Parshas Tazria discusses one of the most well-known and observed mitzvos is that of bris mila (circumcision). It stresses that the Mila must take place on the eight day, and the Gemara learns out that this is the case even if the eight day falls on Shabbos one must perform the Mila even though it involves one of the Melachos (creative activites) that are usually prohibited on Shabbos. What is the significance of having the bris on the eight day in particular?
In order to answer this question it is instructive to analyze the significance of certain numbers in Jewish thought. The world was created in six days, and on the seventh day, HaShem 'rested', thereby creating the concept of Shabbos, the day that we refrain from physical creation and focus on more spiritual pursuits. Accordingly, the number 'six' symbolizes the physical world, whereas seven represents the infusion of spirituality into the physical world. On Shabbos we strive to elevate physicality through using the physical world leshem shamayim (for the sake of Heaven). Thus, there is an emphasis on eating good food, and dressing nicely, but not for selfish reasons, rather to use the physical world as a kli (tool) for connecting to HaShem. The number, 'eight' symbolizes spirituality that is beyond this world, going beyond the laws of nature. Removing part of our body represents elevating ourselves beyond our natural physical drives. Some commentaries write that one of the reasons for bris mila is that it weakens man's natural physical lusts (see Moreh Nevuchim, Rabbeinu Bachaye). In this vein, bris mila represents a Jew's disassociating himself from the regular laws of olam hazeh (this world), and clinging to a completely different level of existence.
The idea that bris mila represents transcending olam hazeh is seen in the Torah's account of HaShem's command to Avraham Avinu with regard to this mitzvo. HaShem tells Avraham, "walk before me and be complete." Rashi explains that Hashem was instructing Avraham to perform bris mila and thereby attain completion. Immediately after this, HaShem tells Avraham that He is changing his name, which up till that point, was Avram, to Avraham. HaShem was taking Avraham to a whole new level of existence, and bringing him out of the limits of mazal which had thus far prevented him from having children. It seems clear from the pessukim that this promise and the promise of an eternal bris between HaShem and Avraham's descendants were dependent upon Avraham making his own covenant with HaShem, that of bris mila. Thus, we see that bris mila is intrinsically connected to the fact that the Jewish people live on a whole different plane of existence.
Rav Dessler zt"l applies this explanation of the difference between '7' and '8' to clarify a difficult Yalkut. The Yalkut tells us: "Shabbos and mila argue with each other. Shabbos says, 'I am greater than you' and mila says, 'I am greater than you'... from the fact that mila overrides Shabbos , we know that mila is greater than Shabbos." Rav Dessler explains that there are two ways in which a person can go about his avodas HaShem. One is to be involved in the physical world and elevating it for the sake of Heaven. There are numerous mitzvos that fit this category, for example, giving tzedoko (charity) is a way of using one's money to connect to HaShem, and as we mentioned above, Shabbos is the primary example of elevating physicality. The second way of growing in spirituality is by removing oneself from physicality, and thereby separating from his natural taivas (desires). Mila represents this form of avodas Hashem.
Rav Dessler points out that there is a great danger in the first type of spirituality where one tries to elevate gashmius (physicality) in that a person can easily fall into the trap of thinking he is elevating the physical world, however, in truth, he is really being pulled after his physical desires and the yetser hara is tricking him into thinking that he is doing it leshem shamayim. The second form of spirituality of removing oneself from gashmius does not pose this threat because one avoids the risks of being trapped. Rav Dessler writes further, that the only way that a person can be sure that he can use the physical world in the correct way is by also somewhat removing himself from it for a time.
With this understanding, Rav Dessler explains the meaning of the Yalkut. Shabbos represents the form of avodas Hashem where one uses the gashmius for spiritual purposes, whereas mila represents serving HaShem by weakening one's attachment to the physical world. Mila 'overrides' Shabbos in that it avoids the risks of being trapped by the yetser hara into becoming overly attached to the phsyical world whilst performing seemingly spiritual activities.
We have seen that bris mila represents separation from the physical world as a way of becoming closer to HaShem, and how this form of avodas Hashem is essential to one's spiritual growth. In this vein, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita points out that despite the stress on being involved with the physical world for spiritual reasons, the main way of achieving greatness is through involvement in purely spiritual endeavors. The great Torah Sages did not become great through eating leshem shamayim all the time. They became great by developing an overriding interest in spirituality and a disinterest in the physical world. Numerous stories are told of how unimportant food to Gedolim such as the Chazon Ish zt"l and Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l. May we merit to emulate them and learn from the mtizvo of bris mila to focus on learning, davenning, and growth, as the main ways of becoming great.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
PURIYING OUR SPEECH - TAZRIA-METSORA
The Parshios of Tazria and Metsora discuss in length the spiritual malaise of tzoraas whereby a person is afflicted with white blotches on his skin. He must then experience a period of isolation and finally undergo a process of purification. Chazal tell us that this affliction comes about because of a person's sins, in particular that of lashon hara (negative speech) . The process that the metsora must undergo is intended to demonstrate to him the destructiveness of his sin and teach him how to improve himself in the future so that he avoid sinning in such a way again.
It seems that there are two lessons in particular that one who speaks lashon hara is taught during the period of his tzoraas: Firstly, Chazal tell us, "he caused separation between man and his friend [through his lashon hara] and therefore the Torah said that he must sit alone. " Speaking negatively about others inevitably causes friendships to break apart and people to distance themselves from each other. Therefore, measure for measure, one who speaks lashon hara is forced to live alone for a period of time, separated from others. This teaches him the pain that he causes by breaking up relationships. Secondly, the blotches themselves act as a potent demonstration of the damage that one who speaks lashon hara does to his neshama (soul). Tzoraas is not a regular physical illness, rather it is the physical manifestation of a spiritual malaise that offers indisputable evidence to the sinner that he has greatly damaged himself in a spiritual sense and is in desperate need of spiritual improvement .
Nowadays there is no tzoraas, and superficially this may seem like a good thing. However, the commentaries point out the exact opposite; tzoraas was a chessed (kindness) of Hashem in that He communicated very clearly to the sinner of his transgression and the need to do teshuva. Without this gift, it is immeasurably more difficult for a person to recognize when he has sinned. And yet, it is very clear that the sin of lashon hara remains as one of the most difficult to avoid. Indeed the Gemara writes that whilst a minority of people stumble in arayos , and a majority stumble in certain forms of theft; "everyone [stumbles] in avak lashon hara. " Given the apparently widespread transgression of lashon hara, what replacement is there for tzoraas - how can a person recognize the spiritual damage one causes himself when he speaks lashon hara and the extent of the damage that negative words can have on other people?
Rav Alexander Moshe Lapidus in his sefer, Divrei Emes answers this question . He notes that a person who had tzoraas had to go to a Kohen who would guide him through the process of teshuva. Now, there remains a Kohen who continually guides us how to rectify the sin of lashon hara - that is the Chofetz Chaim zt"l, whose sefarim on this topic are the ultimate authorities in the laws and Torah outlook about guarding ones speech. They teach a person about the damage he causes other when he speaks lashon hara and they show at length the harm that one who speaks lashon hara does to himself. The Chofetz Chaim himself writes in the name of the Maharsha, that when the Gemara says, everyone sins in avak lashon hara, it refers to everyone who does not make a conscious effort to improve his speech . However, if a person learns the laws and outlook about guarding one's speech then he will be able to avoid this pernicious sin. Whilst nobody in this generation is afflicted with tzoraas, it is apparent that everyone who does not work on himself in this area will inevitably speak at least avak lashon hara. Thus, the insight of the Divrei Emes teaches us that it is incumbent upon everyone to learn about the laws of lashon hara from the Chofetz Chaim.
One still may ask, why is it necessary to learn the laws of lashon hara, wouldn't it be sufficient to learn mussar about the damage it does, and thereby one would develop enough yiras Hashem (fear of Hashem) to avoid speaking lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this issue in his introduction to his mussar sefer, Shemiras Halashon. He writes that it is not sufficient to learn this work alone, rather one has to also learn his halacho sefer, Chofetz Chaim: "What is the benefit of all the mussar in the world that speaks of the severity of the prohibitions of lashon hara and rechillus , since he has permitted himself saying that this thing is not included in lashon hara, or that the Torah did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about this kind of person, therefore one must know which things do fall in the category of lashon hara. " Thus, the Chofetz Chaim teaches us that without knowing the laws of lashon hara a person will inevitably stumble because he is not aware what constitutes forbidden speech.
A second reason for the importance of learning the laws of lashon hara can be derived from a teaching of Rav Yisroel Salanter: He taught that learning about a particular area of halacho is an excellent way of developing an awareness of ever stumbling in that specific area. Accordingly, when he would find himself in a situation that could potentially lead to transgression of yichud he would immerse himself in learning about it, thus ensuring that he would maintain constant vigilance in this area. In a similar vein, one Rav who taught beginners the laws and hashkafa of Shabbos, noted that far more people began keeping Shabbos as a result of his halacho classes than from those in hashkafa. He explained that when a person is learning about the laws of a melacha , it is far more difficult for him to blatantly transgress that very melacha on the following Shabbos. Similarly when a person is constantly learning the laws of lashon hara he is far more likely to be able to maintain awareness of his speech and ensure that he speaks no forbidden words.
Based on the constant test of speaking lashon hara and the Gemara's assertion that no one is free from this sin, it seems that the only way to improve in this area is through constant study of the laws and hashkafa of shemiras halashon (guarding ones speech). Accordingly, many Gedolim signed a document urging everyone to set aside a time to learn both Sefer Chofetz Chaim and Sefer Shemiras Halashon. Moreover, they instructed every institution head to try to include classes about guarding ones speech in the regular learning schedule . In this vein, the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt"l developed a daily calendar for learning these two sefarim, and shortly before his passing, he asked the Chofetz Chaim foundation to produce the sefer, 'A Lesson a Day' which constitutes a short daily section on halacho and hashkafa . These Gedolim recognized that constant learning about shemiras halashon was the only way to ensure avoiding transgressing the severe prohibition of lashon hara.
In earlier times, one who spoke lashon hare was inflicted with tzoraas and guided by the Kohen in his teshuva process. Now, a person is not blessed with such a clear message, and therefore, and he must turn to the words of the great Kohen, the Chofetz Chaim to guide himself how to improve his speech through constantly learning his great sefarim. May we all be blessed with the ability to avoid all forms of negative speech.
It seems that there are two lessons in particular that one who speaks lashon hara is taught during the period of his tzoraas: Firstly, Chazal tell us, "he caused separation between man and his friend [through his lashon hara] and therefore the Torah said that he must sit alone. " Speaking negatively about others inevitably causes friendships to break apart and people to distance themselves from each other. Therefore, measure for measure, one who speaks lashon hara is forced to live alone for a period of time, separated from others. This teaches him the pain that he causes by breaking up relationships. Secondly, the blotches themselves act as a potent demonstration of the damage that one who speaks lashon hara does to his neshama (soul). Tzoraas is not a regular physical illness, rather it is the physical manifestation of a spiritual malaise that offers indisputable evidence to the sinner that he has greatly damaged himself in a spiritual sense and is in desperate need of spiritual improvement .
Nowadays there is no tzoraas, and superficially this may seem like a good thing. However, the commentaries point out the exact opposite; tzoraas was a chessed (kindness) of Hashem in that He communicated very clearly to the sinner of his transgression and the need to do teshuva. Without this gift, it is immeasurably more difficult for a person to recognize when he has sinned. And yet, it is very clear that the sin of lashon hara remains as one of the most difficult to avoid. Indeed the Gemara writes that whilst a minority of people stumble in arayos , and a majority stumble in certain forms of theft; "everyone [stumbles] in avak lashon hara. " Given the apparently widespread transgression of lashon hara, what replacement is there for tzoraas - how can a person recognize the spiritual damage one causes himself when he speaks lashon hara and the extent of the damage that negative words can have on other people?
Rav Alexander Moshe Lapidus in his sefer, Divrei Emes answers this question . He notes that a person who had tzoraas had to go to a Kohen who would guide him through the process of teshuva. Now, there remains a Kohen who continually guides us how to rectify the sin of lashon hara - that is the Chofetz Chaim zt"l, whose sefarim on this topic are the ultimate authorities in the laws and Torah outlook about guarding ones speech. They teach a person about the damage he causes other when he speaks lashon hara and they show at length the harm that one who speaks lashon hara does to himself. The Chofetz Chaim himself writes in the name of the Maharsha, that when the Gemara says, everyone sins in avak lashon hara, it refers to everyone who does not make a conscious effort to improve his speech . However, if a person learns the laws and outlook about guarding one's speech then he will be able to avoid this pernicious sin. Whilst nobody in this generation is afflicted with tzoraas, it is apparent that everyone who does not work on himself in this area will inevitably speak at least avak lashon hara. Thus, the insight of the Divrei Emes teaches us that it is incumbent upon everyone to learn about the laws of lashon hara from the Chofetz Chaim.
One still may ask, why is it necessary to learn the laws of lashon hara, wouldn't it be sufficient to learn mussar about the damage it does, and thereby one would develop enough yiras Hashem (fear of Hashem) to avoid speaking lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this issue in his introduction to his mussar sefer, Shemiras Halashon. He writes that it is not sufficient to learn this work alone, rather one has to also learn his halacho sefer, Chofetz Chaim: "What is the benefit of all the mussar in the world that speaks of the severity of the prohibitions of lashon hara and rechillus , since he has permitted himself saying that this thing is not included in lashon hara, or that the Torah did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about this kind of person, therefore one must know which things do fall in the category of lashon hara. " Thus, the Chofetz Chaim teaches us that without knowing the laws of lashon hara a person will inevitably stumble because he is not aware what constitutes forbidden speech.
A second reason for the importance of learning the laws of lashon hara can be derived from a teaching of Rav Yisroel Salanter: He taught that learning about a particular area of halacho is an excellent way of developing an awareness of ever stumbling in that specific area. Accordingly, when he would find himself in a situation that could potentially lead to transgression of yichud he would immerse himself in learning about it, thus ensuring that he would maintain constant vigilance in this area. In a similar vein, one Rav who taught beginners the laws and hashkafa of Shabbos, noted that far more people began keeping Shabbos as a result of his halacho classes than from those in hashkafa. He explained that when a person is learning about the laws of a melacha , it is far more difficult for him to blatantly transgress that very melacha on the following Shabbos. Similarly when a person is constantly learning the laws of lashon hara he is far more likely to be able to maintain awareness of his speech and ensure that he speaks no forbidden words.
Based on the constant test of speaking lashon hara and the Gemara's assertion that no one is free from this sin, it seems that the only way to improve in this area is through constant study of the laws and hashkafa of shemiras halashon (guarding ones speech). Accordingly, many Gedolim signed a document urging everyone to set aside a time to learn both Sefer Chofetz Chaim and Sefer Shemiras Halashon. Moreover, they instructed every institution head to try to include classes about guarding ones speech in the regular learning schedule . In this vein, the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt"l developed a daily calendar for learning these two sefarim, and shortly before his passing, he asked the Chofetz Chaim foundation to produce the sefer, 'A Lesson a Day' which constitutes a short daily section on halacho and hashkafa . These Gedolim recognized that constant learning about shemiras halashon was the only way to ensure avoiding transgressing the severe prohibition of lashon hara.
In earlier times, one who spoke lashon hare was inflicted with tzoraas and guided by the Kohen in his teshuva process. Now, a person is not blessed with such a clear message, and therefore, and he must turn to the words of the great Kohen, the Chofetz Chaim to guide himself how to improve his speech through constantly learning his great sefarim. May we all be blessed with the ability to avoid all forms of negative speech.
REACTING TO YISSURIM - TAZRIA
Parshas Tazria discusses the various forms of negaim and the process by which a person can be healed. Since the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash the laws of negaim no longer apply . Given this, how is this parsha relevant to our daily lives? The Sefer HaChinuch answers this question: He writes that the tuma of a metsora comes about because of a person's aveiros. The suffering that a person endures is not coincidental - it comes from Hashem. The metsora must go through a wrenching process of seclusion in which he is supposed to reflect on his behaviour and come to a recognition of how he erred. This message is of course highly relevant in every generation . We no longer suffer from negaim but we are afflicted by many other forms of yissurim. Tumas negaim teaches us that we should not ascribe such suffering to coincidence, rather we should see it as Hashem's way of communicating to us.
There is another mitzvo related to negaim which further teaches us to how we should and should not react to yissurim. The Torah tells us that one form of negaim is a nesek. If a person finds a nesek on his body he goes through a process of seclusion and examination by a Kohen. If, after one week of seclusion, the nesek has not spread, then the person must shave the area around the nesek. However, he is strictly forbidden from shaving the hair that is on the nesek . The Sefer HaChinuch explains the significance of this prohibition. "This mitzvo teaches us that every person should accept whatever pain or punishment that Hashem sends to him; he should not kick out against them, and he should not think that he has the ability to nullify them and hide them from people.. " The Chinuch teaches us that there are two incorrect ways in which people react to yissurim which are symbolized by shaving off the nesek sent by Hashem. Firstly, a person may "kick out" against Hashem when he suffers, questioning Divine justice. A person may be above blaming Hashem for their pain but may adopt another incorrect approach. He may try to remove the suffering without learning the lessons that it represents. Moreover, a person may be more concerned about what people think and primarily focus on hiding the yissurim, rather than using them as an opportunity to grow. The prohibition of removing the nesek teaches us that we should not ‘put our head in the sand’ when we endure difficulty, rather we should strive to grow through them.
The Mashgiach of Slobodka, Rav Avraham Grodzinski zt”l elaborates on the message of yissurim at length in his sefer Toras Avraham . He writes that the main purpose of prophecy was to communicate to the people how they were erring. Even when, ostensibly they were doing nothing wrong, the prophet would delve deep into their hearts and pinpoint an area in which they were lacking. He asks, in the post-prophecy era how does Hashem communicate to us to tell us what we are doing wrong? He answers that ‘yissurim’ are the replacement for prophecy. When a person is in pain, no matter how small, Hashem is communicating to him in some way that he needs to grow. Thus, yissurim are a tremendous gift - they provide us with an opportunity to mend our ways. The Gemara says that suffering doesn’t just refer to great afflictions, rather even minor difficulties; it gives the example of when a person tries to take out three coins from his pocket and he only picks up two. In this way Hashem is constantly communicating with us through yissurim.
The obvious question that we are faced with is, ‘it was very easy in the time of the Beis HaMikdash when people suffered from afflications such as negaim that arose when specific aveiros such as lashon hara were committed. But nowadays, how can a person know what message Hashem is trying to tell him through the yissurim?” Of course it is impossible to be certain but The Toras Avraham brings a yesod from Chazal that Hashem punishes a person mida ceneged mida for his aveiros. For example, The Mishna in Sotah tells us that Shimshon sinned with his eyes, therefore he was punished that the Plishtim took out his eyes, and Avshalom was arrogant about his beautiful hair, therefore his hair was the cause of his death when it got tangled up amongst the branches of a tree . Therefore it is recommended that a person look for a cause that is somehow connected to the form of suffering. For example if someone experiences pain in his mouth then perhaps he should first assess whether he transgressed in an area connected with speech. There is, ironically a very good example of this idea in relation to Rav Grodszinski’s life himself. He suffered from a noticeable limp and when a shidduch was first proposed to Rav Ber Hirsch Heller’s daughter Chasya, she rejected it because of his limp. Shortly thereafter she fell down the stairs to the cellar, breaking her leg. She concluded that this was a sign not to reject the match because of Rav Grodzinski’s bad leg and they did indeed marry .
However, more important than whether we find the ‘correct’ aveiro or not is that we search for it at all. In the previous example, if the person’s pain in his mouth comes as a result of lying but he works on lashon hara then he has achieved the main tachlis of the yissurim - trying to grow. This is an extremely important point because there is a common trend that when a person experiences suffering he looks for different segulos in order to end the pain. However, this seems to contradict the lesson of the Chinuch that we should not merely strive to nullify our pain. Hashem does not send us yissurim merely so that we can do some kind of segulo (even if it is effective in ending the pain), rather he wants us to grow. This does not necessarily mean that all segulos are negative but one should not forget the tachlis of the yissurim - that Hashem is telling us to grow . The parshas of negaim are indeed highly relevant to all of our lives - they teach us how we can utilize yissurim to become better people. May we all be zocheh to grow from the yissurim Hashem sends us.
There is another mitzvo related to negaim which further teaches us to how we should and should not react to yissurim. The Torah tells us that one form of negaim is a nesek. If a person finds a nesek on his body he goes through a process of seclusion and examination by a Kohen. If, after one week of seclusion, the nesek has not spread, then the person must shave the area around the nesek. However, he is strictly forbidden from shaving the hair that is on the nesek . The Sefer HaChinuch explains the significance of this prohibition. "This mitzvo teaches us that every person should accept whatever pain or punishment that Hashem sends to him; he should not kick out against them, and he should not think that he has the ability to nullify them and hide them from people.. " The Chinuch teaches us that there are two incorrect ways in which people react to yissurim which are symbolized by shaving off the nesek sent by Hashem. Firstly, a person may "kick out" against Hashem when he suffers, questioning Divine justice. A person may be above blaming Hashem for their pain but may adopt another incorrect approach. He may try to remove the suffering without learning the lessons that it represents. Moreover, a person may be more concerned about what people think and primarily focus on hiding the yissurim, rather than using them as an opportunity to grow. The prohibition of removing the nesek teaches us that we should not ‘put our head in the sand’ when we endure difficulty, rather we should strive to grow through them.
The Mashgiach of Slobodka, Rav Avraham Grodzinski zt”l elaborates on the message of yissurim at length in his sefer Toras Avraham . He writes that the main purpose of prophecy was to communicate to the people how they were erring. Even when, ostensibly they were doing nothing wrong, the prophet would delve deep into their hearts and pinpoint an area in which they were lacking. He asks, in the post-prophecy era how does Hashem communicate to us to tell us what we are doing wrong? He answers that ‘yissurim’ are the replacement for prophecy. When a person is in pain, no matter how small, Hashem is communicating to him in some way that he needs to grow. Thus, yissurim are a tremendous gift - they provide us with an opportunity to mend our ways. The Gemara says that suffering doesn’t just refer to great afflictions, rather even minor difficulties; it gives the example of when a person tries to take out three coins from his pocket and he only picks up two. In this way Hashem is constantly communicating with us through yissurim.
The obvious question that we are faced with is, ‘it was very easy in the time of the Beis HaMikdash when people suffered from afflications such as negaim that arose when specific aveiros such as lashon hara were committed. But nowadays, how can a person know what message Hashem is trying to tell him through the yissurim?” Of course it is impossible to be certain but The Toras Avraham brings a yesod from Chazal that Hashem punishes a person mida ceneged mida for his aveiros. For example, The Mishna in Sotah tells us that Shimshon sinned with his eyes, therefore he was punished that the Plishtim took out his eyes, and Avshalom was arrogant about his beautiful hair, therefore his hair was the cause of his death when it got tangled up amongst the branches of a tree . Therefore it is recommended that a person look for a cause that is somehow connected to the form of suffering. For example if someone experiences pain in his mouth then perhaps he should first assess whether he transgressed in an area connected with speech. There is, ironically a very good example of this idea in relation to Rav Grodszinski’s life himself. He suffered from a noticeable limp and when a shidduch was first proposed to Rav Ber Hirsch Heller’s daughter Chasya, she rejected it because of his limp. Shortly thereafter she fell down the stairs to the cellar, breaking her leg. She concluded that this was a sign not to reject the match because of Rav Grodzinski’s bad leg and they did indeed marry .
However, more important than whether we find the ‘correct’ aveiro or not is that we search for it at all. In the previous example, if the person’s pain in his mouth comes as a result of lying but he works on lashon hara then he has achieved the main tachlis of the yissurim - trying to grow. This is an extremely important point because there is a common trend that when a person experiences suffering he looks for different segulos in order to end the pain. However, this seems to contradict the lesson of the Chinuch that we should not merely strive to nullify our pain. Hashem does not send us yissurim merely so that we can do some kind of segulo (even if it is effective in ending the pain), rather he wants us to grow. This does not necessarily mean that all segulos are negative but one should not forget the tachlis of the yissurim - that Hashem is telling us to grow . The parshas of negaim are indeed highly relevant to all of our lives - they teach us how we can utilize yissurim to become better people. May we all be zocheh to grow from the yissurim Hashem sends us.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
THE BENEFIT OF RELATIONSHIPS - SHEMINI
Parshas Shemini gives the account of the tragic deaths of Aaron’s two eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu. At the climax of the inauguration of the Mishkan (Tabernacle), the two men entered the Holy of Holies and brought their own incense without having been commanded to do so. After they entered, a fire came forth and consumed them. Chazal offer several explanations as to the exact nature of their mistake: The Chasam Sofer brings a Medrash that offers three reasons as to their sin: They made a decision without consulting their teacher, Moshe Rabbeinu; they entered the Mishkan intoxicated with wine; they did not get married or have children. These three reasons seem to be totally unrelated to each other however the Chasam Sofer explains that they all emanate from the same source.
He writes that the defining sin of the three was their choice to not get married and the consequence that they had no children. He explains that there are many Mitzvos that involve the necessity to ascribe honor to certain people, and, lehavdil, to HaShem. These include the Mitzvos to honor and fear one’s parents and teachers, and the various laws with regard to one’s conduct in the Mishkan. Having one’s own children plays a key role in helping a person to develop a far greater recognition of the importance of being respected. He experiences first-hand, the unpleasantness of not being properly respected by his children. This helps him internalize how important it is for him to honor his parents, teachers, and, most importantly, HaShem.
Nadav and Avihu chose not to get married and consequently remained childless. This hindered them from developing the proper appreciation of the need to honor others. As a result, they stumbled in other areas relating to honor: They failed to consult with their teacher Moshe, indicating a lacking in giving sufficient honor to their teacher. Likewise, their entering the Mishkan whilst intoxicated with wine indicated a failing in their honor for the Divine Presence that dwelled there. Thus, according to the Chasam Sofer, the defining sin of Nadav and Avihu was their reluctance to have children – this was responsible for their failing in the area of giving kavod (honor).
It is possible to add that some of the other sins enumerated in the Rabbinical sources also originate from a lacking in the trait of kavod. In Parshas Mishpatim, we are told Moshe, Nadav and Avihu, along with the seveny Elders, witnessed a sublime prophecy. The Torah writes that Nadav and Avihu, and the Elders “gazed at G-d, yet they ate and drank”. The Medrash Tanchuma, quoted by Rashi, says that Nadav and Avihu and the elders sinned grievously by eating and drinking whilst gazing at the sacred vision. They deserved to die at that moment, but G-d did not punish them right then, in order not to mar the joy of the giving of the Torah. Rather, their punishment was deferred till a later date. Again, it is clear that the key fault here was the lack of sufficient fear and honor for the Divine Presence.
Moreover, the most explicit reason for their sin is the Torah’s words that they offered up the incense even though they were never commanded to. The commentaries explain that in their great love for HaShem, they were inspired to enter the Mishkan themselves. Despite their lofty intentions, performing a service without being instructed to do so, also seems to constitute a lack of sufficient fear and honor for HaShem.
We have seen from the explanation of the Chasam Sofer that the failure of Nadav and Avihu to have children resulted in the various sins that Chazal find them culpable of, and that the root of these sins was a failing to give proper honor. This explanation sheds light on an important principle in Torah thought with regard to inter-personal relationships. In the secular world, it is common to view relationships from the perspective of, “what can I get out of this relationship”, whether it applies to marriage, child rearing, or friendships. In this way, the goal of the relationship is essentially selfish, and it perhaps explains why the institution of marriage and the parent-child relationships have been so damaged in recent generations. If a person’s goals in a relationship are primarily selfish, then his desires and hopes will inevitably clash with those of his partner or child, who has similarly selfish desires. Moreover, if a person perceives that getting married or having children will hinder his life enjoyment then he will refrain from them in his vain quest for pleasure and comfort.
The Chasam Sofer teaches us that one of the main purposes of having children is to enable a person to grow in ways that he would otherwise be unable to. The same applies to marriage and all other relationships. The Torah outlook is that a person should approach his relationships from a selfless point of view – focusing on how he can help the other members of the relationship, and how he can grow from the relationship into a better person. As in all aspects of life, our relationships are there to help us grow closer to HaShem, therefore it is essential that we strive to develop such relationships even if they may reduce our comfort level, because we understand that they will enable us to become complete people in a way that Nadav and Avihu never merited.
He writes that the defining sin of the three was their choice to not get married and the consequence that they had no children. He explains that there are many Mitzvos that involve the necessity to ascribe honor to certain people, and, lehavdil, to HaShem. These include the Mitzvos to honor and fear one’s parents and teachers, and the various laws with regard to one’s conduct in the Mishkan. Having one’s own children plays a key role in helping a person to develop a far greater recognition of the importance of being respected. He experiences first-hand, the unpleasantness of not being properly respected by his children. This helps him internalize how important it is for him to honor his parents, teachers, and, most importantly, HaShem.
Nadav and Avihu chose not to get married and consequently remained childless. This hindered them from developing the proper appreciation of the need to honor others. As a result, they stumbled in other areas relating to honor: They failed to consult with their teacher Moshe, indicating a lacking in giving sufficient honor to their teacher. Likewise, their entering the Mishkan whilst intoxicated with wine indicated a failing in their honor for the Divine Presence that dwelled there. Thus, according to the Chasam Sofer, the defining sin of Nadav and Avihu was their reluctance to have children – this was responsible for their failing in the area of giving kavod (honor).
It is possible to add that some of the other sins enumerated in the Rabbinical sources also originate from a lacking in the trait of kavod. In Parshas Mishpatim, we are told Moshe, Nadav and Avihu, along with the seveny Elders, witnessed a sublime prophecy. The Torah writes that Nadav and Avihu, and the Elders “gazed at G-d, yet they ate and drank”. The Medrash Tanchuma, quoted by Rashi, says that Nadav and Avihu and the elders sinned grievously by eating and drinking whilst gazing at the sacred vision. They deserved to die at that moment, but G-d did not punish them right then, in order not to mar the joy of the giving of the Torah. Rather, their punishment was deferred till a later date. Again, it is clear that the key fault here was the lack of sufficient fear and honor for the Divine Presence.
Moreover, the most explicit reason for their sin is the Torah’s words that they offered up the incense even though they were never commanded to. The commentaries explain that in their great love for HaShem, they were inspired to enter the Mishkan themselves. Despite their lofty intentions, performing a service without being instructed to do so, also seems to constitute a lack of sufficient fear and honor for HaShem.
We have seen from the explanation of the Chasam Sofer that the failure of Nadav and Avihu to have children resulted in the various sins that Chazal find them culpable of, and that the root of these sins was a failing to give proper honor. This explanation sheds light on an important principle in Torah thought with regard to inter-personal relationships. In the secular world, it is common to view relationships from the perspective of, “what can I get out of this relationship”, whether it applies to marriage, child rearing, or friendships. In this way, the goal of the relationship is essentially selfish, and it perhaps explains why the institution of marriage and the parent-child relationships have been so damaged in recent generations. If a person’s goals in a relationship are primarily selfish, then his desires and hopes will inevitably clash with those of his partner or child, who has similarly selfish desires. Moreover, if a person perceives that getting married or having children will hinder his life enjoyment then he will refrain from them in his vain quest for pleasure and comfort.
The Chasam Sofer teaches us that one of the main purposes of having children is to enable a person to grow in ways that he would otherwise be unable to. The same applies to marriage and all other relationships. The Torah outlook is that a person should approach his relationships from a selfless point of view – focusing on how he can help the other members of the relationship, and how he can grow from the relationship into a better person. As in all aspects of life, our relationships are there to help us grow closer to HaShem, therefore it is essential that we strive to develop such relationships even if they may reduce our comfort level, because we understand that they will enable us to become complete people in a way that Nadav and Avihu never merited.
Monday, March 21, 2011
ACQUIRING A FRIEND - SHEMINI
The Parsha begins with the joyful celebrations of the Inauguration of the Mishkan (tabernacle), however this joyous occasion becomes a time of mourning with the sudden deaths of Aaron’s two oldest sons, Nadav and Avihu. "The sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan, they put fire in them and placed incense upon it; and they brought before Hashem an alien fire that He had not commanded them. A fire came forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem. "
Chazal offer a number of explanations as to the exact wrongdoing of these two great men which caused them to receive such a strict punishment. The Toras Kohanim writes: “...Nadav and Avihu did not seek advice from Moshe.. and each man went on his own accord and they did not seek advice from each other.” This Midrash teaches us that Nadav and Avihu did not actually go to offer the incense together, rather they each had the same idea and went alone to offer the incense in the Mishkan. They are criticized because they did not seek advice from their Rebbe, Moshe Rabbeinu, before undertaking this bold act, and also because they did not seek advice from each other. Rav Berel Soleveitchik zt”l asks that this Midrash is very difficult to understand; it is obvious why they should have consulted Moshe Rabbeinu because he would have surely advised them to not offer the incense, however why are they criticized for not consulting with each other? They both evidently believed in the correctness of their plan and so what benefit would have been gained from consulting each other - surely they would have merely confirmed that the plan was a good one?!
Rav Soleveitchik answers that we learn from here a fundamental principle in human nature; A person may want to commit a certain sin and yet he may simultaneously see the flaw in such an action when his friend is about to commit the very same sin. This is because each person is greatly influenced by his yetser hara which prevents him from making decisions with objectivity. Rather, the yetser hara clouds his reasoning and causes him to rationalize that it is acceptable to undertake certain forbidden actions. However, when this same person looks on his friend about to perform the very same sin he is able to take a far more objective attitude towards his friend’s actions. This is because with regard to others a person is not clouded by a desire for self-gratification and he can more accurately assess the validity of his friend’s plans. Accordingly, had Nadav consulted Avihu about his plan (or vice versa) then there would have been a good chance that Avihu would have seen the flaw in his brother’s reasoning despite the fact that he planned to do the very same act! That is why they are criticized for not consulting each other despite the fact that they both planned to do the same sin .
Rabbeinu Yonah brings out this principle from the teaching in Avos: “...Acquire for yourself a friend. ” He writes that one of the benefits of having a friend is that he can help you in observing Mitzvos. “Even when a friend is no more righteous than him and sometimes he even acts improperly, nonetheless he does not want a friend to do the same [action], because he has no benefit from it. ” He then brings as a proof to this idea the principle that “a person does not sin on behalf of someone else.” This means that a generally observant person usually sins because he is blinded by some kind of desire for pleasure, however with regard to someone else we presume that he is not blinded in the same way and therefore we do not suspect him of sinning on behalf of others. This idea is applied in a number of places throughout the Gemara . Rabbeinu Yonah thus teaches us the importance of acquiring at least one friend who can act as an objective onlooker towards our own actions, and that this friend need not necessarily be on a higher level than ourselves.
We learn from these ideas a very important life lesson; a person should not rely on his own assessments of his actions - it is impossible to be purely objective when making decisions because of one’s natural subjectivity that causes him to rationalize the validity of doing certain aveiros. Rather, he must realize the necessity of finding a friend who will be prepared to offer advice and even rebuke when necessary when he sees that his friend is blinded by his desires. May we all merit to acquire true friends who can help us find the true path of Avodas Hashem.
Chazal offer a number of explanations as to the exact wrongdoing of these two great men which caused them to receive such a strict punishment. The Toras Kohanim writes: “...Nadav and Avihu did not seek advice from Moshe.. and each man went on his own accord and they did not seek advice from each other.” This Midrash teaches us that Nadav and Avihu did not actually go to offer the incense together, rather they each had the same idea and went alone to offer the incense in the Mishkan. They are criticized because they did not seek advice from their Rebbe, Moshe Rabbeinu, before undertaking this bold act, and also because they did not seek advice from each other. Rav Berel Soleveitchik zt”l asks that this Midrash is very difficult to understand; it is obvious why they should have consulted Moshe Rabbeinu because he would have surely advised them to not offer the incense, however why are they criticized for not consulting with each other? They both evidently believed in the correctness of their plan and so what benefit would have been gained from consulting each other - surely they would have merely confirmed that the plan was a good one?!
Rav Soleveitchik answers that we learn from here a fundamental principle in human nature; A person may want to commit a certain sin and yet he may simultaneously see the flaw in such an action when his friend is about to commit the very same sin. This is because each person is greatly influenced by his yetser hara which prevents him from making decisions with objectivity. Rather, the yetser hara clouds his reasoning and causes him to rationalize that it is acceptable to undertake certain forbidden actions. However, when this same person looks on his friend about to perform the very same sin he is able to take a far more objective attitude towards his friend’s actions. This is because with regard to others a person is not clouded by a desire for self-gratification and he can more accurately assess the validity of his friend’s plans. Accordingly, had Nadav consulted Avihu about his plan (or vice versa) then there would have been a good chance that Avihu would have seen the flaw in his brother’s reasoning despite the fact that he planned to do the very same act! That is why they are criticized for not consulting each other despite the fact that they both planned to do the same sin .
Rabbeinu Yonah brings out this principle from the teaching in Avos: “...Acquire for yourself a friend. ” He writes that one of the benefits of having a friend is that he can help you in observing Mitzvos. “Even when a friend is no more righteous than him and sometimes he even acts improperly, nonetheless he does not want a friend to do the same [action], because he has no benefit from it. ” He then brings as a proof to this idea the principle that “a person does not sin on behalf of someone else.” This means that a generally observant person usually sins because he is blinded by some kind of desire for pleasure, however with regard to someone else we presume that he is not blinded in the same way and therefore we do not suspect him of sinning on behalf of others. This idea is applied in a number of places throughout the Gemara . Rabbeinu Yonah thus teaches us the importance of acquiring at least one friend who can act as an objective onlooker towards our own actions, and that this friend need not necessarily be on a higher level than ourselves.
We learn from these ideas a very important life lesson; a person should not rely on his own assessments of his actions - it is impossible to be purely objective when making decisions because of one’s natural subjectivity that causes him to rationalize the validity of doing certain aveiros. Rather, he must realize the necessity of finding a friend who will be prepared to offer advice and even rebuke when necessary when he sees that his friend is blinded by his desires. May we all merit to acquire true friends who can help us find the true path of Avodas Hashem.
CHAYECHA KODMIM - SHEMINI
Among the list of non-kosher birds in ParshaS Shmini is the interestingly named ‘Chasida’. Rashi quotes the Gemara in Chullin that explains that this bird is renowned for its trait of chesed because it shares it’s food with its friends. The Rizhiner Rebbe zt”l asks that if this bird is endowed with such a favorable mida, why is it considered non-kosher ? He answers that the Chasida only does chesed with its own kind, but does not display any kindness to other species of birds. This form of chesed is not compatible with the Torah outlook, indeed it is a ‘treif’ form of chesed, consequently, it is listed among the non-kosher birds.
The implication of the Rizhiner Rebbe’s answer is that the ‘kosher’ form of chesed is to bestow kindness equally to all people, not just those closest to us. However, this does not seem to actually be the case: The Gemara discusses a case in which two people find themselves stranded in a desert and one of them has a bottle of water that can provide enough water for one of them to survive until they reach civilization. The Tannaim argue as to the correct hanhago in this case; Ben Peturah says that the one in possession of the bottle should share it with his friend even though, it is very likely that as a result both men will die. Rebbe Akiva argues, introducing the concept of Chayecha Kodmim, that a person should look after his own needs before those of his friend. Consequently, the man in possession of the bottle should keep the bottle for himself and thereby assure himself of his own survival despite the sad results this behavior will have for his friend . The halacho follows Rebbe Akiva and applies to many aspects of our lives.
The poskim write that a person must provide for his own needs before those of others. Moreover, there is a list of priorities in the laws of charity, whereby a person must provide for those closer to him before others . The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these priorities do not just apply to charity, but to all forms of chesed . It could seem that this concept of chayecha kodmim does not seem so different from the actions of the chasida; both seem to embody the attitude that it is acceptable to give to one’s own kind at the expense of others.
In truth, there are two crucial differences between Chayecha Kodmim and the chasida. Firstly, the chasida only does chesed with its own kind, to the total exclusion of all other creatures. In contrast, chayecha kodmim does not preclude giving to all kinds of people, rather it simply makes a list of priorities but does not exempt us from the obligation of helping those less close to us . Moreover there is a very significant factor that limit’s the effect of chayecha kodmim. The poskim write that it applies in a situation where two people have identical needs, for example they both need bread to eat. In such a case, chayecha kodmim instructs us to give to the person closer to us. However, if their needs are not the same, and the more distant person is more needy then we are obligated to provide for him first because he is more lacking For example,
if the closer person has bread but lacks meat, and the other does not even have bread, then we are obligated to provide him with bread ahead of giving meat to the person closer to us .
There is a second, even more crucial difference between the chesed of the chasida and the Torah outlook of chesed. That is the attitude behind giving priority to those closer to us. The root of the chasida’s limited chesed is the fact that it only cares about its own kind but has no concern for other species. The chasida is essentially a selfish bird whose sense of self extends to its own species but stops there. In stark contrast, we are obligated to care equally about all other Jews. This begs the questions, what is the reasoning behind chayecha kodmim? The answer is that chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility, not selfishness; the reason that we must give to ourselves and family before others is that we have more responsibility for their well-being. Thus, a person is required to provide for the financial needs of his family before other families because he is the person most responsible for their well-being. The implication of this is that chayecha kodmim is not a privilege whereby I am allowed to look after myself before others because I am more important than them. Rather, it is an obligation - I am duty-bound to look after myself before others and neglecting this duty is no different from failing to observe any Torah requirement.
We have seen that the chesed of the chasida is treif according to Torah because it is based on selfishness. In contrast, chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility for those closest to us. It does not in any way take away from the need to care about every Jew, and it does not preclude doing chesed for all Jews, rather it teaches us a list of priorities. It is no easy task to decide how much time and effort should be allotted towards the various groups of people in one’s life, ranging from ones wife and kids. To his other family, friends, community members and strangers. Moreover, each person has a different level of responsibility in each area based on his own personal circumstances.
Whilst there is no single ‘correct’ hanhago in this area, in a general sense it seems that one must be careful to strike a right balance - on the one hand providing enough , financial physical and emotional support to his immediate family whilst also fulfilling his obligations to the wider community. Over-emphasizing one area can have dire consequences in another. The story is told of a ten year old boy from an observant home who had already strayed from the Torah derech and was involved in highly undesirable activities. A certain organization that specializes in such cases decided that this boy needed to develop a close connection with a warm and caring family, something that he was obviously lacking. They made a thorough search and finally found a family renowned for their overflowing chesed to members of their community. To their absolute shock, they discovered that this dysfunctional child was a member of this family! This boy’s parents were so interested in helping others that they neglected the person whom they were most obligated to provide for. This is a challenging nisayon for anyone who wants to help the community at large.
On the other hand, this does not mean that a person should completely neglect those outside his immediate family. Many people have shown that there need not be any contradiction between providing for one’s family and simultaneously helping others. Indeed doing chesed with others can be a tremendous tool in educating one’s own children in midos such as generosity and empathy. If the right balance can be struck then a person can fulfill all his various responsibilities to all the people in his life.
The implication of the Rizhiner Rebbe’s answer is that the ‘kosher’ form of chesed is to bestow kindness equally to all people, not just those closest to us. However, this does not seem to actually be the case: The Gemara discusses a case in which two people find themselves stranded in a desert and one of them has a bottle of water that can provide enough water for one of them to survive until they reach civilization. The Tannaim argue as to the correct hanhago in this case; Ben Peturah says that the one in possession of the bottle should share it with his friend even though, it is very likely that as a result both men will die. Rebbe Akiva argues, introducing the concept of Chayecha Kodmim, that a person should look after his own needs before those of his friend. Consequently, the man in possession of the bottle should keep the bottle for himself and thereby assure himself of his own survival despite the sad results this behavior will have for his friend . The halacho follows Rebbe Akiva and applies to many aspects of our lives.
The poskim write that a person must provide for his own needs before those of others. Moreover, there is a list of priorities in the laws of charity, whereby a person must provide for those closer to him before others . The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these priorities do not just apply to charity, but to all forms of chesed . It could seem that this concept of chayecha kodmim does not seem so different from the actions of the chasida; both seem to embody the attitude that it is acceptable to give to one’s own kind at the expense of others.
In truth, there are two crucial differences between Chayecha Kodmim and the chasida. Firstly, the chasida only does chesed with its own kind, to the total exclusion of all other creatures. In contrast, chayecha kodmim does not preclude giving to all kinds of people, rather it simply makes a list of priorities but does not exempt us from the obligation of helping those less close to us . Moreover there is a very significant factor that limit’s the effect of chayecha kodmim. The poskim write that it applies in a situation where two people have identical needs, for example they both need bread to eat. In such a case, chayecha kodmim instructs us to give to the person closer to us. However, if their needs are not the same, and the more distant person is more needy then we are obligated to provide for him first because he is more lacking For example,
if the closer person has bread but lacks meat, and the other does not even have bread, then we are obligated to provide him with bread ahead of giving meat to the person closer to us .
There is a second, even more crucial difference between the chesed of the chasida and the Torah outlook of chesed. That is the attitude behind giving priority to those closer to us. The root of the chasida’s limited chesed is the fact that it only cares about its own kind but has no concern for other species. The chasida is essentially a selfish bird whose sense of self extends to its own species but stops there. In stark contrast, we are obligated to care equally about all other Jews. This begs the questions, what is the reasoning behind chayecha kodmim? The answer is that chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility, not selfishness; the reason that we must give to ourselves and family before others is that we have more responsibility for their well-being. Thus, a person is required to provide for the financial needs of his family before other families because he is the person most responsible for their well-being. The implication of this is that chayecha kodmim is not a privilege whereby I am allowed to look after myself before others because I am more important than them. Rather, it is an obligation - I am duty-bound to look after myself before others and neglecting this duty is no different from failing to observe any Torah requirement.
We have seen that the chesed of the chasida is treif according to Torah because it is based on selfishness. In contrast, chayecha kodmim is based on a sense of responsibility for those closest to us. It does not in any way take away from the need to care about every Jew, and it does not preclude doing chesed for all Jews, rather it teaches us a list of priorities. It is no easy task to decide how much time and effort should be allotted towards the various groups of people in one’s life, ranging from ones wife and kids. To his other family, friends, community members and strangers. Moreover, each person has a different level of responsibility in each area based on his own personal circumstances.
Whilst there is no single ‘correct’ hanhago in this area, in a general sense it seems that one must be careful to strike a right balance - on the one hand providing enough , financial physical and emotional support to his immediate family whilst also fulfilling his obligations to the wider community. Over-emphasizing one area can have dire consequences in another. The story is told of a ten year old boy from an observant home who had already strayed from the Torah derech and was involved in highly undesirable activities. A certain organization that specializes in such cases decided that this boy needed to develop a close connection with a warm and caring family, something that he was obviously lacking. They made a thorough search and finally found a family renowned for their overflowing chesed to members of their community. To their absolute shock, they discovered that this dysfunctional child was a member of this family! This boy’s parents were so interested in helping others that they neglected the person whom they were most obligated to provide for. This is a challenging nisayon for anyone who wants to help the community at large.
On the other hand, this does not mean that a person should completely neglect those outside his immediate family. Many people have shown that there need not be any contradiction between providing for one’s family and simultaneously helping others. Indeed doing chesed with others can be a tremendous tool in educating one’s own children in midos such as generosity and empathy. If the right balance can be struck then a person can fulfill all his various responsibilities to all the people in his life.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV
In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.
This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.
With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
THE BEHALA OF THE PERSIANS - MEGILLA INSIGHTS
There are numerous lessons that can be gleaned from a close analysis of Megillas Esther. One of the less discussed aspects of the Megilla is the fact that it is one of the main accounts of the second Galus (exile), that of Paras and Madai. It is extremely important to understand the nature of the four exiles because they represent the basic forms of evil in the world. We see this from the Medrash's explanation of the second verse in Chumash. The Torah states: "And the earth was tohu and bohu , with darkness upon the surface of the deep; and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The Medrash reveals to us a deeper allusion of the passuk. "..'The land was tohu', this is the Kingdom of Bavel, as it says, 'I have seen the land and behold it is tohu.' And bohu, this is the kingdom of Madai, as it says, 'And they rushed (vayavheelu) to bring Haman.' ...
The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.
Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.
We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.
It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.
We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.
The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.
Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.
We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.
It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.
We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.
PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS
One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?
Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.
Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!
Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).
On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.
Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.
Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!
Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).
On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.
MISHLOACH MANOS AND MATANOS L’EVYONIM - PURIM
One of the unique features of Purim, are the mitzvos concerning giving to one’s fellow Jew. We are obligated to give mishloach manos and matanas la’evyonim . There is no other festival in which there is a similar obligation of chessed (kindness). What is the connection between these mitzvos and the story of Purim?
This question can be answered by analyzing of some of the passukim in the Megilla. When Haman approaches Achashverosh with his plan to destroy the Jewish people, he outlines why they do not deserve to be kept alive. “And Haman said to King Acharshverosh, there is one nation scattered and dispersed (mefurad) among the people.” The commentaries explain that Haman was making an accurate criticism of the Jewish people, one which helped convince the King that they would not be protected by HaShem. Haman was arguing that the Jewish people were not unified and accordingly, they were lacking the Divine protection that they merited when they were unified.
Accordingly, one of the most important ways of removing the decree of destruction from Above , was to renew the sense of unity amongst the Jewish people. Rav Yonasan Ebeshitz zt”l explains that this was the intention of Esther when she instructed Mordechai how to overturn the decree. “Go, assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan, and fast for me.” She recognized that only a unified effort could overturn the decree.
Indeed, this approach succeeded. The Vilna Gaon zt”l demonstrates in a number of passukim, that the Jewish people displayed great unity when they finally took the upper hand against their enemies. “The rest of the Jews throughout the King’s provinces gathered together and defended themselves (amad al nafsham)..” The Vilna Gaon notes the word ‘amad’ is in the singular form, as opposed to the plural form of ‘amdu’. This, he writes, demonstrates that they were completely unified, as if they were one entity. Soon after, the Megilla informs us that Mordechai instituted the festival of Purim. In reaction, it tells us that, “The Jews undertook (kibel) to continue the practice they had begun..” Again, the word, ‘kibel’ is in the singular form, further demonstrating that they were unified. Finally, the Sifsei Chaim adds a similar explanation to the famous verse in which, according to Chazal , the Jewish people willingly accepted the Torah: “They fulfilled (kiymu) and accepted (kiblu) upon themselves…to observe these two days…” The would kiblu is read in the plural form, however it is written in the singular ‘kibel’, again alluding to the fact that they accepted the Torah in complete unity.
With this understanding of the significance of unity in the Purim story, it is easy to understand why Chazal instituted mitzvos in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro. Purim reminds us of the importance of unity amongst the Jewish people. Giving to one’s fellow Jew is an excellent tool to help us care more about them. Moreover, it is not enough for a person to give to one’s friends alone, he must not ignore those who are far less fortunate - the destitute people who are easily forgotten about. Therefore, in addition to Mishloach Manos, Chazal instructed us in matanos la‘evyonim..
We now understand that disunity was a key factor in the decree against the Jews, and how increasing unity played a significant role in the removal of the decree. However, it remains unclear as to why the Jews were so lacking in unity at this time, and how they were able to rectify this flaw. The Sifsei Chaim addresses this issue by bringing the explanation of Rabbeinu Yonah on a passuk in Mishlei. Shlomo HaMelech writes: “Taava yevakesh, nifrad ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains this to mean that a person who follow his desires, will become alienated from his friends. This is because natural desires are inherently self-serving and clash with the desires of everyone else. Accordingly, a person who only cares about satisfying his desires will have divergent goals from the people around him. Consequently, a society that is full of such people will not possess any unity. Haman understood that the Jewish people had become influenced by the ideologies and desires of the various nations that they dwelled in, accordingly he stressed to the King that the Jewish people were “spread out and dispersed among the nations.” Sifsei Chaim explains that he deliberately emphasized the fact that they were among the nations, because this was the cause of their disunity. Each Jew’s goals were influenced by those of the surrounding societies, therefore there was no unity amongst the Jewish people as a whole.
Rabbeinu Yonah continues by explaining that the key to unity is a common goal - that of serving HaShem. The Jewish people can only achieve their role in the world by sharing this common purpose. When this takes place, problems of machlokes and damaging competition dissipate, allowing the people to focus all their efforts on doing HaShem’s will. This is what famously occurred before the Giving of the Torah at Har Sinai. Chazal tell us that they were unified to the extent that they were “like one man with one heart”. It was no coincidence that they attained this level of harmony at Har Sinai. It enabled them to focus all their energies on accepting the Torah; had they been involved in disputes, they would have been unable to properly accept the Torah.
Esther recognized that the disunity of the Jewish people was caused by their divergent goals, and that taiva played a key role in causing this disunity. Accordingly, she instructed that the people should gather together in the context of a fast. As well as the obvious reasons for fasting, abstaining from physical enjoyment can weaken a person’s attachment to his physical desires and help him focus on Avodas HaShem. In this way, it seems that the fast helped the people reconnect with their true goal of doing HaShem’s will.
Similarly, it seems that it is no coincidence that the unity they Jews achieved when they fought their enemies, came about after fasting on the 13th of Adar. Again, the fasting strengthened their ability to weaken their own selfish desires and focus on the single goal of fulfilling Ratson HaShem. Morever, this level of unity enabled them to re-accept the Torah just as they had done at Sinai.
With this insight into the connection between weakening of taiva and unity, we can now attain a deeper understanding of mishloach manos and matanos la’evyonim. In order to attain the level of unity that the Jews reached, we must detach ourselves from our natural taivas. That is always a difficult task, and this is even more so, the case on Purim when we greatly involve ourselves in the physical world. Giving gifts and money to our fellow Jew is an excellent way of ensuring that we do not get pulled down into the selfishness that results from following one’s taiva. By thinking about, and giving to, other people, we can ensure that our eating and drinking help bring us closer to HaShem and not further from Him.
Purim is a time when we remember the importance of unity to the Jewish people. May we merit to focus all our energies on the common goal of fulfilling HaShem’s ratson.
This question can be answered by analyzing of some of the passukim in the Megilla. When Haman approaches Achashverosh with his plan to destroy the Jewish people, he outlines why they do not deserve to be kept alive. “And Haman said to King Acharshverosh, there is one nation scattered and dispersed (mefurad) among the people.” The commentaries explain that Haman was making an accurate criticism of the Jewish people, one which helped convince the King that they would not be protected by HaShem. Haman was arguing that the Jewish people were not unified and accordingly, they were lacking the Divine protection that they merited when they were unified.
Accordingly, one of the most important ways of removing the decree of destruction from Above , was to renew the sense of unity amongst the Jewish people. Rav Yonasan Ebeshitz zt”l explains that this was the intention of Esther when she instructed Mordechai how to overturn the decree. “Go, assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan, and fast for me.” She recognized that only a unified effort could overturn the decree.
Indeed, this approach succeeded. The Vilna Gaon zt”l demonstrates in a number of passukim, that the Jewish people displayed great unity when they finally took the upper hand against their enemies. “The rest of the Jews throughout the King’s provinces gathered together and defended themselves (amad al nafsham)..” The Vilna Gaon notes the word ‘amad’ is in the singular form, as opposed to the plural form of ‘amdu’. This, he writes, demonstrates that they were completely unified, as if they were one entity. Soon after, the Megilla informs us that Mordechai instituted the festival of Purim. In reaction, it tells us that, “The Jews undertook (kibel) to continue the practice they had begun..” Again, the word, ‘kibel’ is in the singular form, further demonstrating that they were unified. Finally, the Sifsei Chaim adds a similar explanation to the famous verse in which, according to Chazal , the Jewish people willingly accepted the Torah: “They fulfilled (kiymu) and accepted (kiblu) upon themselves…to observe these two days…” The would kiblu is read in the plural form, however it is written in the singular ‘kibel’, again alluding to the fact that they accepted the Torah in complete unity.
With this understanding of the significance of unity in the Purim story, it is easy to understand why Chazal instituted mitzvos in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro. Purim reminds us of the importance of unity amongst the Jewish people. Giving to one’s fellow Jew is an excellent tool to help us care more about them. Moreover, it is not enough for a person to give to one’s friends alone, he must not ignore those who are far less fortunate - the destitute people who are easily forgotten about. Therefore, in addition to Mishloach Manos, Chazal instructed us in matanos la‘evyonim..
We now understand that disunity was a key factor in the decree against the Jews, and how increasing unity played a significant role in the removal of the decree. However, it remains unclear as to why the Jews were so lacking in unity at this time, and how they were able to rectify this flaw. The Sifsei Chaim addresses this issue by bringing the explanation of Rabbeinu Yonah on a passuk in Mishlei. Shlomo HaMelech writes: “Taava yevakesh, nifrad ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains this to mean that a person who follow his desires, will become alienated from his friends. This is because natural desires are inherently self-serving and clash with the desires of everyone else. Accordingly, a person who only cares about satisfying his desires will have divergent goals from the people around him. Consequently, a society that is full of such people will not possess any unity. Haman understood that the Jewish people had become influenced by the ideologies and desires of the various nations that they dwelled in, accordingly he stressed to the King that the Jewish people were “spread out and dispersed among the nations.” Sifsei Chaim explains that he deliberately emphasized the fact that they were among the nations, because this was the cause of their disunity. Each Jew’s goals were influenced by those of the surrounding societies, therefore there was no unity amongst the Jewish people as a whole.
Rabbeinu Yonah continues by explaining that the key to unity is a common goal - that of serving HaShem. The Jewish people can only achieve their role in the world by sharing this common purpose. When this takes place, problems of machlokes and damaging competition dissipate, allowing the people to focus all their efforts on doing HaShem’s will. This is what famously occurred before the Giving of the Torah at Har Sinai. Chazal tell us that they were unified to the extent that they were “like one man with one heart”. It was no coincidence that they attained this level of harmony at Har Sinai. It enabled them to focus all their energies on accepting the Torah; had they been involved in disputes, they would have been unable to properly accept the Torah.
Esther recognized that the disunity of the Jewish people was caused by their divergent goals, and that taiva played a key role in causing this disunity. Accordingly, she instructed that the people should gather together in the context of a fast. As well as the obvious reasons for fasting, abstaining from physical enjoyment can weaken a person’s attachment to his physical desires and help him focus on Avodas HaShem. In this way, it seems that the fast helped the people reconnect with their true goal of doing HaShem’s will.
Similarly, it seems that it is no coincidence that the unity they Jews achieved when they fought their enemies, came about after fasting on the 13th of Adar. Again, the fasting strengthened their ability to weaken their own selfish desires and focus on the single goal of fulfilling Ratson HaShem. Morever, this level of unity enabled them to re-accept the Torah just as they had done at Sinai.
With this insight into the connection between weakening of taiva and unity, we can now attain a deeper understanding of mishloach manos and matanos la’evyonim. In order to attain the level of unity that the Jews reached, we must detach ourselves from our natural taivas. That is always a difficult task, and this is even more so, the case on Purim when we greatly involve ourselves in the physical world. Giving gifts and money to our fellow Jew is an excellent way of ensuring that we do not get pulled down into the selfishness that results from following one’s taiva. By thinking about, and giving to, other people, we can ensure that our eating and drinking help bring us closer to HaShem and not further from Him.
Purim is a time when we remember the importance of unity to the Jewish people. May we merit to focus all our energies on the common goal of fulfilling HaShem’s ratson.
KEEPING HOPE - PURIM
The Gemara tells us that the terrible decree to destroy the Jewish people was a punishment for their partaking of the banquet of Achashveirosh . Throughout the period of the first Beis HaMikdash, the Prophets were rebuking the Jewish people for terrible sins, including Avoda Zara, and yet they were never sentenced to universal destruction - why was such a drastic punishment reserved for the seemingly mild aveiro of eating at Achashveirosh’s banquet?
In order to answer this question let us first discuss the intentions of Achashveirosh in throwing such a lavish banquet. Chazal tell us that the drinks were served in the keilim that were used in the Avoda in the Beis HaMikdash. The King even dressed himself in the clothes of the Kohen Gadol - what was he trying to achieve by doing this? Rav Chaim Halpern Shlita explains that up till this point in time, Achashveirosh had been worried about the prophecy of Yeremyahu that the Jewish people would return to Eretz Yisroel and rebuild the Beis HaMikdash after 70 years. The King calculated that the 70 years had now passed without any sign of the prophecy being fulfilled. Consequently, on the exact day that he had calculated that the time was up he held the feast - he was trying to tell the Jews that they should give up hope of the Beis HaMikdash and that they now had an alternative source of happiness - his Kingdom. Therefore, he dressed up as the Kohen Gadol to show that he was their new leader, and he gave them the Temple vessels to show them that there was no point in waiting any longer for the Beis HaMikdash to be rebuilt .
Unfortunately, the Jewish people accepted the King’s message and willfully joined in the Seuda, even drinking from the Temple vessels. They gave up hope - they terminated their desire for a Second Beis HaMikdash, and turned to a new future, being loyal subjects of the King and his Empire. What in effect they had done was give up on the unique role of the Jewish people as the Chosen People who were meant to serve as a Light Unto the Nations. They forsook any hope of a return to Eretz Yisroel and a new Beis HaMikdash. What they did not realize is that the Jewish people’s whole right to existence is based on their unique role in the world. Hashem cherishes the Jewish people because of its willingness to serve as an Am Segula who teaches the world to know Him. Now that they did not want to assume this unique role they automatically forsook any right to exist. Measure for measure, they were sentenced to destruction .
How did the Jewish people overturn the decree of destruction? The Gemara tells us the conversation that took place when Haman came to inform Mordechai of the honor that the King wanted to bestow on him. Haman found Mordechai learning Torah: Haman asked, “What are you learning?” Mordechai answered, “When the Beis HaMikdash existed, a person who gave a Mincha offering would bring a handful of flour and it would atone for him.” Upon hearing this, Haman replied, “your handful of flour will come and overturn my ten thousand silver shekalim. ” This Gemara is very difficult to understand - what was the significance of what Mordechai was learning and why did it make Haman realize that he would be defeated? The Ponevezher Rav explains that Haman knew that his hope of success lay in the defeatism that the Jewish people expressed at the Seudas Achashveirosh. He saw that Mordechai was teaching about laws that only apply when the Beis HaMikdash is standing - he realized that the Jewish people had done teshuva and reignited their desire for a new Beis HaMikdash. They still had hope that they could continue in their unique role as the Light Unto Nations, and consequently Haman knew that if they had not given up on Hashem then He would not give up on them.
The nisayon of the Jews in the time of Purim was to maintain hope during trying times. This nisayon continues to this very day and when we demonstrate weakness in it, our enemies gain encouragement that they can defeat us. The story is told of an infamous Arab terrorist who discussed the time he spent in an Israeli prison, after which he resumed his evil activities with even greater zeal. He said that, whilst in prison, he had initially decided to renounce his ‘career’ as a terrorist, feeling that his violent actions could not succeed in destroying Israel. However, one Pesach, he saw an Israeli guard eating a pitta. Knowing about the issur of eating chametz he inquired as to why the Jew was not observing this law. The Guard answered him that these laws are no longer of any importance. Hearing this, he decided that a people who had given up on their heritage could indeed be defeated. In stark contrast, after Napoleon had conquered yet another nation, he was shocked to see that the Jews were in grief. They explained to him that it was Tisha B’Av and they were mourning the destruction of the Temples. He asked them when this occurred and they explained that it was nearly 2000 years earlier. Upon hearing this he exclaimed that a people who kept such a strong connection to their heritage would surely never be destroyed.
We live in a time where the test of yeush exists on many different levels. For non-observant Jews, the test is obvious - not to completely abandon their heritage by assimilating into secular culture. But the nisayon applies to everyone in some form: Firstly, one may be tempted to give up on the millions of secular Jews, arguing that they are irretrievably lost to assimilation. This is of course a highly erroneous attitude and experience has proven that secular Jews can be quite easily reconnected to genuine Judaism. A second nisayon is that keeping the mitzvos does not necessarily preclude yeush - indeed the Jews who ate at the King’s banquet were still makpid only to eat kosher food. A person can keep mitzvos and still wonder if there will ever be a Third Beis Hamikdash and if Mashiach will really come. Moreover, yeush can plague our personal lives, persuading us that we have no possibility of achieving greatness. The story of Purim teaches us that we need never give up hope, both for the Jewish nation and ourselves as individuals - and as long as we maintain our desire to be the part of the Am Hashema we can be assured that He will protect us from all of our enemies.
In order to answer this question let us first discuss the intentions of Achashveirosh in throwing such a lavish banquet. Chazal tell us that the drinks were served in the keilim that were used in the Avoda in the Beis HaMikdash. The King even dressed himself in the clothes of the Kohen Gadol - what was he trying to achieve by doing this? Rav Chaim Halpern Shlita explains that up till this point in time, Achashveirosh had been worried about the prophecy of Yeremyahu that the Jewish people would return to Eretz Yisroel and rebuild the Beis HaMikdash after 70 years. The King calculated that the 70 years had now passed without any sign of the prophecy being fulfilled. Consequently, on the exact day that he had calculated that the time was up he held the feast - he was trying to tell the Jews that they should give up hope of the Beis HaMikdash and that they now had an alternative source of happiness - his Kingdom. Therefore, he dressed up as the Kohen Gadol to show that he was their new leader, and he gave them the Temple vessels to show them that there was no point in waiting any longer for the Beis HaMikdash to be rebuilt .
Unfortunately, the Jewish people accepted the King’s message and willfully joined in the Seuda, even drinking from the Temple vessels. They gave up hope - they terminated their desire for a Second Beis HaMikdash, and turned to a new future, being loyal subjects of the King and his Empire. What in effect they had done was give up on the unique role of the Jewish people as the Chosen People who were meant to serve as a Light Unto the Nations. They forsook any hope of a return to Eretz Yisroel and a new Beis HaMikdash. What they did not realize is that the Jewish people’s whole right to existence is based on their unique role in the world. Hashem cherishes the Jewish people because of its willingness to serve as an Am Segula who teaches the world to know Him. Now that they did not want to assume this unique role they automatically forsook any right to exist. Measure for measure, they were sentenced to destruction .
How did the Jewish people overturn the decree of destruction? The Gemara tells us the conversation that took place when Haman came to inform Mordechai of the honor that the King wanted to bestow on him. Haman found Mordechai learning Torah: Haman asked, “What are you learning?” Mordechai answered, “When the Beis HaMikdash existed, a person who gave a Mincha offering would bring a handful of flour and it would atone for him.” Upon hearing this, Haman replied, “your handful of flour will come and overturn my ten thousand silver shekalim. ” This Gemara is very difficult to understand - what was the significance of what Mordechai was learning and why did it make Haman realize that he would be defeated? The Ponevezher Rav explains that Haman knew that his hope of success lay in the defeatism that the Jewish people expressed at the Seudas Achashveirosh. He saw that Mordechai was teaching about laws that only apply when the Beis HaMikdash is standing - he realized that the Jewish people had done teshuva and reignited their desire for a new Beis HaMikdash. They still had hope that they could continue in their unique role as the Light Unto Nations, and consequently Haman knew that if they had not given up on Hashem then He would not give up on them.
The nisayon of the Jews in the time of Purim was to maintain hope during trying times. This nisayon continues to this very day and when we demonstrate weakness in it, our enemies gain encouragement that they can defeat us. The story is told of an infamous Arab terrorist who discussed the time he spent in an Israeli prison, after which he resumed his evil activities with even greater zeal. He said that, whilst in prison, he had initially decided to renounce his ‘career’ as a terrorist, feeling that his violent actions could not succeed in destroying Israel. However, one Pesach, he saw an Israeli guard eating a pitta. Knowing about the issur of eating chametz he inquired as to why the Jew was not observing this law. The Guard answered him that these laws are no longer of any importance. Hearing this, he decided that a people who had given up on their heritage could indeed be defeated. In stark contrast, after Napoleon had conquered yet another nation, he was shocked to see that the Jews were in grief. They explained to him that it was Tisha B’Av and they were mourning the destruction of the Temples. He asked them when this occurred and they explained that it was nearly 2000 years earlier. Upon hearing this he exclaimed that a people who kept such a strong connection to their heritage would surely never be destroyed.
We live in a time where the test of yeush exists on many different levels. For non-observant Jews, the test is obvious - not to completely abandon their heritage by assimilating into secular culture. But the nisayon applies to everyone in some form: Firstly, one may be tempted to give up on the millions of secular Jews, arguing that they are irretrievably lost to assimilation. This is of course a highly erroneous attitude and experience has proven that secular Jews can be quite easily reconnected to genuine Judaism. A second nisayon is that keeping the mitzvos does not necessarily preclude yeush - indeed the Jews who ate at the King’s banquet were still makpid only to eat kosher food. A person can keep mitzvos and still wonder if there will ever be a Third Beis Hamikdash and if Mashiach will really come. Moreover, yeush can plague our personal lives, persuading us that we have no possibility of achieving greatness. The story of Purim teaches us that we need never give up hope, both for the Jewish nation and ourselves as individuals - and as long as we maintain our desire to be the part of the Am Hashema we can be assured that He will protect us from all of our enemies.
DEFINING EVIL - PARSHAS ZACHOR
In the end of Parshas Ki Seitsei, the Torah commands us to remember the attack of Amalek against the Jewish people, when we were leaving Mitzrayim. This mitzvo is fulfilled by reading the portion that commands us with regard to this remembrance. Towards the end of the portion we are also commanded to wipe out the memory of Amalek - this means we must destroy any Amalek adult, child and animal. A person may find the command to destroy a whole nation difficult to understand.
Indeed this mitzvo troubled the righteous King, Shaul HaMelech when he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. Understanding the underlying mistake in this episode will help us answer the question above. The Prophet tells us that, on Hashem's command, Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul to wipe out the whole nation, including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals. The gemara offers an explanation as to Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer ; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life. Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation. The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous". A short time later, Shaul was pursuing David HaMelech as he felt David threatened Shaul's kingship. David took refuge with a group of Kohanim who lived in the city of Nov. Unaware of Shaul's enmity to David, they fed David and provided him with a sword. When Shaul heard about this, he ordered the murder of the whole city. At that time, another Bas Kol came out, saying, "do not be overly evil."
The Medrash makes a puzzling observation connecting these two incidents: "Anyone who is merciful in a situation where he should be cruel, eventually, he will be cruel in a situation where he should be merciful. The Medrash states clearly that it is inevitable that one who is inappropriately merciful will come to be cruel in an unsuitable manner. Why is this course of events so certain? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita explains that Shaul's underlying mistake was that he put his own natural emotions before the Torah's commands. Accordingly, in a situation where his natural sense of justice contradicted with a command to kill children, he chose his emotions ahead of detaching himself from his emotions in order to fulfill Hashem's word. However, in another situation, his emotions communicated to him a very different message; he perceived that David was a threat to his whole family, therefore he felt that anyone helping David was also a threat to his family and must be killed. Again, he placed his emotions before the Torah's instructions and ordered the ruthless murder of innocent people. Now we can understand the inexorable connection between Shaul's misplaced mercy and his inappropriate cruelty. A person who follows his emotions to the side of 'mercy' is nonetheless at the whim of his emotions and not morality as defined by the Torah. Therefore it is inevitable that on a separate occasion his emotions will pull him in a different direction and cause him to be overly cruel.
The account of Shaul’s failure to wipe out Amalek ended when Shmuel HaNavi personally struck down King Agag. The Ralbag brings out a remarkable point in this incident. Shmuel had Agag brought in front of him in chains. When Agag saw the righteous Shmuel, he exclaimed: “sar mar hamaves”. The Ralbag understands that Agag was saying that the bitterness of death had now gone away. This is because when he saw Shmuel he recognized his attributes of kindness and mercy, and thus he presumed that Shmuel would show mercy upon him. However, Shmuel quickly corrected Agag, telling him that he deserved to die, and he subsequently killed him. Shmuel was a merciful person because, in general, the Torah encourages the trait of mercy. However, on this occasion, Shmuel knew that mercy was inappropriate and, in this instance, the seemingly ‘cruel’ act of killing was the moral course of action because that was HaShem‘s will.
These incidents help us recognize that one cannot define morality according to his own subjective feelings and beliefs. When a person acts in such a way, he can begin to justify all kinds of evil actions. Indeed this is a common trend in secular society. People that do not believe in an objective morality feel free to define what constitutes ‘murder‘, for example. Thus, they judge that killing unborn fetuses or terminally ill people are valid courses of action. The Torah Jew recognizes that all human attempts to define morality are subject to terrible misuse. The only valid way of defining morality is by following the Torah's guidelines. Indeed morality, like everything else in the universe, was created and defined by HaShem. Accordingly, when a person finds it difficult to understand the moral nature of a Mitzvo in the Torah, this does not mean that the Mtizvo is immoral chas v’Shalom. Rather, it means that the person is following his own natural emotions and inclinations. The Torah encourages emotional expression, but only after a person has channeled his emotions through the prism of Torah. Then, he can shift his emotions to be in line with Torah morality.
With such an understanding, we realize that if HaShem commands us to destroy an entire nation, then that is the moral course of action. Indeed it is commendable to try to understand why the Torah makes such a command, and with some contemplation as to what Amalek represent, it is not difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the foundation is to recognize that the Torah conception of morality is the only valid one.
Indeed this mitzvo troubled the righteous King, Shaul HaMelech when he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. Understanding the underlying mistake in this episode will help us answer the question above. The Prophet tells us that, on Hashem's command, Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul to wipe out the whole nation, including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals. The gemara offers an explanation as to Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer ; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life. Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation. The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous". A short time later, Shaul was pursuing David HaMelech as he felt David threatened Shaul's kingship. David took refuge with a group of Kohanim who lived in the city of Nov. Unaware of Shaul's enmity to David, they fed David and provided him with a sword. When Shaul heard about this, he ordered the murder of the whole city. At that time, another Bas Kol came out, saying, "do not be overly evil."
The Medrash makes a puzzling observation connecting these two incidents: "Anyone who is merciful in a situation where he should be cruel, eventually, he will be cruel in a situation where he should be merciful. The Medrash states clearly that it is inevitable that one who is inappropriately merciful will come to be cruel in an unsuitable manner. Why is this course of events so certain? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita explains that Shaul's underlying mistake was that he put his own natural emotions before the Torah's commands. Accordingly, in a situation where his natural sense of justice contradicted with a command to kill children, he chose his emotions ahead of detaching himself from his emotions in order to fulfill Hashem's word. However, in another situation, his emotions communicated to him a very different message; he perceived that David was a threat to his whole family, therefore he felt that anyone helping David was also a threat to his family and must be killed. Again, he placed his emotions before the Torah's instructions and ordered the ruthless murder of innocent people. Now we can understand the inexorable connection between Shaul's misplaced mercy and his inappropriate cruelty. A person who follows his emotions to the side of 'mercy' is nonetheless at the whim of his emotions and not morality as defined by the Torah. Therefore it is inevitable that on a separate occasion his emotions will pull him in a different direction and cause him to be overly cruel.
The account of Shaul’s failure to wipe out Amalek ended when Shmuel HaNavi personally struck down King Agag. The Ralbag brings out a remarkable point in this incident. Shmuel had Agag brought in front of him in chains. When Agag saw the righteous Shmuel, he exclaimed: “sar mar hamaves”. The Ralbag understands that Agag was saying that the bitterness of death had now gone away. This is because when he saw Shmuel he recognized his attributes of kindness and mercy, and thus he presumed that Shmuel would show mercy upon him. However, Shmuel quickly corrected Agag, telling him that he deserved to die, and he subsequently killed him. Shmuel was a merciful person because, in general, the Torah encourages the trait of mercy. However, on this occasion, Shmuel knew that mercy was inappropriate and, in this instance, the seemingly ‘cruel’ act of killing was the moral course of action because that was HaShem‘s will.
These incidents help us recognize that one cannot define morality according to his own subjective feelings and beliefs. When a person acts in such a way, he can begin to justify all kinds of evil actions. Indeed this is a common trend in secular society. People that do not believe in an objective morality feel free to define what constitutes ‘murder‘, for example. Thus, they judge that killing unborn fetuses or terminally ill people are valid courses of action. The Torah Jew recognizes that all human attempts to define morality are subject to terrible misuse. The only valid way of defining morality is by following the Torah's guidelines. Indeed morality, like everything else in the universe, was created and defined by HaShem. Accordingly, when a person finds it difficult to understand the moral nature of a Mitzvo in the Torah, this does not mean that the Mtizvo is immoral chas v’Shalom. Rather, it means that the person is following his own natural emotions and inclinations. The Torah encourages emotional expression, but only after a person has channeled his emotions through the prism of Torah. Then, he can shift his emotions to be in line with Torah morality.
With such an understanding, we realize that if HaShem commands us to destroy an entire nation, then that is the moral course of action. Indeed it is commendable to try to understand why the Torah makes such a command, and with some contemplation as to what Amalek represent, it is not difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the foundation is to recognize that the Torah conception of morality is the only valid one.
REMEMBERING AMALEK - PARSHAS ZACHOR
Throughout history, many nations have tried to destroy the Jewish people. However, we are commanded to permanently remember the attack of only one of these nations; that of Amalek, when they attacked the Jewish people shortly after the splitting of the Sea.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the danger that Amalek poses to the Jewish nation, it is instructive to closely analyze the commandment to remember their heinous deed: "Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt; that he happened upon you on the way. and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G-d."
The majority of the verse focuses on Amalek's despicable actions, such as how they attacked us when we were weak and tired. However, the end of the verse points out the main negative characteristic that Amalek displayed - that they did not fear G-d. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita notes that Amalek are known to be the epitome of evil, and surely possess numerous terrible traits and beliefs. Accordingly, he asks that it is difficult to understand why the Torah focused in particular on the seemingly mild flaw of lacking in ‘yiras Shamayim’?
He explains that the Torah is teaching us that the root cause of Amalek’s evil character was his lack of yiras Shamayim. Why is this the case? One significant aspect of Yiras Shamayim is that one who fears G-d is aware of Hashem’s involvement in the world. He sees Divine Providence in everything that takes place. He then takes this awareness and uses it to understand how HaShem is communicating to him. This greater recognition brings one who fears G-d closer to fulfilling His will.
In contrast, one who lacks yiras Shamayim is blind to the events around him. He does not see G-d’s hand in the most miraculous events, rather he irrationally ascribes it to the random laws of nature. Thus, he is not moved by anything, no matter how remarkable. Such a person will never come closer to the truth because nothing effects him. Amalek epitomized this trait. They were aware of the remarkable miracles of the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the Sea, yet they paid no attention to the logical consequences of these events - that there is an All-Powerful Being who was guiding the Jewish people. They refused to recognize any sense of uniqueness about the Jewish people and flagrantly attacked them. In this way, their lack of ‘yiras Shamayim’ was the source of their evil actions.
This idea is further described by the Torah: It explains how Amalek “happened upon” the Jewish people. The hebrew word used here is ‘korcha’. Chazal teach us that the root of korcha is similar to the word for ’cold’ - ‘kor’ - Amalek cooled down the world’s fear of the Jewish people that they felt after the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. They bring an analogy of a boiling hot bath, that is so hot that no person can go inside. Then, one person jumps inside it. He burns himself but he cools it down for the other people to be able to go in it. Similarly, the non-Jewish nations were afraid to fight the Jewish people after all the miracles that they had experienced. Amalek paid no heed to these miracles and attacked. Even though they greatly damaged themselves, they also reduced the fear of the other nations towards the Jews.
Why did Amalek respond differently from the other nations, to the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. The non-Jews worshipped false G-ds but they believed in the idea of a power guiding a nation. Accordingly, they believed in the 'G-d of the Jews' and paid heed to His protection of the Jewish people. Amalek, in contrast, seem to have been atheists. They believed in no force, therefore they attributed all of the wondrous events of yetsias Mitzrayim to chance. Accordingly, they could ignore all the signs and jump into the boiling bathtub.
We have seen that the root of Amalek's evil was their belief in the randomness of events and the accompanying total rejection of a Higher Being. This caused them to react 'coldly' to everything that they witnessed, and even to cause other nations to 'cool down' their fear of the Jewish people. This attitude is something that is unique to Amalek amongst all the nations, and in a certain sense, poses more of a danger to Torah observance than the idolatrous beliefs of the other nations. It causes 'believing' Jews to lose their sense of wonder about the miracles that surround them, and to even subconsciously attribute them to chance. Moreover, it prevents a person from learning from events around him, making him immune to the lessons that Hashem sends him. in this vein, Rav Sternbuch discusses a person who merits to see the salvations of HaShem and His wonders, yet remains blind to what goes on around him, and is not aroused to fear HaShem. Rav Sternbuch writes that such a person should know that he is surrounded by impurity and is under the influence of Amalek.
When we read Parshas Zachor we should focus on the lack of yiras Hashem that characterized Amalek. Through this contemplation may we merit to remove the power of Amalek from the world.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the danger that Amalek poses to the Jewish nation, it is instructive to closely analyze the commandment to remember their heinous deed: "Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt; that he happened upon you on the way. and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G-d."
The majority of the verse focuses on Amalek's despicable actions, such as how they attacked us when we were weak and tired. However, the end of the verse points out the main negative characteristic that Amalek displayed - that they did not fear G-d. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita notes that Amalek are known to be the epitome of evil, and surely possess numerous terrible traits and beliefs. Accordingly, he asks that it is difficult to understand why the Torah focused in particular on the seemingly mild flaw of lacking in ‘yiras Shamayim’?
He explains that the Torah is teaching us that the root cause of Amalek’s evil character was his lack of yiras Shamayim. Why is this the case? One significant aspect of Yiras Shamayim is that one who fears G-d is aware of Hashem’s involvement in the world. He sees Divine Providence in everything that takes place. He then takes this awareness and uses it to understand how HaShem is communicating to him. This greater recognition brings one who fears G-d closer to fulfilling His will.
In contrast, one who lacks yiras Shamayim is blind to the events around him. He does not see G-d’s hand in the most miraculous events, rather he irrationally ascribes it to the random laws of nature. Thus, he is not moved by anything, no matter how remarkable. Such a person will never come closer to the truth because nothing effects him. Amalek epitomized this trait. They were aware of the remarkable miracles of the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the Sea, yet they paid no attention to the logical consequences of these events - that there is an All-Powerful Being who was guiding the Jewish people. They refused to recognize any sense of uniqueness about the Jewish people and flagrantly attacked them. In this way, their lack of ‘yiras Shamayim’ was the source of their evil actions.
This idea is further described by the Torah: It explains how Amalek “happened upon” the Jewish people. The hebrew word used here is ‘korcha’. Chazal teach us that the root of korcha is similar to the word for ’cold’ - ‘kor’ - Amalek cooled down the world’s fear of the Jewish people that they felt after the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. They bring an analogy of a boiling hot bath, that is so hot that no person can go inside. Then, one person jumps inside it. He burns himself but he cools it down for the other people to be able to go in it. Similarly, the non-Jewish nations were afraid to fight the Jewish people after all the miracles that they had experienced. Amalek paid no heed to these miracles and attacked. Even though they greatly damaged themselves, they also reduced the fear of the other nations towards the Jews.
Why did Amalek respond differently from the other nations, to the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. The non-Jews worshipped false G-ds but they believed in the idea of a power guiding a nation. Accordingly, they believed in the 'G-d of the Jews' and paid heed to His protection of the Jewish people. Amalek, in contrast, seem to have been atheists. They believed in no force, therefore they attributed all of the wondrous events of yetsias Mitzrayim to chance. Accordingly, they could ignore all the signs and jump into the boiling bathtub.
We have seen that the root of Amalek's evil was their belief in the randomness of events and the accompanying total rejection of a Higher Being. This caused them to react 'coldly' to everything that they witnessed, and even to cause other nations to 'cool down' their fear of the Jewish people. This attitude is something that is unique to Amalek amongst all the nations, and in a certain sense, poses more of a danger to Torah observance than the idolatrous beliefs of the other nations. It causes 'believing' Jews to lose their sense of wonder about the miracles that surround them, and to even subconsciously attribute them to chance. Moreover, it prevents a person from learning from events around him, making him immune to the lessons that Hashem sends him. in this vein, Rav Sternbuch discusses a person who merits to see the salvations of HaShem and His wonders, yet remains blind to what goes on around him, and is not aroused to fear HaShem. Rav Sternbuch writes that such a person should know that he is surrounded by impurity and is under the influence of Amalek.
When we read Parshas Zachor we should focus on the lack of yiras Hashem that characterized Amalek. Through this contemplation may we merit to remove the power of Amalek from the world.
THE GREATNESS AND LOWLINESS OF MAN - TZAV
The Parsha begins with the mitzvo of terumas hadeshen, whereby the Kohen must remove the ashes from the previous day’s offering. Rabbeinu Bechaya writes that this mitzvo teaches the mida of humility before Hashem because the Kohen must humble himself to perform this seemingly degrading act . The Kli Yakar adds that the ashes should remind the Kohen of Avraham Avinu’s recognition that man comes from ’afar v’eifer’ .
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
THE TEMPTATIONS OF MONEY - TZAV
"And Hashem said to Moshe, saying; Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, to say; this is the Law of the Olah.. .
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
THE RIGHT KIND OF JEALOUSY - VAYIKRA
During its outline of the various korbanos (sacrifices), the Torah forbids bringing offerings of leaven and honey . It then immediately tells us that, in contrast, we must include salt in all the meal-offerings. What is the difference between salt with honey and leaven, to the extent that salt is obligatory, whilst the other two substances are forbidden?! The commentaries point out that there is great symbolism in the korbanos, and that each of these three substances represent various character traits – by analyzing their symbolism we can answer this question.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
GIFT OFFERINGS - VAYIKRA
The Book of Vayikra focuses to a significant degree on the various korbanos that were to be given in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and later the Beis HaMikdash (Temple). A number of these korbanos are known as korbanos nedava (gift offerings). They are not obligatory, however, if a person is aroused to give such an offering, then he fulfils a Mitzo and to do so is considered highly praiseworthy. The Steipler Gaon zt"l asks a penetrating question about the nature of these korbanos nedava . Most Mitzvos are obligatory because Hashem's wisdom decreed that a Jew must fulfill them, thus they are an essential aspect of one's Avodas Hashem. Korbanos Nedava are not obligatory, implying that they are not essential to a Jew's Avoda.. However, on the other hand, offering such korbanos is considered to be a Mitzo, implying that there is some kind of benefit in their offering and that they do have a place in one's Avoda. How can we understand the nature of this kind of Mitzvo?
The Steipler answers this by first addressing another important question in Jewish thought. One of the most fundamental Mitzvos is that of Ahavas Hashem (to love Hashem). This obligates a Jew to direct his emotions in such a way that he develops a strong love of Hashem. How can theTorah can obligate one to have a particular emotion - surely that is beyond a person's control? To answer this problem, the Steipler brings the yesod (principle) of the Mesillas Yesharim (Path of the Just), with regard to the trait of zerizus (zealousness) . He writes that just as internal inspiration brings about external actions, so too, external actions can arouse one's inner feelings. Thus, acting in a certain manner can bring about desired emotions.
The Steipler writes that this yesod applies very strongly to the Mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem. We know that an internal love brings one to actions reflecting his love for Hashem and his willingness to ignore his own desires for the sake of Hashem's honor. So too, performing voluntary actions that involve placing Hashem's Ratson (will) before one's own desires, will bring a person to an increased love of Hashem.
With this yesod, the Steipler explains the nature of korbanos nedava. These korbanos provide one with a great opportunity to get close to Hashem by placing Hashem before himself: He forgoes his own needs by exerting a considerable amount of time, effort and money, in order to bring an animal or food offering to the Temple and offer it up to Hashem. Showing such selflessness on behalf of Hashem is a highly effective way of arousing one's love of Him. This explains why bringing korbanos nedava is such a praiseworthy act. However, if the Torah obligated every Jew to bring such korbanos, then their whole purpose would be lost - when one is obligated to give of himself to another, he does not develop feelings of love, rather he feels that he is paying a debt that he owes. Thus, the Torah gives each Jew the opportunity to arouse himself to fulfill an action that will surely increase his ahavas Hashem by making korbanos nedava 'optional'. Yet at the same time, offering such korbanos is considered a great Mitzvo because of its effectiveness in bringing about love of Hashem.
The Steipler writes that this yesod is not limited to korbanos; a person can choose any specific area where he desires to exert an extra amount of effort that goes beyond what is required by law. By 'willingly' giving of himself in one area he can bring himself to an increased love of Hashem. This idea is demonstrated by the following story told over by Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita: He was once given a ride by a seemingly ordinary Jew. In the course of the conversation it emerged that this Jew gave particular emphasis to the Mitzvo of prayer. He had not missed praying in a minyan for several years and even cancelled a vacation to a place when he realized that he would be unable to find a minyan there. Further, he never prayed Mincha or Maariv before or after the ideal time. This man chose one area in which to put in that extra effort and self-sacrifice and in this way he was surely able to arouse in himself an increased love for Hashem. He didn't need to feel obligated to act in this way because it is possible to find heterim (leniencies) to sometimes miss a minyan and not pray in the ideal zman. Yet he chose to express his desire to do Ratson Hashem by being extra careful in the Mitzvo of prayer.
We learn from the yesod of the Steipler, that a key method of bringing oneself closer to Hashem is by doing actions that are not considered obligatory according to the Torah but that are certainly praiseworthy. It is instructive for each person to strive to find at least one area in which he makes that extra exertion in his efforts to get closer to Hashem.
The Steipler answers this by first addressing another important question in Jewish thought. One of the most fundamental Mitzvos is that of Ahavas Hashem (to love Hashem). This obligates a Jew to direct his emotions in such a way that he develops a strong love of Hashem. How can theTorah can obligate one to have a particular emotion - surely that is beyond a person's control? To answer this problem, the Steipler brings the yesod (principle) of the Mesillas Yesharim (Path of the Just), with regard to the trait of zerizus (zealousness) . He writes that just as internal inspiration brings about external actions, so too, external actions can arouse one's inner feelings. Thus, acting in a certain manner can bring about desired emotions.
The Steipler writes that this yesod applies very strongly to the Mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem. We know that an internal love brings one to actions reflecting his love for Hashem and his willingness to ignore his own desires for the sake of Hashem's honor. So too, performing voluntary actions that involve placing Hashem's Ratson (will) before one's own desires, will bring a person to an increased love of Hashem.
With this yesod, the Steipler explains the nature of korbanos nedava. These korbanos provide one with a great opportunity to get close to Hashem by placing Hashem before himself: He forgoes his own needs by exerting a considerable amount of time, effort and money, in order to bring an animal or food offering to the Temple and offer it up to Hashem. Showing such selflessness on behalf of Hashem is a highly effective way of arousing one's love of Him. This explains why bringing korbanos nedava is such a praiseworthy act. However, if the Torah obligated every Jew to bring such korbanos, then their whole purpose would be lost - when one is obligated to give of himself to another, he does not develop feelings of love, rather he feels that he is paying a debt that he owes. Thus, the Torah gives each Jew the opportunity to arouse himself to fulfill an action that will surely increase his ahavas Hashem by making korbanos nedava 'optional'. Yet at the same time, offering such korbanos is considered a great Mitzvo because of its effectiveness in bringing about love of Hashem.
The Steipler writes that this yesod is not limited to korbanos; a person can choose any specific area where he desires to exert an extra amount of effort that goes beyond what is required by law. By 'willingly' giving of himself in one area he can bring himself to an increased love of Hashem. This idea is demonstrated by the following story told over by Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita: He was once given a ride by a seemingly ordinary Jew. In the course of the conversation it emerged that this Jew gave particular emphasis to the Mitzvo of prayer. He had not missed praying in a minyan for several years and even cancelled a vacation to a place when he realized that he would be unable to find a minyan there. Further, he never prayed Mincha or Maariv before or after the ideal time. This man chose one area in which to put in that extra effort and self-sacrifice and in this way he was surely able to arouse in himself an increased love for Hashem. He didn't need to feel obligated to act in this way because it is possible to find heterim (leniencies) to sometimes miss a minyan and not pray in the ideal zman. Yet he chose to express his desire to do Ratson Hashem by being extra careful in the Mitzvo of prayer.
We learn from the yesod of the Steipler, that a key method of bringing oneself closer to Hashem is by doing actions that are not considered obligatory according to the Torah but that are certainly praiseworthy. It is instructive for each person to strive to find at least one area in which he makes that extra exertion in his efforts to get closer to Hashem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
