarily genetically related to each other , nonetheless we are spiritually related in a common covenant that makes us like one family. Accordingly, whilst a Jew treats everyone with care and concern, he acts towards his fellow Jew with extra consideration. Thus, for example a Jew is forbidden from lending his fellow Jew with interest . Similarly, it is normal for non-Jews to pressure one another to sell items, so too Jews are not obligated to act any differently from how non-Jews act between themselves. However, one must be very careful that all his business interactions are conducted in a respectable manner, to engender a kiddush HaShem (sanctification of G-d's name) and avoid causing a chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d's name).
THE SOURCE OF BRACHA - TOLDOS
When famine strikes Eretz Yisroel, Yitzchak Avinu plans to go to Mitzrayim. However, Hashem instructs him to remain in Eretz Yisroel and go to the land of the Plishtim. Hashem assures him of great blessing: “I will increase your offspring like the stars of the heaven; and I will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring. Because Avraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards (mishmarti), My Commandments, My decrees and My Torahs.”
The commentaries differ on the meaning of the word “mishmarti” in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s righteousness. The Seforno offers a novel interpretation of “mishmarti.” He writes that this refers to the trait “that is guarded (mishmeres) to me,” which is that of chesed. Thus, Hashem is praising Avraham for being so proficient in emulating Hashem’s own mida of chesed. The whole foundation of Hashem’s creation is chesed, and Avraham emulated this trait by doing the greatest possible chesed of giving others the opportunity to get close to Hashem.
The Seforno continues in the same section to address a very difficult problem with this passuk. On two occasions in the Parsha, Hashem blesses Yitzchak, but only in the merit of Avraham. The first is the passuk above. The second is after Yitzchak’s travails with the Plishtim: “I will bless you and increase your offspring because of Avraham my servant.” The Seforno contrasts this with both Avraham and Yaakov who were always blessed in their own merit and not in that of their fathers. He explains that Avraham and Yaakov were both involved in teaching others from early in their lives. Avraham’s exploits are well-known and Seforno writes with certainty that Yaakov taught people who came to the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever. Accordingly, they were blessed in their own merit throughout their lives. In contrast, up to this point, Yitzchak did not call out in the name of Hashem, and consequently did not warrant to be blessed in his own merit. He is blessed in his own merit only after he emulates his father by calling out in the name of Hashem: “He built an altar there, and called in the name of Hashem.” Soon after, Avimelech approaches him to make peace and ends by calling him the “Blessed of Hashem.” It is at this point, the Seforno writes, that Yitzchak is blessed in his own merit.
Rav Elyashiv Shlita comments on the implication of this Seforno. He points out that Yitzchak Avinu was one of the three Avos, that he had been willing to give up his life for Hashem in the Akeida, and that he was so holy that he could never leave Eretz Yisroel. Yet the Torah writes about him as if he has no merit until he calls out in the name of Hashem! Rav Elyashiv writes: “We see from here the incredible merit and reward that one receives for spreading Yiras Hashem to the people.”
The foregoing raises two fundamental questions. First, why does Yitzchak, despite his lofty accomplishments, not achieve the level of being blessed in his own merit until he spreads Hashem’s name. And second, why did Yitzchak refrain from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point?
Rav Chaim Volozhin, zt”l, explains the supremacy of spreading Hashem’s name. He writes that “bracha” means “ribui”, which we translate as “abundance.” Thus, the purpose of bracha is to cause an increase or continuation in something. Based on this, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits, Shlita, explains that a person is only worthy of receiving the bracha of ribui if he himself contributes to causing ribui and continuity in the world by causing others to follow the derech Hashem. Accordingly, despite all his great acts, Yitzchak only received blessing in his own merit when he himself contributed to the increase of people who would follow the derech Hashem.
Why then did Yitzchak refrain from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point? Rav Elyashiv suggests the following explanation. Since Yitzchak’s father Avraham had already spread awareness of Hashem, there was no need for Yitzchak to do so. However, Rav Elyashiv points out, we see the great reward that Yitzchak received for doing so even though his father had already done so.
We learn from here a lesson that is highly relevant in the world today: The fact that there are some people who devote time and effort to spreading Torah does not exempt everyone else from also contributing in some form. A person may argue that since there are people already involved, there is no need for him to do so. The problems with this argument are twofold: Firstly, we see from the Seforno that a person needs to be involved in bringing others close to Hashem for his own benefit and to be worthy of bracha. Secondly, the number of people who are involved in any form of kiruv rechokim - including part-time kiruv, such as learning a few hours a week with a beginner or having secular people for Shabbos - is tremendously low, in comparison to the secular Jews who are leaving Judaism in the millions. The only possible way to stem the tide is if every Jew takes upon himself to devote some amount of time to kiruv.
Indeed a little known fact is that the Gedolim have demanded that every ben-Torah must contribute some of his precious time to being mekarev secular Jews. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, issued a “call to action” to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigor. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no one else, so too must our yeshiva students. … There are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.” Other gedolim have issued similar “calls to action.” In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe, zt”l, exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visiting the homes of secular families and showing them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit.
Great talmiday chachamim have always taken every opportunity to emulate Avraham Avinu’s efforts to bring people close to Hashem. The well-known Maggid Shiur, Rav Mendel Kaplan, zt”l, made great efforts to befriend and teach secular Jews whenever he encountered them. His outreach even extended to children. A non-religious secretary in the yeshivah once brought her nine-year-old son with her to work. When Reb Mendel saw the little boy playing in the hall, he called him over, pointed to a Chumash and asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Sure,” the boy answered, “it’s a Bible.” “No,” answered Reb Mendel, “this is a Chumash.” He then pulled up two chairs and sat with the boy for an hour, teaching him Chumash on a level that the child could understand and appreciate. Later that day someone asked him why he had devoted so much of his precious time to a nine-year-old boy. Answered Reb Mendel, “I hope that I’ve a planted a seed that will grow years from now.” We may think that we cannot have any positive effect on unaffiliated Jews. However, one can never know whether and when the seeds that he plants now may bloom in a seemingly unconnected way many years later. Rav Kaplan was a great talmid chacham who reached great heights in his own Torah learning and general righteousness. However, he recognized that this did not absolve him of his responsibility to look for opportunities to “call in the name of Hashem.”
We learn from the Seforno that even a great tzaddik is not worthy of bracha unless he spreads the awareness of G-d in the world. Rav Elyashiv further teaches us that there is no validity to the argument that others are already doing so is.
May we all be zocheh to play our roles in being vayikra b’shem Hashem.
The commentaries differ on the meaning of the word “mishmarti” in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s righteousness. The Seforno offers a novel interpretation of “mishmarti.” He writes that this refers to the trait “that is guarded (mishmeres) to me,” which is that of chesed. Thus, Hashem is praising Avraham for being so proficient in emulating Hashem’s own mida of chesed. The whole foundation of Hashem’s creation is chesed, and Avraham emulated this trait by doing the greatest possible chesed of giving others the opportunity to get close to Hashem.
The Seforno continues in the same section to address a very difficult problem with this passuk. On two occasions in the Parsha, Hashem blesses Yitzchak, but only in the merit of Avraham. The first is the passuk above. The second is after Yitzchak’s travails with the Plishtim: “I will bless you and increase your offspring because of Avraham my servant.” The Seforno contrasts this with both Avraham and Yaakov who were always blessed in their own merit and not in that of their fathers. He explains that Avraham and Yaakov were both involved in teaching others from early in their lives. Avraham’s exploits are well-known and Seforno writes with certainty that Yaakov taught people who came to the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever. Accordingly, they were blessed in their own merit throughout their lives. In contrast, up to this point, Yitzchak did not call out in the name of Hashem, and consequently did not warrant to be blessed in his own merit. He is blessed in his own merit only after he emulates his father by calling out in the name of Hashem: “He built an altar there, and called in the name of Hashem.” Soon after, Avimelech approaches him to make peace and ends by calling him the “Blessed of Hashem.” It is at this point, the Seforno writes, that Yitzchak is blessed in his own merit.
Rav Elyashiv Shlita comments on the implication of this Seforno. He points out that Yitzchak Avinu was one of the three Avos, that he had been willing to give up his life for Hashem in the Akeida, and that he was so holy that he could never leave Eretz Yisroel. Yet the Torah writes about him as if he has no merit until he calls out in the name of Hashem! Rav Elyashiv writes: “We see from here the incredible merit and reward that one receives for spreading Yiras Hashem to the people.”
The foregoing raises two fundamental questions. First, why does Yitzchak, despite his lofty accomplishments, not achieve the level of being blessed in his own merit until he spreads Hashem’s name. And second, why did Yitzchak refrain from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point?
Rav Chaim Volozhin, zt”l, explains the supremacy of spreading Hashem’s name. He writes that “bracha” means “ribui”, which we translate as “abundance.” Thus, the purpose of bracha is to cause an increase or continuation in something. Based on this, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits, Shlita, explains that a person is only worthy of receiving the bracha of ribui if he himself contributes to causing ribui and continuity in the world by causing others to follow the derech Hashem. Accordingly, despite all his great acts, Yitzchak only received blessing in his own merit when he himself contributed to the increase of people who would follow the derech Hashem.
Why then did Yitzchak refrain from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point? Rav Elyashiv suggests the following explanation. Since Yitzchak’s father Avraham had already spread awareness of Hashem, there was no need for Yitzchak to do so. However, Rav Elyashiv points out, we see the great reward that Yitzchak received for doing so even though his father had already done so.
We learn from here a lesson that is highly relevant in the world today: The fact that there are some people who devote time and effort to spreading Torah does not exempt everyone else from also contributing in some form. A person may argue that since there are people already involved, there is no need for him to do so. The problems with this argument are twofold: Firstly, we see from the Seforno that a person needs to be involved in bringing others close to Hashem for his own benefit and to be worthy of bracha. Secondly, the number of people who are involved in any form of kiruv rechokim - including part-time kiruv, such as learning a few hours a week with a beginner or having secular people for Shabbos - is tremendously low, in comparison to the secular Jews who are leaving Judaism in the millions. The only possible way to stem the tide is if every Jew takes upon himself to devote some amount of time to kiruv.
Indeed a little known fact is that the Gedolim have demanded that every ben-Torah must contribute some of his precious time to being mekarev secular Jews. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, issued a “call to action” to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigor. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no one else, so too must our yeshiva students. … There are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.” Other gedolim have issued similar “calls to action.” In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe, zt”l, exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visiting the homes of secular families and showing them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit.
Great talmiday chachamim have always taken every opportunity to emulate Avraham Avinu’s efforts to bring people close to Hashem. The well-known Maggid Shiur, Rav Mendel Kaplan, zt”l, made great efforts to befriend and teach secular Jews whenever he encountered them. His outreach even extended to children. A non-religious secretary in the yeshivah once brought her nine-year-old son with her to work. When Reb Mendel saw the little boy playing in the hall, he called him over, pointed to a Chumash and asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Sure,” the boy answered, “it’s a Bible.” “No,” answered Reb Mendel, “this is a Chumash.” He then pulled up two chairs and sat with the boy for an hour, teaching him Chumash on a level that the child could understand and appreciate. Later that day someone asked him why he had devoted so much of his precious time to a nine-year-old boy. Answered Reb Mendel, “I hope that I’ve a planted a seed that will grow years from now.” We may think that we cannot have any positive effect on unaffiliated Jews. However, one can never know whether and when the seeds that he plants now may bloom in a seemingly unconnected way many years later. Rav Kaplan was a great talmid chacham who reached great heights in his own Torah learning and general righteousness. However, he recognized that this did not absolve him of his responsibility to look for opportunities to “call in the name of Hashem.”
We learn from the Seforno that even a great tzaddik is not worthy of bracha unless he spreads the awareness of G-d in the world. Rav Elyashiv further teaches us that there is no validity to the argument that others are already doing so is.
May we all be zocheh to play our roles in being vayikra b’shem Hashem.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH
After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential person of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential person of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL -vCHAYEI SARAH
After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction ! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.
We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.
The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!
We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.
Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.
What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.
The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.
We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.
The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!
We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.
Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.
What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.
The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.
CHESED AND CHACHMA - CHAYEI SARAH
Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ her will You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master. ”
The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly .
In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak .
The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.
The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people . The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them .
The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!
Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.
The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly .
In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak .
The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.
The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people . The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them .
The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!
Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.
Friday, October 22, 2010
KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA
One of the most famous episodes in the Parsha is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that HaShem punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that HaShem was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so cruel that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbos (honoring the Shabbos) and Oneg Shabbos (enjoying Shabbos) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed. May we all merit to learn these lessons and help our fellow in the most ideal way possible.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that HaShem punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that HaShem was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so cruel that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbos (honoring the Shabbos) and Oneg Shabbos (enjoying Shabbos) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed. May we all merit to learn these lessons and help our fellow in the most ideal way possible.
Monday, October 18, 2010
UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA
Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .
To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.
Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!
With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.
This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.
These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.
Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.
To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.
Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!
With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.
This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.
These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.
Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.
USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA
VAYEIRA - USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD
The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
Monday, October 11, 2010
A NEW LEVEL OF EXISTENCE - LECH LECHA
“And Hashem said to Avraham, go for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you, And I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you, and make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. ” The first command ever made to the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, was to leave his surroundings and to begin a new nation that would be the Am Hashem. The Ramban writes that everything that happened in the life of the Avos is a portent for the future of Klal Yisroel, and their behavior teaches us how we should conduct our lives. This concept seems to pose a difficulty: How does the command of ’lech lecha’ apply to all of us, Avraham was alone in his belief in G-d, and therefore it was necessary for him to leave everything behind and form a new nation. But nowadays there are many Jews who accept the Torah and who live in observant societies - given this fact it seems that the command of ’lech lecha’ does not really apply to us!
On deeper analysis it is clear that the command of ‘lech lecha’ is still very relevant to all of us. Hashem’s command to Avraham was deeper than simply an instruction to leave his surroundings. We are given a hint to this by Rashi; He explains why Hashem promised Avraham fame, money and descendants as a consequence of leaving Charan. “Because traveling causes three things, less [likelihood of having] children, less [likelihood of acquiring] money and less [likelihood of having] fame. Therefore he needed these three brachos.. children, money and fame. ” The simple understanding of this is that Hashem was compensating Avraham for a course of behavior that would normally cause damage to a person. However, it seems that there is a deeper message implicit in this instruction. Hashem was hinting to him that if he undertook the challenge of ’lech lecha’ then he would no longer be subject to the normal laws of nature (derech hateva), rather he would live according to a whole new mode of existence - ‘ beyond derech hateva’. Consequently, even though traveling should, b’derech hateva cause loss of wealth, fame and children, Avraham would not be subject to that system of cause and effect. Instead he would live on a whole different level of existence and would benefit in all these areas.
This idea is also alluded to by the Medrash Tanchuma quoted by Rashi in the first passuk in the parsha where Hashem promises Avraham that “I will make known your teva in the world. ” Why couldn’t the Medrash have simply stated, “I will make you known in the world”, what is the significance of the word, ‘teva‘ here? We can answer with this yesod; that Hashem was promising Avraham that he would live on a whole new level of teva that was hitherto unknown in the world. Avraham would have the merit to share this new form of existence with the world, teaching them a whole new approach to life. Derech drush it is also possible that this message was alluded to in the very words, “lech lecha.” The gematria of “lecha” is 50; 49 is a multiple of 7 that represents this world, whilst 8 represents beyond this world. 49 also represents this world, as is seen in the 49 levels of tuma and tahara, whilst 50 represents beyond that, as epitomized by the fact that the 50th day after Yetsias Mitzrayim was the day of Matan Torah - the occasion where the world took on a whole new level of supernatural existence. Hashem was telling Avraham, ’go to the level of 50’, a new level of existence, beyond teva.
Hashem promised Avraham that if he would live according to a metaphysical reality then he would no longer be bound by the physical reality of cause and effect that drives teva. Indeed, after Avraham successfully passes this test Hashem reveals to him at the Bris Bein Habesarim that he will live according to a different set of rules: The passuk says that He took Avraham outside, Rashi explains that Hashem was telling him to leave the confines of the mazalos, and live on a new level of existence, and that is how he and Sarah could have children even though their mazal was to never procreate . The Zohar says that this promise would only be fulfilled on condition that Avraham and his descendants be osek in Torah and mitzovs. Keeping Torah and mitzvos is the expression of living beyond derech hateva.
A person who lives according to Torah and mitzvos is, automatically living according to a different set of rules from the rest of the world. For example, in many areas of business, the busiest day is Shabbos; a person who lives according to the normal laws of cause and effect will never give up that day’s business in order to observe Shabbos. Only a person who recognizes that the Torah prescribes a different mode of cause and effect, can confidently close his business on Shabbos with the assurance that his parnasa will not suffer as a consequence. Another example of this is found in the Gemara in Bava Metsia . The Gemara discusses a certain scenario where somebody has lent his friend an item and there is now disagreement as to the value of the item. The Gemara concludes that the borrower must take a shevua to validate his claim, whereas the lender is not required to swear. Why is the borrower required to swear whilst the lender is not? The Gemara answers that the borrower trusts the lender because he is wealthy, and that the cause of his wealth is surely the fact that he is honest and trustworthy, because if this was not the case, then “they would not have given him wealth from shamayim .” It is pashut to the Gemara that honesty is the cause of wealth - if we were to ask the average person what is the cause of wealth, honesty would surely be one of the least likely answers he would suggest! According to derech hateva, honesty is not the key to wealth, indeed, many people believe that dishonesty will provide them with money. But, Klal Yisroel lives according to a completely different mode of existence, where shemiras hamitzvos and exemplary midos are the cause of success.
This has been a pattern throughout history; The Jewish people have always been faced with the challenge of living according to the ‘laws of the goyim’ or the ‘laws of Klal Yisroel’. Unfortunately this has proved a most difficult challenge to overcome. The meraglim, for example, fell prey to the tendency to approach the world according to the laws of nature. When they saw the giant inhabitants of the land they felt that it was impossible to overcome them. Their mistake was that they did not accept that if they trusted in Hashem then He would override all the laws of nature for them just as He did at Yetsias Mitzrayim and Krias Yam Suf. This principle is fundamental to the spiritual level of a Jew. It is possible to strive to observe the Torah and yet live, to some degree, according to the regular laws of teva just like the goyim. A person can easily fall into the trap of believing that the amount of time he works is the main factor in determining his financial situation. Consequently, he may increase his work hours at the expense of his learning schedule or spending precious time with his family . There is a frightening consequence to such conduct. Hashem acts mida ceneged mida with us, if we show that we do not trust in Him, rather we rely on our own efforts, then, Hashem hides Himself and we are left more to the laws of nature. This explains why a common pattern of history has been that when the Jewish people turn away from Hashem, He consequently turns away from us, and as a result we are left unprotected from the wrath of the goyim.
Another area of Avodas Hashem in which this concept applies greatly is a recognition that spiritual , and not physical, factors are the sole cause of success or failure. This attitude was epitomized by our Gedolim. Rav Moshe Aharon Stern, zt”l, Mashgiach of Kamenitz Yeshivah, was once walking behind Rav Elyah Lopian zt”l and Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zt”l; so he hurried to be close enough behind them to hear what these two tzadikkim discuss between themselves. Reb Chatzkel noticed that Reb Elyah had a bandage over one eye and asked him what happened. Reb Elyah responded that he must have looked at something forbidden and it damaged his eye. Inspired by the question and response, Reb Moshe Aharon stepped closer to hear Reb Chatzkel’s response. To his surprise, he did not respond, he simply accepted Reb Elyah’s explanation as a point of fact, not noting anything novel or particularly righteous in Reb Elyah’s explanation. Reb Moshe Aharon explained that Reb Elyah understood that when Reb Chatzkel inquired about his eye, he was not asking about the physical condition of the eye, but the spiritual reason behind the injury. Reb Elyah understood that this was the only point of Reb Chatzkel’s question and responded accordingly . These Gedolim understood that spiritual factors were responsible for the cause-and-effect in their lives, they lived with a deep recognition that a Jew’s reality is not defined by the same laws as those of goyim. We asked how the command of ’lech lecha’ is relevant to us today. The answer is that lech lecha was not merely a command to Avraham to leave his evil surroundings, it was a call for him to live according to a different set of rules, defined by the spiritual world, and his reward would be that Hashem would in turn treat him beyond the regular set of laws that define the physical world. This lesson is very much relevant to all of us. The Sfas Emes asks, why Hashem only said lech lecha to Avraham Avinu and not to the rest of the world. He answers by bringing a Zohar that Hashem says lech lecha to everyone, but only Avraham responded to it. In the world today Hashem says lech lecha - the goyim ignore it but we cannot; and our reward for responding to is that we will rise above the limits of this world.
On deeper analysis it is clear that the command of ‘lech lecha’ is still very relevant to all of us. Hashem’s command to Avraham was deeper than simply an instruction to leave his surroundings. We are given a hint to this by Rashi; He explains why Hashem promised Avraham fame, money and descendants as a consequence of leaving Charan. “Because traveling causes three things, less [likelihood of having] children, less [likelihood of acquiring] money and less [likelihood of having] fame. Therefore he needed these three brachos.. children, money and fame. ” The simple understanding of this is that Hashem was compensating Avraham for a course of behavior that would normally cause damage to a person. However, it seems that there is a deeper message implicit in this instruction. Hashem was hinting to him that if he undertook the challenge of ’lech lecha’ then he would no longer be subject to the normal laws of nature (derech hateva), rather he would live according to a whole new mode of existence - ‘ beyond derech hateva’. Consequently, even though traveling should, b’derech hateva cause loss of wealth, fame and children, Avraham would not be subject to that system of cause and effect. Instead he would live on a whole different level of existence and would benefit in all these areas.
This idea is also alluded to by the Medrash Tanchuma quoted by Rashi in the first passuk in the parsha where Hashem promises Avraham that “I will make known your teva in the world. ” Why couldn’t the Medrash have simply stated, “I will make you known in the world”, what is the significance of the word, ‘teva‘ here? We can answer with this yesod; that Hashem was promising Avraham that he would live on a whole new level of teva that was hitherto unknown in the world. Avraham would have the merit to share this new form of existence with the world, teaching them a whole new approach to life. Derech drush it is also possible that this message was alluded to in the very words, “lech lecha.” The gematria of “lecha” is 50; 49 is a multiple of 7 that represents this world, whilst 8 represents beyond this world. 49 also represents this world, as is seen in the 49 levels of tuma and tahara, whilst 50 represents beyond that, as epitomized by the fact that the 50th day after Yetsias Mitzrayim was the day of Matan Torah - the occasion where the world took on a whole new level of supernatural existence. Hashem was telling Avraham, ’go to the level of 50’, a new level of existence, beyond teva.
Hashem promised Avraham that if he would live according to a metaphysical reality then he would no longer be bound by the physical reality of cause and effect that drives teva. Indeed, after Avraham successfully passes this test Hashem reveals to him at the Bris Bein Habesarim that he will live according to a different set of rules: The passuk says that He took Avraham outside, Rashi explains that Hashem was telling him to leave the confines of the mazalos, and live on a new level of existence, and that is how he and Sarah could have children even though their mazal was to never procreate . The Zohar says that this promise would only be fulfilled on condition that Avraham and his descendants be osek in Torah and mitzovs. Keeping Torah and mitzvos is the expression of living beyond derech hateva.
A person who lives according to Torah and mitzvos is, automatically living according to a different set of rules from the rest of the world. For example, in many areas of business, the busiest day is Shabbos; a person who lives according to the normal laws of cause and effect will never give up that day’s business in order to observe Shabbos. Only a person who recognizes that the Torah prescribes a different mode of cause and effect, can confidently close his business on Shabbos with the assurance that his parnasa will not suffer as a consequence. Another example of this is found in the Gemara in Bava Metsia . The Gemara discusses a certain scenario where somebody has lent his friend an item and there is now disagreement as to the value of the item. The Gemara concludes that the borrower must take a shevua to validate his claim, whereas the lender is not required to swear. Why is the borrower required to swear whilst the lender is not? The Gemara answers that the borrower trusts the lender because he is wealthy, and that the cause of his wealth is surely the fact that he is honest and trustworthy, because if this was not the case, then “they would not have given him wealth from shamayim .” It is pashut to the Gemara that honesty is the cause of wealth - if we were to ask the average person what is the cause of wealth, honesty would surely be one of the least likely answers he would suggest! According to derech hateva, honesty is not the key to wealth, indeed, many people believe that dishonesty will provide them with money. But, Klal Yisroel lives according to a completely different mode of existence, where shemiras hamitzvos and exemplary midos are the cause of success.
This has been a pattern throughout history; The Jewish people have always been faced with the challenge of living according to the ‘laws of the goyim’ or the ‘laws of Klal Yisroel’. Unfortunately this has proved a most difficult challenge to overcome. The meraglim, for example, fell prey to the tendency to approach the world according to the laws of nature. When they saw the giant inhabitants of the land they felt that it was impossible to overcome them. Their mistake was that they did not accept that if they trusted in Hashem then He would override all the laws of nature for them just as He did at Yetsias Mitzrayim and Krias Yam Suf. This principle is fundamental to the spiritual level of a Jew. It is possible to strive to observe the Torah and yet live, to some degree, according to the regular laws of teva just like the goyim. A person can easily fall into the trap of believing that the amount of time he works is the main factor in determining his financial situation. Consequently, he may increase his work hours at the expense of his learning schedule or spending precious time with his family . There is a frightening consequence to such conduct. Hashem acts mida ceneged mida with us, if we show that we do not trust in Him, rather we rely on our own efforts, then, Hashem hides Himself and we are left more to the laws of nature. This explains why a common pattern of history has been that when the Jewish people turn away from Hashem, He consequently turns away from us, and as a result we are left unprotected from the wrath of the goyim.
Another area of Avodas Hashem in which this concept applies greatly is a recognition that spiritual , and not physical, factors are the sole cause of success or failure. This attitude was epitomized by our Gedolim. Rav Moshe Aharon Stern, zt”l, Mashgiach of Kamenitz Yeshivah, was once walking behind Rav Elyah Lopian zt”l and Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zt”l; so he hurried to be close enough behind them to hear what these two tzadikkim discuss between themselves. Reb Chatzkel noticed that Reb Elyah had a bandage over one eye and asked him what happened. Reb Elyah responded that he must have looked at something forbidden and it damaged his eye. Inspired by the question and response, Reb Moshe Aharon stepped closer to hear Reb Chatzkel’s response. To his surprise, he did not respond, he simply accepted Reb Elyah’s explanation as a point of fact, not noting anything novel or particularly righteous in Reb Elyah’s explanation. Reb Moshe Aharon explained that Reb Elyah understood that when Reb Chatzkel inquired about his eye, he was not asking about the physical condition of the eye, but the spiritual reason behind the injury. Reb Elyah understood that this was the only point of Reb Chatzkel’s question and responded accordingly . These Gedolim understood that spiritual factors were responsible for the cause-and-effect in their lives, they lived with a deep recognition that a Jew’s reality is not defined by the same laws as those of goyim. We asked how the command of ’lech lecha’ is relevant to us today. The answer is that lech lecha was not merely a command to Avraham to leave his evil surroundings, it was a call for him to live according to a different set of rules, defined by the spiritual world, and his reward would be that Hashem would in turn treat him beyond the regular set of laws that define the physical world. This lesson is very much relevant to all of us. The Sfas Emes asks, why Hashem only said lech lecha to Avraham Avinu and not to the rest of the world. He answers by bringing a Zohar that Hashem says lech lecha to everyone, but only Avraham responded to it. In the world today Hashem says lech lecha - the goyim ignore it but we cannot; and our reward for responding to is that we will rise above the limits of this world.
AVRAHAM’S SECOND TEST - LECH LECHA
“There was a famine in the land, and Abram descended to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. ”
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Avraham Avinu to uproot his whole life, leave his nation, society, and family, and go on a journey to an unknown destination. Soon after passing this test and traveling to Eretz Yisroel, Avraham endures a terrible famine and is forced to leave for Eretz Mitzrayim. Chazal and the Rishonim write that this famine constituted one of the ten tests that Avraham had to pass in order to achieve his full potential . What was the exact nature of the test? Rashi says, “in order to test him if he would question the words of HaKadosh Baruch Hu - Hashem told him to go to the land of Canaan and now He caused him to leave! ”
According to Rashi the main aspect of the test was not the challenge of having no food, but that Avraham was unable to fulfill Hashem’s instructions of ’lech lecha’. Hashem had told him to go to the land of Eretz Yisroel and there he would be able to fulfill his spiritual potential, and yet he was immediately met with a tremendous obstacle which forced him to take a course of action which seemed to contradict the whole tachlis of his mission. He believed that his task was to be in Eretz Yisroel and yet he was forced to leave as soon as he arrived there! He could have wondered why he was forced to seemingly abandon his spiritual journey but he did not become frustrated and did not question Hashem in any way. He recognized that he did not truly understand how his journey of ‘lech lecha’ should proceed - that was in Hashem’s hands. He could only do his hishtadlus and accept that anything beyond his control was from Hashem and there was no need to be discouraged. He knew that the famine came from Hashem and that Hashem must have some reasoning behind the plan. Indeed, in hindsight, the events that took place there and the challenges that he faced, do seem to have had many benefits .
The Ramban writes that all the experiences of the Avos are a simun for his descendants. We also face the challenges that he faced and the way that he dealt with those challenges will give us the ability to withstand them in our own lives. Accordingly, the test of the famine is very relevant to all our lives. A person may embark on a spiritual journey based on his understanding of Ratson Hashem. This may involve a major life change such as moving country, or changing ones career, getting married, having children or even a smaller commitment to spiritual growth in learning or mitzvos. Regardless of the form that the ‘journey’ takes, a person will likely have his expectations of the challenges that he will face and how he needs to overcome them. However, very often, he will be met with unforeseen difficulties or obstacles that seem to contradict his whole plan. At that point, there will be a strong inclination to become frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he desires.
What is the reason that a person becomes frustrated when his efforts to grow do not work out as he planned? He feels that he knows what would be the ideal way for him to reach his potential - by taking this course of action he will become a better person. Therefore, when he is placed in a situation where his planned course of action his impossible, he feels frustrated because it prevents him from attaining his goal. The mistake he is making is that he feels he knows how he will best reach his potential. Instead he should recognize that only Hashem knows what circumstances a person should face in his life and that whatever obstacles he faces are only there for his growth. He may have thought that such an obstacle was not ideal for his growth, however, evidently Hashem knew otherwise.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita gives a common example of this kind of nisayon. A yeshiva bachur or Avreich hopes to begin a new ’zman’ of learning free of outside disturbances that will adversely effect his ability to learn. Talmud Torah is the ultimate way of connecting to Hashem and growing as a person and therefore he hopes he will be able to invest all his energies into the learning. However, on occasion, it may occur that unavoidable distractions do arise, such as the need to attend a family wedding abroad, or health issues. At this point, the person may feel frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he wants to - he may see these disturbances as nuisances that prevent him from connecting to Hashem. The mistake being made here is that he thinks he knows the best way for him to grow and that annoying distractions are preventing him from doing so. Instead, he should learn from Avraham Avinu and recognize that these ‘nuisances’ emanate from Hashem and evidently they offer the exact challenge that he needs at this moment. Then he can avoid the harmful attitude of frustration and focus on facing this challenge with simcha and bitachon.
Avraham Avinu’s tests teach vital lessons that apply to our everyday life. May we all be zocheh to emulate his behavior in reacting to challenges.
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Avraham Avinu to uproot his whole life, leave his nation, society, and family, and go on a journey to an unknown destination. Soon after passing this test and traveling to Eretz Yisroel, Avraham endures a terrible famine and is forced to leave for Eretz Mitzrayim. Chazal and the Rishonim write that this famine constituted one of the ten tests that Avraham had to pass in order to achieve his full potential . What was the exact nature of the test? Rashi says, “in order to test him if he would question the words of HaKadosh Baruch Hu - Hashem told him to go to the land of Canaan and now He caused him to leave! ”
According to Rashi the main aspect of the test was not the challenge of having no food, but that Avraham was unable to fulfill Hashem’s instructions of ’lech lecha’. Hashem had told him to go to the land of Eretz Yisroel and there he would be able to fulfill his spiritual potential, and yet he was immediately met with a tremendous obstacle which forced him to take a course of action which seemed to contradict the whole tachlis of his mission. He believed that his task was to be in Eretz Yisroel and yet he was forced to leave as soon as he arrived there! He could have wondered why he was forced to seemingly abandon his spiritual journey but he did not become frustrated and did not question Hashem in any way. He recognized that he did not truly understand how his journey of ‘lech lecha’ should proceed - that was in Hashem’s hands. He could only do his hishtadlus and accept that anything beyond his control was from Hashem and there was no need to be discouraged. He knew that the famine came from Hashem and that Hashem must have some reasoning behind the plan. Indeed, in hindsight, the events that took place there and the challenges that he faced, do seem to have had many benefits .
The Ramban writes that all the experiences of the Avos are a simun for his descendants. We also face the challenges that he faced and the way that he dealt with those challenges will give us the ability to withstand them in our own lives. Accordingly, the test of the famine is very relevant to all our lives. A person may embark on a spiritual journey based on his understanding of Ratson Hashem. This may involve a major life change such as moving country, or changing ones career, getting married, having children or even a smaller commitment to spiritual growth in learning or mitzvos. Regardless of the form that the ‘journey’ takes, a person will likely have his expectations of the challenges that he will face and how he needs to overcome them. However, very often, he will be met with unforeseen difficulties or obstacles that seem to contradict his whole plan. At that point, there will be a strong inclination to become frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he desires.
What is the reason that a person becomes frustrated when his efforts to grow do not work out as he planned? He feels that he knows what would be the ideal way for him to reach his potential - by taking this course of action he will become a better person. Therefore, when he is placed in a situation where his planned course of action his impossible, he feels frustrated because it prevents him from attaining his goal. The mistake he is making is that he feels he knows how he will best reach his potential. Instead he should recognize that only Hashem knows what circumstances a person should face in his life and that whatever obstacles he faces are only there for his growth. He may have thought that such an obstacle was not ideal for his growth, however, evidently Hashem knew otherwise.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita gives a common example of this kind of nisayon. A yeshiva bachur or Avreich hopes to begin a new ’zman’ of learning free of outside disturbances that will adversely effect his ability to learn. Talmud Torah is the ultimate way of connecting to Hashem and growing as a person and therefore he hopes he will be able to invest all his energies into the learning. However, on occasion, it may occur that unavoidable distractions do arise, such as the need to attend a family wedding abroad, or health issues. At this point, the person may feel frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he wants to - he may see these disturbances as nuisances that prevent him from connecting to Hashem. The mistake being made here is that he thinks he knows the best way for him to grow and that annoying distractions are preventing him from doing so. Instead, he should learn from Avraham Avinu and recognize that these ‘nuisances’ emanate from Hashem and evidently they offer the exact challenge that he needs at this moment. Then he can avoid the harmful attitude of frustration and focus on facing this challenge with simcha and bitachon.
Avraham Avinu’s tests teach vital lessons that apply to our everyday life. May we all be zocheh to emulate his behavior in reacting to challenges.
LECH LECHA - BRIS MILA
The Parsha ends with the command for Avraham to perform bris mila. The Sefer Hachinuch notes a unique aspect of this mitzvo. There are a significant number of negative mitzvos for which transgression incurs the onesh (punishment) of kares. However, there are only two positive mitzvos for which the punishment is kares for one who fails to observe them; bris Mila and Korban Pesach (known as the Pascal lamb), the offering that is given in Temple times on the festival of Pesach. What is the significance of these two mitzvos that makes them unique in this aspect?
In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to explain why negative mitzvos are more associated with kares than positive mitzvos. In a relationship between two people such as marriage, there are certain actions that can damage the relationship but not cause it to be completely destroyed. However, there are things that are so serious that they could indeed end the relationship. Similarly, committing a sin causes a breach in the relationship between a person and HaShem. The significance of the breach is determined by the seriousness of the sin. There are some sins which damage the relationship to such a degree that they cause irrevocable harm. These often incur the onesh of kares.
In contrast, neglecting to perform a positive mitzvo can damage a relationship in that it prevents possible ways of increasing one's closeness to HaShem. However, it is very difficult to envisage how a lack of positive actions can irrevocably damage one's relationship with HaShem. This explains why failure to carry out most positive mitzvos does not incur kares. What makes bris mila and korban Pesach different? In order to begin a marriage a person must undertake a commitment to join in unity with his wife. Without such a commitment there is no genuine relationship - one can do all kinds of nice deeds but, in the Torah's eyes, they are not married until they perform the wedding ceremony prescribed by the Torah. In a similar way, a person needs to make a commitment to HaShem to undertake his relationship with HaShem. Without such a commitment he cannot begin to have a true relationship. Bris mila and korban Pesach are both types of covenants with HaShem, whereby a Jew commits to keeping the Torah.
This connection is demonstrated by a verse in Yechezkel. The Prophet reminds the Jewish people of the time that they were helpless slaves in Egypt, and how HaShem brought them out. He does this through an analogy of a stranded baby being saved. The verse states "And I passed over you and I saw you covered in blood, and I said to you, "by your blood you shall live, by your blood you shall live." The Rabbis explain that these two mentions of blood, refer to the blood of bris mila and korban Pesach. Through the merit of these two mitzvos, the Jews were redeemed from slavery and brought to Sinai to receive the Torah. It seems that it is no coincidence that it was these two mitzvos that HaShem commanded the people to perform. They represented the people's willingness to commit to becoming the Am HaShem .
Another connection between these two mitzvos is that there are two occasions when Eliyahu HaNavi visits the Jewish people; at a bris mila and on Seder night, the night when we remember the korban Pesach. This is because Eliyahu, exasperated at the Jewish people's continued sinning, declared that there was no hope for them. In response, HaShem ordered him to visit every bris mila which would show that, no matter how much the people may sin they still keep the covenant between them and HaShem. Similarly, Eliyahu comes at Seder night, to see the Jewish people celebrate their birth as a nation.
The question remains, why is it necessary for there to be two mitzvos that involve the basic commitment to doing HaShem's will, why wouldn't it be sufficient for one mitzvo to fulfill this role? The answer is that the two mitzvos represent different aspects of a commitment. Bris mila was first commanded to a single individual, Avraham Avinu, to form his the covenant with HaShem. Thus, bris mila represents a person's commitment to his individual relationship with HaShem and all that entails. The korban Pesach represents our commitment to HaShem as part of the Jewish people. The laws of the korban Pesach emphasize the importance of fulfilling the mitzvo in groups, stressing the national aspect of the mitzvo. Accordingly, it is necessary to have two forms of covenants; one between the individual and HaShem, and one between a person as a member of the Jewish people, and HaShem.
This understanding can help us explain an unusual law pertaining to the korban Pesach. It is forbidden for an uncircumcised Jew to participate in the korban Pesach. Why is this the case - the fact that a person does not keep one mitzvo, in no way exempts him from keeping the other mitzvos! The answer is that a person cannot genuinely commit to HaShem as part of a nation when has had made no such commitment on an individual basis.
This teaches us an essential lesson. Many people identify strongly as Jews, and as part of the Jewish people. They commit to the state of Israel, and would willingly give up time and effort, and perhaps even risk their lives, for the Jewish people. They stand up to defend Israel when it comes under verbal attack from the numerous anti-Semitic forces in the world. However, on an individual basis, there is far less commitment. One may identify as being part of the Jewish nation, but he must also strive to commit to his individual relationship with HaShem. The exact way in which to apply this lesson varies according to each person, however, in a general sense, it seems that everyone should see in what way he can increase his personal commitment to his relationship with HaShem. It could involve speaking to HaShem , learning more of His Torah, striving to keep more aspects of Shabbos or kosher food, and so on. The main point is to try something. It is vital to remember that HaShem WANTS a relationship with each and every individual, in his own right. May we all merit to strengthen our covenant with Hashem.
In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to explain why negative mitzvos are more associated with kares than positive mitzvos. In a relationship between two people such as marriage, there are certain actions that can damage the relationship but not cause it to be completely destroyed. However, there are things that are so serious that they could indeed end the relationship. Similarly, committing a sin causes a breach in the relationship between a person and HaShem. The significance of the breach is determined by the seriousness of the sin. There are some sins which damage the relationship to such a degree that they cause irrevocable harm. These often incur the onesh of kares.
In contrast, neglecting to perform a positive mitzvo can damage a relationship in that it prevents possible ways of increasing one's closeness to HaShem. However, it is very difficult to envisage how a lack of positive actions can irrevocably damage one's relationship with HaShem. This explains why failure to carry out most positive mitzvos does not incur kares. What makes bris mila and korban Pesach different? In order to begin a marriage a person must undertake a commitment to join in unity with his wife. Without such a commitment there is no genuine relationship - one can do all kinds of nice deeds but, in the Torah's eyes, they are not married until they perform the wedding ceremony prescribed by the Torah. In a similar way, a person needs to make a commitment to HaShem to undertake his relationship with HaShem. Without such a commitment he cannot begin to have a true relationship. Bris mila and korban Pesach are both types of covenants with HaShem, whereby a Jew commits to keeping the Torah.
This connection is demonstrated by a verse in Yechezkel. The Prophet reminds the Jewish people of the time that they were helpless slaves in Egypt, and how HaShem brought them out. He does this through an analogy of a stranded baby being saved. The verse states "And I passed over you and I saw you covered in blood, and I said to you, "by your blood you shall live, by your blood you shall live." The Rabbis explain that these two mentions of blood, refer to the blood of bris mila and korban Pesach. Through the merit of these two mitzvos, the Jews were redeemed from slavery and brought to Sinai to receive the Torah. It seems that it is no coincidence that it was these two mitzvos that HaShem commanded the people to perform. They represented the people's willingness to commit to becoming the Am HaShem .
Another connection between these two mitzvos is that there are two occasions when Eliyahu HaNavi visits the Jewish people; at a bris mila and on Seder night, the night when we remember the korban Pesach. This is because Eliyahu, exasperated at the Jewish people's continued sinning, declared that there was no hope for them. In response, HaShem ordered him to visit every bris mila which would show that, no matter how much the people may sin they still keep the covenant between them and HaShem. Similarly, Eliyahu comes at Seder night, to see the Jewish people celebrate their birth as a nation.
The question remains, why is it necessary for there to be two mitzvos that involve the basic commitment to doing HaShem's will, why wouldn't it be sufficient for one mitzvo to fulfill this role? The answer is that the two mitzvos represent different aspects of a commitment. Bris mila was first commanded to a single individual, Avraham Avinu, to form his the covenant with HaShem. Thus, bris mila represents a person's commitment to his individual relationship with HaShem and all that entails. The korban Pesach represents our commitment to HaShem as part of the Jewish people. The laws of the korban Pesach emphasize the importance of fulfilling the mitzvo in groups, stressing the national aspect of the mitzvo. Accordingly, it is necessary to have two forms of covenants; one between the individual and HaShem, and one between a person as a member of the Jewish people, and HaShem.
This understanding can help us explain an unusual law pertaining to the korban Pesach. It is forbidden for an uncircumcised Jew to participate in the korban Pesach. Why is this the case - the fact that a person does not keep one mitzvo, in no way exempts him from keeping the other mitzvos! The answer is that a person cannot genuinely commit to HaShem as part of a nation when has had made no such commitment on an individual basis.
This teaches us an essential lesson. Many people identify strongly as Jews, and as part of the Jewish people. They commit to the state of Israel, and would willingly give up time and effort, and perhaps even risk their lives, for the Jewish people. They stand up to defend Israel when it comes under verbal attack from the numerous anti-Semitic forces in the world. However, on an individual basis, there is far less commitment. One may identify as being part of the Jewish nation, but he must also strive to commit to his individual relationship with HaShem. The exact way in which to apply this lesson varies according to each person, however, in a general sense, it seems that everyone should see in what way he can increase his personal commitment to his relationship with HaShem. It could involve speaking to HaShem , learning more of His Torah, striving to keep more aspects of Shabbos or kosher food, and so on. The main point is to try something. It is vital to remember that HaShem WANTS a relationship with each and every individual, in his own right. May we all merit to strengthen our covenant with Hashem.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH
The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was totally insincere in his beliefs. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was totally insincere in his beliefs. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
ESCAPE OR REBUILD? - NOACH
“And Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. ” When the flood had ended and Noach returned to the earth, he faced the daunting task of starting the world anew. He began by planting a vineyard which had terrible consequences. Chazal strongly criticize Noach’s decision to first plant a vineyard. Wine can cause man great simcha and can help him to feel closer to Hashem, however Noach should have begun planting something that was more immediately necessary for the rebuilding of the world .
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it had damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced an incredibly great nisayon. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rimmediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnez checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnez. He faced more than one churban. One, the Holocuast, was physical in nature, and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem, in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Flood or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel is met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and say ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own individual churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer fromterrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.
This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it had damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.
About sixty years ago, many people faced an incredibly great nisayon. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rimmediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnez checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnez. He faced more than one churban. One, the Holocuast, was physical in nature, and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.
Baruch Hashem, in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Flood or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel is met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and say ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.
On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own individual churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer fromterrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.
Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
