The Parsha ends with a history of how the Jewish people came to conquer the city of Cheshbon from the Emorim. It had previously been part of Moav until Sichon, King of the Emorim, defeated Moav and acquired Cheshbon. With regard to that war, the Torah tells us, “Therefore say the ‘Moshlim’, come to Cheshbon and the city of Sichon will be built and set up. ” The simple understanding of this passuk is that the ‘Moshlim’ are those who say mashalim (poems), Bilaam and Beor, and they were telling Sichon to come and conquer Cheshbon from the Moavim. However, the Gemara sees a hidden message in this passuk: “Therefore, say those who rule their inclinations, come and let us make an accounting of the world; the loss [incurred through doing] a mitzva against its benefit, and the benefit of a sin against its loss ”.
The commentaries ask, why is it that only those who ‘rule their inclinations’ say that one should do a cheshbon (accounting), implying that those who do not rule their inclinations do not believe that a person should participate in such a cheshbon . The Mesillas Yeshiarim explains that those who rule their inclinations are people who have developed a deep understanding of the yetser hara and are aware of the need to constantly remain vigilant against its tactics by undertaking a regular cheshbon hanefesh. Consequently they exhort people to make a cheshbon hanefesh. This cheshbon involves a review of what a person’s overall goals in life should be and assessing whether he is living in accord with those goals. A person who does not ‘rule over his inclination’ has no awareness of how the yester hara is constantly tricking him into an undesirable lifestyle. He is so blinded by its powers that he stumbles along life like a person who walks in the darkness blissfully unaware that there are numerous traps awaiting him. He does not recognize the need to do any kind of cheshbon and has to be motivated to do so by one who does rule his inclination.
The Mesillas Yesharim discusses the main factors that cause a person to fail to grasp the true purpose of life. He writes that the most basic problem is that one can become so engulfed in his activities that he never has the opportunity to step back and assess the direction that his life is taking. This is one of the main tactics of the yetser hara - he knows that if one were to step back and analyze his actions then he will recognize that drastic changes are needed. Therefore, it makes him so busy that he does not have any free time with which to think about his life direction. He compares this to the plan of Pharaoh when he perceived a threat that the Jews were beginning to think about freedom. His response was to make their workload heavier so that they would have no time to think about rebelling against him, rather, “he tried to distract their hearts from all contemplation with the sheer constancy of the work which never ceased.”
So too, the yetser hara sends us all kinds of distractions that cause us to be constantly busy to the extent that we can never step back and look at the general direction that our life is taking. One observer, noting this succinctly stated, “there is a difference between activity and accomplishment;” a person may be extremely busy but were they to step back and examine what he is e actually accomplishing in a meaningful sense, they may be disappointed. This dilemma is demonstrated by the following observation by a person who had just arrived at the realization that he was caught in this trap: “I’ m busy - really busy. But sometimes I wonder if what I’m doing will make any difference in the long run.
This busyness can manifest itself in a number of ways. The following stories provide two examples of how his can occur: One father was very involved in his work, to the extent that he even worked on Sundays, the one time when he could spend quality time with his son. Every Sunday his son would ask him if they could spend some time together but the father answered that he had to work. Finally, the son asked his father how much money he earns in one hour of work on a Sunday. The father answered, $100 - the son replied that he had saved $50 and was willing to give that to his father so that he would spend half an hour with him! It may well be that the father’s intentions in working so hard were noble and included providing a stable financial upbringing for his son. However, he missed sight of the fact that he was sacrificing a meaningful relationship with his son and therefore any benefit of the extra work was outweighed by the damage it was causing. Only after the father’s eyes were opened by his son’s desperate efforts was he able to step back and reassess his role as a father.
Another example is about the Rebbe who asked one of his top talmidim how often he thinks about G-d. The talmid answered, “Rebbe, I get up at 3.00am every morning and learn continuously until I daven Neitz, I have a very quick breakfast, and learn all morning, only to stop for a brief lunch and mincha, and then I learn all afternoon and through the night until I collapse with tiredness - Rebbe, when do I have time to think about G-d? !” This talmid had got so involved in his ‘Avodas Hashem’ that he had missed sight of the overall purpose of what he was doing - to develop a relationship with G-d.
If these nisyonos (tests) were so strong in the time of the Mesillas Yesharim then all the more so it presents a formidable challenge in the modern world. Society is saturated with gadgets and technology that can keep people busy and distracted throughout the day . There is barely a conversation that is not interrupted by someone receiving a call on their cell phone or an email on their blackberry. The consequences of such developments are that there is barely a moment where a person is free from all distractions to assess his life direction.
In order to overcome the efforts of the yetser hara to never think about our life direction, The Mesillas Yeesharim strongly suggests that a person make a regular cheshbon hanefesh. The purpose of this is to remind himself of what his goals in life and to assess whether he is living according to them or has lost sight of the overall goal and is caught up in details that are distracting him from his true life purpose. A useful time in which one can escape from the numerous distractions of daily life and contemplate his life is Shabbos. That is the one day when an observant Jew is free from many of the technological advances that hinder cheshbon hanefesh. Therefore, this is a fitting time when one can look back at the past week and assess whether he lived in line with his life goals or not.
As we have seen, the yetser hara is desperate to prevent us from true self-contemplation. As a result, one may find it harder to do a 5 minute cheshbon hanefesh once a week than to learn for 10 hours a day! The yetser hara does not want a person to learn but if it cannot prevent this, then he tries with all his might to prevent a person from utilizing what he learns in order to live a lifestyle with Torah true goals. He primarily does this by stopping a person from stepping back and thinking about his life direction. Consequently, it requires a strong effort to being a cheshbon hanefesh, but as we know, one who tries to purify himself receives great help from Shamayim and can surely succeed in this difficult area.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
TAAMEI HAMITZVOS - CHUKAS
The Parsha begins “this is the chok of the Torah” and proceeds to discuss the laws of Parah Adumah (the red heifer), a mitzvo which is impossible to understand according to human logic. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh asks why this mitzvo is called the ‘chok of the Torah’, it would have been more appropriate to say ‘this is the chok of tahara’. He answers that the Torah is alluding to us that if we fulfil this mitzvo even though it has no reason to it, then the Passuk considers it as if we have fulfilled the whole Torah, because fulfilling a mitzva without reason shows that we are unconditionally willing to follow Hashem’s Ratson.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that when a person fulfils a mitzvo that has an obvious reason to it, it is still not clear that he is prepared to fulfil the Torah purely because Hashem commanded it. It could be that he is doing it because it makes sense to him. However, once he performs a mitzvo that is without logic that proves that he keeps all the mitzvos, not because they make sense to him, but because Hashem commanded them.
This is a fundamental principle of the Torah - we accept that we must follow Hashem’s will without making any cheshbonos according to our own logic. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that this was Korach’s mistake in his theological attacks against Moshe Rabbeinu. He attempted to expose the fallacy of the mitzvos of tsitsit and mezuza by showing their illogical nature. He argued that the reason for wearing a thread of techeiles on each corner is because it resembles the sea, which resembles the sky, which resembles the Throne of Glory. Based on this reasoning Korach argued that one who wears a garment of techeiles should not need a thread of it on its corner because there is ample reminder of the sea, sky and the throne of glory in the actual garment. In reality, however, the mitzvo applies in all cases, even where the given reason has no apparent application because ultimately all mitzvos must be observed and should be viewed as a gezeira that cannot be questioned.
In light of this principle, a difficulty arises: Many of the greatest Torah scholars such as the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and, more recently, Rav Hirsch zt”l went to great lengths to explain the taamey hamitzvos - the reasons behind the mitzvos. Yet it is clear from Parah Adumah that the ultimate reason behind each mitzvo is beyond human understanding; Shlomo Hamelech had thought that he understood the deepest reason for every mitzvo until he came to Parah Aduma which he could not fathom. He then realised that he did not truly understand the definitive reason for any of the mitzvos. In light of this, how can anyone claim to understand a taam for any given mitzvo if Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest man, could not?!
My Rebbe answers by explaining that the commentaries are not claiming to understand the ultimate reason behind the mitzvo - we can have no concept of the genuine reason for any mitzvo - that is something that belongs in the highest olamos. However, this does not mean that the ‘taamey hamitzvos’ have no truth to them. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom ‘arranged’ it so that each mitzvo can make sense on many different levels of existence. For example they can help a person develop desirable character traits and can enhance relationships.
We see this in many mitzvos: The laws of tumah and tahara are among the most difficult to fathom. However, the most relevant of these laws today, taharas mishpacha, has obvious benefits. The Gemara explains that it is very beneficial for husband and wife to separate for a certain time every month so that they can avoid the problem of lack of excitement in the relationship . Based on this Gemara, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that this advantage is one of the taamey hamitzvos of taharas mishpacha . This does not mean that the reason we keep taharas mishpacha is because it helps one’s relationship, however, it is no co-incidence that it does so, Hashem clearly ‘intended’ it to be that way.
Another example of this is the mitzvo of shechita. The Ramban writes that it does not effect Hashem whether we kill an animal by shechita, by nichor or by strangling. However, Hashem instructed us to kill the animal in the least cruel way in order to teach us the mida of rachmanus even at the time of killing . Again this does not mean that we slaughter animals the way we do because it will help us be more merciful, we do it that way purely because Hashem commanded us to. Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that Hashem also intended for us to develop favourable midos through observing the mitzvos.
Thus, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot fathom the ultimate reason for the mitzvos, we can nonetheless understand taamim to the mitzvos that are emes on a certain level. With this understanding we can now appreciate why the commentaries held it was so important to teach us taamey hamitzvos. It is true that we keep the mitzvos solely because Hashem instructed us to, however, it is not sufficient that we merely do the mitzvo robotically, without any thought as to what we are doing. Mitzvos are intended to change us into better people, and the way that they do this is through the taamey hamitzvos. The Sefer Hachinuch tells us the shoresh to every mitzvo - why? So that we can have an idea of what we are supposed to gain from performing this mitzvo and we can work towards achieveing that benefit.
The issur of lashon hara demonstrates this idea. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the taam of this issur with a maaseh. A chacham was walking with his talmidim when they came across the corpse of a dead dog. One of the talmidim commented on how disgusting this corpse was. The chacham replied that it had very nice, white teeth . He was teaching his talmid the mida of focussing on the good. This, Rabbeinu Yonah writes, is the taam of shemiras halashon. There is no actual issur of lashon hara for focussing on the unpleasant aspects of a dead dog, however one who sees things in a negative fashion misses the point of the issur of lashon hara. It is not enough merely to not speak badly about others, the root of the mitzvo is to focus on the good in people. In refraining from speaking badly about others, one should strive to transform himself into a person with a positive outlook on life.
Learning from the taamey hamitzvos is not merely a profitable exercise, it is essential to one’s relationship with Hashem. The Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo explains why there are so many mitzvos that relate to Yetsias Mitzrayim. He says that their purpose is to instill in us a deep sense of emuna in Hashem and His hashgacha . It is not sufficient merely to put a mezuza on the doorposts of one’s home and kiss it now and again. We are supposed to see the mezuza and be reminded of the message inside it, that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim and is continually guiding us in our lives.
The Ramban goes even further and says that, in reality the tachlis of all the mitzvos is to bring us close to Hashem and acknowledge that He is our creator. “This is the purpose of creation, for there is no other reason for our creation, and the only thing that Hashem wants from us is that we know and acknowledge Him. ” This process, whereby a person is brought closer to Hashem through observance of the Mitzvos is not automatic. If a person commits mitzvos out of habit then, although he may have technically fulfilled them, he has not utilised them to achieve their purpose; closeness to Hashem. Some mitzvos do this by directly arousing a person to awareness of Hashem and some do it by encouraging development of certain midos. But the common denominator of all of them is developing our emuna.
We have seen how parah aduma teaches us that we are obligated to fulfil mitzvos without questioning their logic, and yet at the same time, we are also obligated to understand the taamim of the mitzvos so that we can grow from them in the intended way.
A recommended way to achieve this is to spend some time analysing the taamey hamitzvos; there are many sources, one can look to the earlier sources such as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Sefer Hachinuch or turn to later commentaries such as Rav Hirsch or Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt”l. By doing this we can remind ourselves that each mitzvo has taamim that we are supposed to be aware of and use to grow from.
This is not an easy task because there is a strong yetser hara that allows us to do mitzvos as long as we miss their intended tachlis. The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honoured guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of his guest. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalised the message of this minhag. All the mitzvos have internal messages - it is up to us to learn them and use them in their intended way.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that when a person fulfils a mitzvo that has an obvious reason to it, it is still not clear that he is prepared to fulfil the Torah purely because Hashem commanded it. It could be that he is doing it because it makes sense to him. However, once he performs a mitzvo that is without logic that proves that he keeps all the mitzvos, not because they make sense to him, but because Hashem commanded them.
This is a fundamental principle of the Torah - we accept that we must follow Hashem’s will without making any cheshbonos according to our own logic. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that this was Korach’s mistake in his theological attacks against Moshe Rabbeinu. He attempted to expose the fallacy of the mitzvos of tsitsit and mezuza by showing their illogical nature. He argued that the reason for wearing a thread of techeiles on each corner is because it resembles the sea, which resembles the sky, which resembles the Throne of Glory. Based on this reasoning Korach argued that one who wears a garment of techeiles should not need a thread of it on its corner because there is ample reminder of the sea, sky and the throne of glory in the actual garment. In reality, however, the mitzvo applies in all cases, even where the given reason has no apparent application because ultimately all mitzvos must be observed and should be viewed as a gezeira that cannot be questioned.
In light of this principle, a difficulty arises: Many of the greatest Torah scholars such as the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and, more recently, Rav Hirsch zt”l went to great lengths to explain the taamey hamitzvos - the reasons behind the mitzvos. Yet it is clear from Parah Adumah that the ultimate reason behind each mitzvo is beyond human understanding; Shlomo Hamelech had thought that he understood the deepest reason for every mitzvo until he came to Parah Aduma which he could not fathom. He then realised that he did not truly understand the definitive reason for any of the mitzvos. In light of this, how can anyone claim to understand a taam for any given mitzvo if Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest man, could not?!
My Rebbe answers by explaining that the commentaries are not claiming to understand the ultimate reason behind the mitzvo - we can have no concept of the genuine reason for any mitzvo - that is something that belongs in the highest olamos. However, this does not mean that the ‘taamey hamitzvos’ have no truth to them. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom ‘arranged’ it so that each mitzvo can make sense on many different levels of existence. For example they can help a person develop desirable character traits and can enhance relationships.
We see this in many mitzvos: The laws of tumah and tahara are among the most difficult to fathom. However, the most relevant of these laws today, taharas mishpacha, has obvious benefits. The Gemara explains that it is very beneficial for husband and wife to separate for a certain time every month so that they can avoid the problem of lack of excitement in the relationship . Based on this Gemara, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that this advantage is one of the taamey hamitzvos of taharas mishpacha . This does not mean that the reason we keep taharas mishpacha is because it helps one’s relationship, however, it is no co-incidence that it does so, Hashem clearly ‘intended’ it to be that way.
Another example of this is the mitzvo of shechita. The Ramban writes that it does not effect Hashem whether we kill an animal by shechita, by nichor or by strangling. However, Hashem instructed us to kill the animal in the least cruel way in order to teach us the mida of rachmanus even at the time of killing . Again this does not mean that we slaughter animals the way we do because it will help us be more merciful, we do it that way purely because Hashem commanded us to. Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that Hashem also intended for us to develop favourable midos through observing the mitzvos.
Thus, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot fathom the ultimate reason for the mitzvos, we can nonetheless understand taamim to the mitzvos that are emes on a certain level. With this understanding we can now appreciate why the commentaries held it was so important to teach us taamey hamitzvos. It is true that we keep the mitzvos solely because Hashem instructed us to, however, it is not sufficient that we merely do the mitzvo robotically, without any thought as to what we are doing. Mitzvos are intended to change us into better people, and the way that they do this is through the taamey hamitzvos. The Sefer Hachinuch tells us the shoresh to every mitzvo - why? So that we can have an idea of what we are supposed to gain from performing this mitzvo and we can work towards achieveing that benefit.
The issur of lashon hara demonstrates this idea. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the taam of this issur with a maaseh. A chacham was walking with his talmidim when they came across the corpse of a dead dog. One of the talmidim commented on how disgusting this corpse was. The chacham replied that it had very nice, white teeth . He was teaching his talmid the mida of focussing on the good. This, Rabbeinu Yonah writes, is the taam of shemiras halashon. There is no actual issur of lashon hara for focussing on the unpleasant aspects of a dead dog, however one who sees things in a negative fashion misses the point of the issur of lashon hara. It is not enough merely to not speak badly about others, the root of the mitzvo is to focus on the good in people. In refraining from speaking badly about others, one should strive to transform himself into a person with a positive outlook on life.
Learning from the taamey hamitzvos is not merely a profitable exercise, it is essential to one’s relationship with Hashem. The Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo explains why there are so many mitzvos that relate to Yetsias Mitzrayim. He says that their purpose is to instill in us a deep sense of emuna in Hashem and His hashgacha . It is not sufficient merely to put a mezuza on the doorposts of one’s home and kiss it now and again. We are supposed to see the mezuza and be reminded of the message inside it, that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim and is continually guiding us in our lives.
The Ramban goes even further and says that, in reality the tachlis of all the mitzvos is to bring us close to Hashem and acknowledge that He is our creator. “This is the purpose of creation, for there is no other reason for our creation, and the only thing that Hashem wants from us is that we know and acknowledge Him. ” This process, whereby a person is brought closer to Hashem through observance of the Mitzvos is not automatic. If a person commits mitzvos out of habit then, although he may have technically fulfilled them, he has not utilised them to achieve their purpose; closeness to Hashem. Some mitzvos do this by directly arousing a person to awareness of Hashem and some do it by encouraging development of certain midos. But the common denominator of all of them is developing our emuna.
We have seen how parah aduma teaches us that we are obligated to fulfil mitzvos without questioning their logic, and yet at the same time, we are also obligated to understand the taamim of the mitzvos so that we can grow from them in the intended way.
A recommended way to achieve this is to spend some time analysing the taamey hamitzvos; there are many sources, one can look to the earlier sources such as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Sefer Hachinuch or turn to later commentaries such as Rav Hirsch or Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt”l. By doing this we can remind ourselves that each mitzvo has taamim that we are supposed to be aware of and use to grow from.
This is not an easy task because there is a strong yetser hara that allows us to do mitzvos as long as we miss their intended tachlis. The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honoured guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of his guest. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalised the message of this minhag. All the mitzvos have internal messages - it is up to us to learn them and use them in their intended way.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
THE DANGER OF LEITZANUS - KORACH
When one reads the account of the rebellion of Korach he is struck by his seemingly foolish attempt to challenge Moshe Rabbeinu. Yet it is clear that at the time Korach succeeded in persuading huge numbers of people about the validity of his arguments against Moshe and Aron. Although the rebellion began with a relatively small number of people, by its climax, the Torah tells us that he gathered together “all of the assembly ” against Moshe and Aron. How was he able to initiate such a powerful uprising against the men who had guided the Jewish people through countless miracles in the desert?
In order to answer this question, it is instructive to examine another problem in the parsha. One of the main arguments of Korach and his assembly was his opposition to the appointment of Aron to the position of Kohen Gadol. They argued that Moshe had personally made this appointment as an act of favoritism towards his brother. After the rebels were punished through various terrible yissurim, Hashem ordered Moshe to prove that Aron had been divinely appointed to his position through the test of the staffs whereby Aron’s staff miraculously blossomed proving conclusively that he deserved to be Kohen Gadol. After this test, all the discontent disintegrated
Rav Leib Chasman zt”l asks, why did Hashem order the test of the staffs only AFTER the awesome punishments that He meted out. Had the miracle of the staff blossoming taken place right at the beginning, it could have convinced the people of the invalidity of the arguments against Moshe and Aron, thus rendering the punishments unnecessary. He answers by teaching an important yesod in human nature. Korach knew that he could not defeat Moshe in a battle of logic, he knew that Moshe’s case was far too strong, and that Moshe was far too wise for Korach to rationally defeat him. Thus he resorted to the devastating weapon of leitzanus (mockery) through which he could belittle Moshe and Aron without having to logically justify his arguments. We see this in the words of Rashi when he explains how Korach was able to persuade so many people to side with him; The Torah says that he gathered the people against Moshe and Aron. The obvious question is how was he able to achieve such a monumental task; Rashi explains that he as able to do so through, “divrei leitzanus. ”
Rav Chasman continues that leitzanus ignores the power of sechel and arouses the animalistic part of man where logic is meaningless. This explains the concept in the passuk in Mishlei that exhorts us not to rebuke the leitz; the leitz is not interested in any form of logical argument, rather he wants to continue with his own lifestyle and will belittle any attempts to change him. Another passuk in Mishlei tells us that the only way to humble the leitz is through yissurim; “Prepare punishments for the leitz. ” The Mesillas Yesharim explains that ideally a person is supposed to grow and learn from his mistakes through Talmud Torah and chesbon hanefesh (self-contemplation), however the leitz is immune to such methods and therefore the only thing that can effect him is yissurim.
This, writes Rav Chasman, explains why Hashem only sent the miracle of the staffs after the punishments that struck Korach and his main supporters. The power of leitzanus to ignore logic is so great that it can even dismiss open miracles if they conflict with the leitz’s self-interest. Had the miracle taken place before anyone had been punished, the rebels would have found a way to dismiss it and ignore its ramifications through a mocking comment. It was only after the devastating punishments that the power of leitzanus was broken and the survivors could internalize the lesson of the blossoming staff.
This explains how Korach was able to persuade so many people to follow such a foolish course of action and challenge Moshe Rabbeinu. By nullifying their sechel through divrei leitzanus they became blinded to the dangers of following Korach.
The Mesillas Yesharim writes very strongly about the damaging nature of leitzanus . He argues that it is one of the main factors that prevents a person from developing the trait of zehirus (alertness against sin). Leitzanus prevents him from seriously analyzing himself by belittling that which is important and turning everything into a joke. He will not follow the rebuke of anyone, rather he will use mockery as a tool to escape serious self contemplation. Indeed it seems that leitzanus stems from a desire to escape the serious issues that a person must face if they want to serve Hashem in the best way. It is far easier to laugh off any possibility of growth rather than to face the challenge of dealing with one’s problems.
Korach used leitzanus to trick others but the yetser hara also utilizes it in order to make us trick ourselves into avoiding growth. We learn from Rav Chasman that the only way that the power of leitzanus can be weakened is through punishments. Rather than having to suffer unnecessarily, it is surely far more advisable for a person to go through the far lesser ‘pain’ of mussar . This can be done in a number of ways; learning mussar sefarim such as Mesillas Yesharim who discuss leitzanus in great detail; accepting rebuke from one’s Rabbanim and friends; or by making a simple cheshbon hanefesh and honestly examining himself. Surely such strategies are more desirable than the alternative of going through real suffering. a person opens himself up to genuine
In order to answer this question, it is instructive to examine another problem in the parsha. One of the main arguments of Korach and his assembly was his opposition to the appointment of Aron to the position of Kohen Gadol. They argued that Moshe had personally made this appointment as an act of favoritism towards his brother. After the rebels were punished through various terrible yissurim, Hashem ordered Moshe to prove that Aron had been divinely appointed to his position through the test of the staffs whereby Aron’s staff miraculously blossomed proving conclusively that he deserved to be Kohen Gadol. After this test, all the discontent disintegrated
Rav Leib Chasman zt”l asks, why did Hashem order the test of the staffs only AFTER the awesome punishments that He meted out. Had the miracle of the staff blossoming taken place right at the beginning, it could have convinced the people of the invalidity of the arguments against Moshe and Aron, thus rendering the punishments unnecessary. He answers by teaching an important yesod in human nature. Korach knew that he could not defeat Moshe in a battle of logic, he knew that Moshe’s case was far too strong, and that Moshe was far too wise for Korach to rationally defeat him. Thus he resorted to the devastating weapon of leitzanus (mockery) through which he could belittle Moshe and Aron without having to logically justify his arguments. We see this in the words of Rashi when he explains how Korach was able to persuade so many people to side with him; The Torah says that he gathered the people against Moshe and Aron. The obvious question is how was he able to achieve such a monumental task; Rashi explains that he as able to do so through, “divrei leitzanus. ”
Rav Chasman continues that leitzanus ignores the power of sechel and arouses the animalistic part of man where logic is meaningless. This explains the concept in the passuk in Mishlei that exhorts us not to rebuke the leitz; the leitz is not interested in any form of logical argument, rather he wants to continue with his own lifestyle and will belittle any attempts to change him. Another passuk in Mishlei tells us that the only way to humble the leitz is through yissurim; “Prepare punishments for the leitz. ” The Mesillas Yesharim explains that ideally a person is supposed to grow and learn from his mistakes through Talmud Torah and chesbon hanefesh (self-contemplation), however the leitz is immune to such methods and therefore the only thing that can effect him is yissurim.
This, writes Rav Chasman, explains why Hashem only sent the miracle of the staffs after the punishments that struck Korach and his main supporters. The power of leitzanus to ignore logic is so great that it can even dismiss open miracles if they conflict with the leitz’s self-interest. Had the miracle taken place before anyone had been punished, the rebels would have found a way to dismiss it and ignore its ramifications through a mocking comment. It was only after the devastating punishments that the power of leitzanus was broken and the survivors could internalize the lesson of the blossoming staff.
This explains how Korach was able to persuade so many people to follow such a foolish course of action and challenge Moshe Rabbeinu. By nullifying their sechel through divrei leitzanus they became blinded to the dangers of following Korach.
The Mesillas Yesharim writes very strongly about the damaging nature of leitzanus . He argues that it is one of the main factors that prevents a person from developing the trait of zehirus (alertness against sin). Leitzanus prevents him from seriously analyzing himself by belittling that which is important and turning everything into a joke. He will not follow the rebuke of anyone, rather he will use mockery as a tool to escape serious self contemplation. Indeed it seems that leitzanus stems from a desire to escape the serious issues that a person must face if they want to serve Hashem in the best way. It is far easier to laugh off any possibility of growth rather than to face the challenge of dealing with one’s problems.
Korach used leitzanus to trick others but the yetser hara also utilizes it in order to make us trick ourselves into avoiding growth. We learn from Rav Chasman that the only way that the power of leitzanus can be weakened is through punishments. Rather than having to suffer unnecessarily, it is surely far more advisable for a person to go through the far lesser ‘pain’ of mussar . This can be done in a number of ways; learning mussar sefarim such as Mesillas Yesharim who discuss leitzanus in great detail; accepting rebuke from one’s Rabbanim and friends; or by making a simple cheshbon hanefesh and honestly examining himself. Surely such strategies are more desirable than the alternative of going through real suffering. a person opens himself up to genuine
MACHLOKES - KORACH
The Mishna in Pirkei Avos describes the machlokes that Korach instigated against Moshe Rabbeinu as one that was ’sheloh leshem shamayim’. Sheloh leshem shamayim refers to selfish reasons such as desire of kavod. However, Chazal tell us that Korach and his cohorts confronted Moshe not with personal attacks but with genuine ideological issues. They argued that all the nation are holy and that they all heard Hashem give the Torah. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon had no right to take for themselves the two highest positions in the nation, rather everyone should equally share power. Although ultimately misguided, this argument seems understandable - how did the Mishna know that it was sheloh leshem shamayim? The answer is found in other sources in Chazal which tell us of Korach’s true motives in attacking Moshe and Aharon. Korach felt that he was next in line to be the leader of Kehathite family and was angered when his cousin Elizaphan was appointed to this position ahead of him. This triggered Korach to attack the leadership of Moshe and Aharon. Thus, it is clear that his ideological crusade was really a pretext for his desire for kavod - he posed as a genuine ‘defender of the people’ when in truth he was merely seeking out his own selfish interests. This led to the terrible aveiros that Korach committed and the devastating punishment that he and his supporters suffered - being swallowed in the ground for all eternity. Yet if one were to ask Korach himself if he were acting leshem shamayim or not then he would surely answer that he was - he convinced himself that he was right in his machlokes because he saw prophetically that among his offspring would be the great prophet Shmuel and twenty-four groups of Leviim who would prophesy with ruach hakodesh. Therefore he reasoned that he was surely justified in his argument with Moshe and Aharon. He failed to foresee, however, that his sons would repent and survive whilst he would disappear into oblivion.
There are many lessons that can be learned from Korach - one of the most important is that a person can be convinced that he is acting leshem shamayim in criticizing others whilst in reality he is simply being misled by his yetser hara. This nisayon is especially common in the Torah world - observant Jews believe that there is right and wrong - we reject the secular notion of relativist morality; that whatever one believes has validity. We believe in the truth and we are willing to fight for that belief. However, this hanhaga brings with it a great risk that, like Korach, the real kavanna behind it can be sheloh leshem shamayim and consequently it can lead to damaging machloksim . Rav Leib Gurwitz zt”l discusses this phenomenon in his sefer Meoray Shearim : He says that on leil Shabbos we praise Hashem as “He who spreads the shelter of peace upon us, upon all of his people Israel, and upon Yerushalayim.” Why do we specifically mention Yerushalayim, it should be automatically included in ‘Israel’? He answers that Yerushalayim is the home of talmidey chachamim who “commonly get involved in machloksim that, in their eyes, are leshem shamayim, and their kina is in their eyes leshem shamayim, therefore Yerushalayim needs a special tefilla for itself” to protect itself from the wrong type of machlokes. It is very easy to justify criticising individuals or groups of people on the grounds that it is leshem shamayim, however it requires a great deal of self-analysis for a person to be sure that he is indeed acting leshem shamayim, for if he is not, then the damage caused can be great. Moreover, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz Shlita points out that to criticise another group is considered lashon hara letoeles and like all toeles, one needs to fulfill the seven conditions that the Chofetz Chaim enumerates in order to be allowed to speak such criticism. One of those conditions is that the speaker feel no sense of enjoyment that he is criticising others. This is a very hard condition to genuinely fulfil, therefore, generally it better be left to Talmidey Chachamim to decide when it is appropriate to speak negatively about different groups within Klal Yisroel and for us to remain quiet. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt”l echoed this sentiment. On one occasion “he said that only an exceptional tzaddik can dare speak critically of a group within Torah Jewry or its leader. Everyone else would do well to remain silent regarding such differences and focus their efforts on self-growth and yiras shamayim. ”
However, even if we do not get involved in ideological disagreements ourselves, Gedolim and Roshei Yeshivah have, at times, deemed it proper to speak out against attitudes or movements from within the Torah world that they have felt are wrong. It is clear that they were purely leshem shamayim in their intentions, not tainted by a desire for kavod or enjoyment of criticising others. Yet, there remains the risk that we misunderstand their words and apply it in a more personal way than was intended, again falling into the trap of lashon hara and machlokes. Consequently, there is always the risk that different groups within Torah Judaism can look down on one another and label them with negative descriptions. This is not just a mildly negative outcome, the Netziv writes that this was the attitude that led to the destruction of the 2nd Beis Hamikdash. Even though the people of that generation were tzadikim and ameilim b’Torah because “they had sinas chinam in their hearts and suspected anyone who they saw not acting in the way that they felt correct, as being a Tzadukki and Apkorus. ”
What is the correct way to approach disagreement? The answer to this can be seen in the other machlokes which Chazal contrast to that of Korach - the machlokes between Hillel and Shammai. Their machlokes is described as one which was leshem shamayim, there was no underlying personal motives in their disagreement, only the desire to get to the truth. A simun of this is that, despite the fact that they argued strongly in areas of halacha, that did not prevent their children from marrying each other. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but only if it is based on a sincere desire for emes. If it is, then the participants will not confuse ideological differences between personal hostility.
This attitude is exemplified in the following story involving Rav Segal zt”l. On one occasion, he had voiced criticism of a certain organisation and his opinion was greeted by some with great disfavour. The Rosh Yeshivah was unmoved by such opposition and held his ground. Finally, one of the oranisation’s directors decided to visit the Rosh Yeshivah and discuss the matter. Upon the man’s arrival, the Rosh Yeshiva presented him with a gift - a volume of Sefer Chofetz Chaim which he had inscribed with a warm blessing. The man stood dumbfounded, not comprehending why his adversary would want to offer him a gift. The Rosh Yeshivah explained, “It was R’Yisroel Salanter’s way to present a gift to someone with whom he had engaged in ideological debate , in order to make clear that the disagreement was purely ideological and not personal.”
We have seen that the key to preventing ideological disagreements from degenerating into personal hostility is to separate the individual from his behaviour or attitude. One can be wrong but at the same time still be a good person. This is not an easy separation to make. My rebbe suggests one way of making it easier is to study the hashkafa and halacha of bein adam lechaveiro - these give a person the Torah outlook of how to look at one’s fellow Jew, even if he acts in a way that you deem to be wrong. Beyond this, as we stated earlier, it is very advisable to not get involved in attacks on other organisations without strict guidance from a competent Rabbiniic authority. By working in this area then we can begin to metaken this type of sinas chinam - that which the Netziv said was the cause of the Churban Beis Hamikdash that we are still suffering from.
There are many lessons that can be learned from Korach - one of the most important is that a person can be convinced that he is acting leshem shamayim in criticizing others whilst in reality he is simply being misled by his yetser hara. This nisayon is especially common in the Torah world - observant Jews believe that there is right and wrong - we reject the secular notion of relativist morality; that whatever one believes has validity. We believe in the truth and we are willing to fight for that belief. However, this hanhaga brings with it a great risk that, like Korach, the real kavanna behind it can be sheloh leshem shamayim and consequently it can lead to damaging machloksim . Rav Leib Gurwitz zt”l discusses this phenomenon in his sefer Meoray Shearim : He says that on leil Shabbos we praise Hashem as “He who spreads the shelter of peace upon us, upon all of his people Israel, and upon Yerushalayim.” Why do we specifically mention Yerushalayim, it should be automatically included in ‘Israel’? He answers that Yerushalayim is the home of talmidey chachamim who “commonly get involved in machloksim that, in their eyes, are leshem shamayim, and their kina is in their eyes leshem shamayim, therefore Yerushalayim needs a special tefilla for itself” to protect itself from the wrong type of machlokes. It is very easy to justify criticising individuals or groups of people on the grounds that it is leshem shamayim, however it requires a great deal of self-analysis for a person to be sure that he is indeed acting leshem shamayim, for if he is not, then the damage caused can be great. Moreover, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz Shlita points out that to criticise another group is considered lashon hara letoeles and like all toeles, one needs to fulfill the seven conditions that the Chofetz Chaim enumerates in order to be allowed to speak such criticism. One of those conditions is that the speaker feel no sense of enjoyment that he is criticising others. This is a very hard condition to genuinely fulfil, therefore, generally it better be left to Talmidey Chachamim to decide when it is appropriate to speak negatively about different groups within Klal Yisroel and for us to remain quiet. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt”l echoed this sentiment. On one occasion “he said that only an exceptional tzaddik can dare speak critically of a group within Torah Jewry or its leader. Everyone else would do well to remain silent regarding such differences and focus their efforts on self-growth and yiras shamayim. ”
However, even if we do not get involved in ideological disagreements ourselves, Gedolim and Roshei Yeshivah have, at times, deemed it proper to speak out against attitudes or movements from within the Torah world that they have felt are wrong. It is clear that they were purely leshem shamayim in their intentions, not tainted by a desire for kavod or enjoyment of criticising others. Yet, there remains the risk that we misunderstand their words and apply it in a more personal way than was intended, again falling into the trap of lashon hara and machlokes. Consequently, there is always the risk that different groups within Torah Judaism can look down on one another and label them with negative descriptions. This is not just a mildly negative outcome, the Netziv writes that this was the attitude that led to the destruction of the 2nd Beis Hamikdash. Even though the people of that generation were tzadikim and ameilim b’Torah because “they had sinas chinam in their hearts and suspected anyone who they saw not acting in the way that they felt correct, as being a Tzadukki and Apkorus. ”
What is the correct way to approach disagreement? The answer to this can be seen in the other machlokes which Chazal contrast to that of Korach - the machlokes between Hillel and Shammai. Their machlokes is described as one which was leshem shamayim, there was no underlying personal motives in their disagreement, only the desire to get to the truth. A simun of this is that, despite the fact that they argued strongly in areas of halacha, that did not prevent their children from marrying each other. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but only if it is based on a sincere desire for emes. If it is, then the participants will not confuse ideological differences between personal hostility.
This attitude is exemplified in the following story involving Rav Segal zt”l. On one occasion, he had voiced criticism of a certain organisation and his opinion was greeted by some with great disfavour. The Rosh Yeshivah was unmoved by such opposition and held his ground. Finally, one of the oranisation’s directors decided to visit the Rosh Yeshivah and discuss the matter. Upon the man’s arrival, the Rosh Yeshiva presented him with a gift - a volume of Sefer Chofetz Chaim which he had inscribed with a warm blessing. The man stood dumbfounded, not comprehending why his adversary would want to offer him a gift. The Rosh Yeshivah explained, “It was R’Yisroel Salanter’s way to present a gift to someone with whom he had engaged in ideological debate , in order to make clear that the disagreement was purely ideological and not personal.”
We have seen that the key to preventing ideological disagreements from degenerating into personal hostility is to separate the individual from his behaviour or attitude. One can be wrong but at the same time still be a good person. This is not an easy separation to make. My rebbe suggests one way of making it easier is to study the hashkafa and halacha of bein adam lechaveiro - these give a person the Torah outlook of how to look at one’s fellow Jew, even if he acts in a way that you deem to be wrong. Beyond this, as we stated earlier, it is very advisable to not get involved in attacks on other organisations without strict guidance from a competent Rabbiniic authority. By working in this area then we can begin to metaken this type of sinas chinam - that which the Netziv said was the cause of the Churban Beis Hamikdash that we are still suffering from.
MAKING PEACE - KORACH
Parshas Korach describes the most famous machlokes (dispute) in the Torah, in which Korach and his cohorts challenged the leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu. After Korach, Dassan and Aviram flagrantly initiated the dispute with Moshe and Aaron, Moshe attempted to make peace with them. He first tried to appease Korach, and when that failed, he turned to Dassan and Aviram. “And Moshe called for Dassan and Aviram the sons of Eliav..” Rashi, citing the Medrash Tanchuma, tells us that Moshe was attempting to appease them with divrei Shalom. The Medrash derives from here that one should never persist in a machlokes, rather he should try to make peace.
It is noteworthy that the Torah taught this lesson in the context of the machlokes between Korach’s group and Moshe Rabbeinu. This was a machlokes in which Korach’s group were clearly guilty for initiating the dispute and had conducted themselves in a deplorable manner. Nonetheless, Moshe did not hesitate in attempting to appease them. Moshe’s actions in this incident serve as a powerful lesson for all other disputes. In almost all disputes, each protagonist tends to place all the guilt on his adversary. Consequently, they both refuse to compromise on the matter in hand, insisting that the other side must give in, or apologize. They must learn from Moshe’s conduct in his machlokes - he tried to make peace even though he was genuinely free of blame. The Chasam Sofer zt”l develops the idea that one must make every effort to make peace. He points out that it was very unlikely that Dassan and Aviram would be appeased by Moshe’s words, given their history of constant antagonism towards him. There is a concept in Torah known as chazakah, whereby we presume that the past situation will continue in the same way as it has in the past. According to this principle, there was no need for Moshe to try to appease Dassan and Aviram given the minute chance of success. Nonetheless, the Chasam Sofer writes that we learn from Moshe’s attempts at conciliation, that we do not follow the principle of chazakah with regard to machlokes. This is because machlokes is so damaging that we must make any effort we can to make peace, no matter how unlikely the chances of success.
Dassan and Aviram’s response to Moshe’s attempts at appeasement demonstrates exactly how one should not conduct himself in a machlokes. “.. And they said we will not go up…even if you would put out the eyes of those men, we will not go up!” The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these words demonstrate the extent of the stubbornness of Dassan and Aviram in their refusal to even speak to Moshe. He explains that when they told Moshe that they would not speak to him “even if you put the eyes of those men”, they were referring to their own eyes, and that they would rather have their eyes put out than make peace with Moshe. The Chofetz Chaim teaches from here that some people can become so entrenched in machlokes that they prefer to endure great suffering over ‘losing’ the machlokes. In this vein, he tells of the story of a machlokes which threatened to destroy one of the protagonist’s lives and result in his family being imprisoned. When his desperate wife implored him to give up this destructive machlokes, he replied that he was prepared for himself, his wife and his children to go to prison, as long as he would ‘win’ the machlokes!
Why is it so difficult for protagonists of disputes to attempt reconciliation? One reason is that it is very difficult for a person to recognize that he should assume at least part of the blame for the development of the machlokes. Human nature tends to push people to focus on the failings of others and their own strengths.
Accordingly, when a person is in the midst of a bitter machlokes, it is extremely difficult for him to accept any level of culpability for its escalation. The words of the Malbim on this matter, offer a penetrating insight into the erroneous nature of this attitude.
The Malbim once found himself in the midst of a bitter machlokes. His beleaguered students asked him how such a terrible dispute could take place, given the Torah’s words with regard to the machlokes between Korach and Moshe. The Torah tells us: “There will never be like Korach and his assembly.” The students understood that this means that there will never be such a bitter machlokes again in history. Accordingly, they could not understand how the Malbim could be embroiled in such a machlokes. He explained to them that the Torah’s words that there will never again be such a machlokes have a different meaning. The Torah is telling us that the machlokes of Korach against Moshe was the only one in history in which one side was totally in the wrong and one side was completely in the right. Korach and his associates were totally wrong in their arguments and were fully guilty for the development of the machlokes. Moshe, in contrast, acted in a completely correct and justified manner. When the Torah says that there will never be such a machlokes again, it is telling us that there will never be another machlokes in which one side is totally justified and the other is completely guilty. The Malbim, in his humility, was thus acknowledging that he had to assume some guilt for the machlokes he was involved in . The Malbim’s explanation teaches us that anyone involved in a machlokes is wrong to believe that he is totally in the right, because the Torah testifies that this cannot be the case.
Accordingly, it behooves everyone who finds themselves in a machlokes, to accept responsibility for his role in its escalation. When one does this, it will be easier for him to focus on his guilt in this regard, rather than that of his adversary. By doing this, he should recognize that he needs to rectify his mistakes, and ignore the failings of his ‘enemy’. This attitude will help him emulate Moshe’s actions in appeasing Dassan and Aviram.
During the course of a person’s life, it is inevitable that he will come into some form of conflict with other people. When this happens, the person has a vital choice to make: He can validate his own behavior and stubbornly refuse to admit any failing; or he can swallow his pride, be the ‘bigger’ person, and initiate reconciliation. By taking the second option, the person emulates Moshe Rabbeinu – Moshe was willing to approach Dassan and Aviram despite the fact that they were totally at fault. All the more so this should be the case in all other disputes when both sides must assume responsibility for the machlokes. Such conflicts are not limited to major machlokes, they also include common ‘disagreements’ between spouses, and small spats amongst friends, colleagues, students etc. When a person refuses to budge in such incidents, he only succeeds in prolonging and increasing the bitterness. However, by emulating Moshe, a person will ensure that the Shalom will prevail.
It is noteworthy that the Torah taught this lesson in the context of the machlokes between Korach’s group and Moshe Rabbeinu. This was a machlokes in which Korach’s group were clearly guilty for initiating the dispute and had conducted themselves in a deplorable manner. Nonetheless, Moshe did not hesitate in attempting to appease them. Moshe’s actions in this incident serve as a powerful lesson for all other disputes. In almost all disputes, each protagonist tends to place all the guilt on his adversary. Consequently, they both refuse to compromise on the matter in hand, insisting that the other side must give in, or apologize. They must learn from Moshe’s conduct in his machlokes - he tried to make peace even though he was genuinely free of blame. The Chasam Sofer zt”l develops the idea that one must make every effort to make peace. He points out that it was very unlikely that Dassan and Aviram would be appeased by Moshe’s words, given their history of constant antagonism towards him. There is a concept in Torah known as chazakah, whereby we presume that the past situation will continue in the same way as it has in the past. According to this principle, there was no need for Moshe to try to appease Dassan and Aviram given the minute chance of success. Nonetheless, the Chasam Sofer writes that we learn from Moshe’s attempts at conciliation, that we do not follow the principle of chazakah with regard to machlokes. This is because machlokes is so damaging that we must make any effort we can to make peace, no matter how unlikely the chances of success.
Dassan and Aviram’s response to Moshe’s attempts at appeasement demonstrates exactly how one should not conduct himself in a machlokes. “.. And they said we will not go up…even if you would put out the eyes of those men, we will not go up!” The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these words demonstrate the extent of the stubbornness of Dassan and Aviram in their refusal to even speak to Moshe. He explains that when they told Moshe that they would not speak to him “even if you put the eyes of those men”, they were referring to their own eyes, and that they would rather have their eyes put out than make peace with Moshe. The Chofetz Chaim teaches from here that some people can become so entrenched in machlokes that they prefer to endure great suffering over ‘losing’ the machlokes. In this vein, he tells of the story of a machlokes which threatened to destroy one of the protagonist’s lives and result in his family being imprisoned. When his desperate wife implored him to give up this destructive machlokes, he replied that he was prepared for himself, his wife and his children to go to prison, as long as he would ‘win’ the machlokes!
Why is it so difficult for protagonists of disputes to attempt reconciliation? One reason is that it is very difficult for a person to recognize that he should assume at least part of the blame for the development of the machlokes. Human nature tends to push people to focus on the failings of others and their own strengths.
Accordingly, when a person is in the midst of a bitter machlokes, it is extremely difficult for him to accept any level of culpability for its escalation. The words of the Malbim on this matter, offer a penetrating insight into the erroneous nature of this attitude.
The Malbim once found himself in the midst of a bitter machlokes. His beleaguered students asked him how such a terrible dispute could take place, given the Torah’s words with regard to the machlokes between Korach and Moshe. The Torah tells us: “There will never be like Korach and his assembly.” The students understood that this means that there will never be such a bitter machlokes again in history. Accordingly, they could not understand how the Malbim could be embroiled in such a machlokes. He explained to them that the Torah’s words that there will never again be such a machlokes have a different meaning. The Torah is telling us that the machlokes of Korach against Moshe was the only one in history in which one side was totally in the wrong and one side was completely in the right. Korach and his associates were totally wrong in their arguments and were fully guilty for the development of the machlokes. Moshe, in contrast, acted in a completely correct and justified manner. When the Torah says that there will never be such a machlokes again, it is telling us that there will never be another machlokes in which one side is totally justified and the other is completely guilty. The Malbim, in his humility, was thus acknowledging that he had to assume some guilt for the machlokes he was involved in . The Malbim’s explanation teaches us that anyone involved in a machlokes is wrong to believe that he is totally in the right, because the Torah testifies that this cannot be the case.
Accordingly, it behooves everyone who finds themselves in a machlokes, to accept responsibility for his role in its escalation. When one does this, it will be easier for him to focus on his guilt in this regard, rather than that of his adversary. By doing this, he should recognize that he needs to rectify his mistakes, and ignore the failings of his ‘enemy’. This attitude will help him emulate Moshe’s actions in appeasing Dassan and Aviram.
During the course of a person’s life, it is inevitable that he will come into some form of conflict with other people. When this happens, the person has a vital choice to make: He can validate his own behavior and stubbornly refuse to admit any failing; or he can swallow his pride, be the ‘bigger’ person, and initiate reconciliation. By taking the second option, the person emulates Moshe Rabbeinu – Moshe was willing to approach Dassan and Aviram despite the fact that they were totally at fault. All the more so this should be the case in all other disputes when both sides must assume responsibility for the machlokes. Such conflicts are not limited to major machlokes, they also include common ‘disagreements’ between spouses, and small spats amongst friends, colleagues, students etc. When a person refuses to budge in such incidents, he only succeeds in prolonging and increasing the bitterness. However, by emulating Moshe, a person will ensure that the Shalom will prevail.
Monday, June 13, 2011
PRAYING AGAINST THE YETSER HARA - SHELACH
The incident of the spies is one of the most well-known stories in the Torah and there is much discussion as to how such great men could commit such a terrible sin. Another very important aspect of this maaseh is the actions of the righteous men in their attempts to withstand joining in the sin. The Torah tells us that after sending the spies to Eretz Yisroel, Moshe renamed his closest student . Up till this point he was known as ‘Hoshea‘, but now Moshe added a ’yud’ to make the name ‘Yehoshua’. Rashi explains that Moshe davenned that Yehoshua would be saved from the nisayon posed by being with the meraglim - this tefilla manifested itself in adding a yud to his name. A few passukim later the Torah alludes to the fact that whilst in Eretz Yisroel, another of the spies, Kalev, separated from the group and went to Chevron to daven to be protected from the plan of the meraglim .
The Ben Ish Chai and Maskil leDavid both ask that these tefillas seem to contradict a well-known axiom, that ‘everything is in the hands of heaven except for fear of heaven.’ This means that the one thing that is completely in the control of man is the ability to choose between right and wrong. Davenning for things beyond our control, such as health and parnasa, can be highly beneficial because those things are totally dependent on Divine Providence. However, davenning to not sin would seem to have no benefit because Hashem does not determine whether we sin - that is completely in our hands. Consequently, it is very hard to understand why Moshe davenned for Yehoshua and why Kalev davenned for himself.to avoid sinning - whether they would sin or not was not dependent on Hashem, it was dependent on their own free will!
The Ben Ish Chai explains that there are two different ways by which a person can come to commit a sin. One is where he has total clarity that a certain act is forbidden but he nonetheless decides to do it with a clear recognition that he is sinning. The second is where his yetser hara clouds his judgment and persuades him that this act is permissible, enabling him to rationalize that he is not sinning at all. The principle that fear of heaven is completely our own hands only applies to the first form of sinning, where a person is absolutely clear that acting in such a way constitutes a sin. In this area there is no benefit for a person to pray for Hashem to stop him committing this sin, it is purely in his own hands and Hashem cannot, so-to-speak, change his free will decision. However, this is not the case with regard to the second form of nisayon where a person may genuinely believe that he is not sinning. The main factor that causes him to sin in such a case is lack of clarity as to the correct course of action. This it not completely within one‘s free will. When a person wants to do the right thing but is at risk of being seduced by his yetser hara he can turn to Hashem to help him not be clouded by its rationalizations. Therefore, in this situation it is beneficial to pray to Hashem.
The Ben Ish Chai continues by explaining Yehoshua and Kalev faced the second form of nisayon where tefilla can help. The meraglim were great people and did not deliberately speak badly about the land without justifying their behavior. The Ben Ish Chai offers a novel explanation of their motivations; they felt that if they would tell the Jewish people about the great prosperity of Eretz Yisroel then they would enter with impure motives of physical gain rather than purely as a result of following Hashem’s command. Consequently, they decided to speak badly about the land with the hope that the Jewish people would nevertheless want to enter the land, leshem shamayim and would thus gain far greater reward. However, in truth, this reasoning was really the work of the yetser hara’s attempts to prevent the people from entering the land at all, as indeed occurred. Moshe davenned for Yehoshua that he would be protected from such types of rationalizations that would make him believe that it was a mitzva to speak badly about the land ! Similarly, Kalev prayed that he should maintain the clarity that would prevent him from falling into the clutches of the yetser hara.
We have seen that there are two ways in which a person can come to sin; either by knowingly sinning or by begin duped by the yetser hara that he is not sinning at all. It seems that by far the more prevalent challenge is posed by the threat of being tricked into thinking that one is not sinning at all. The Nefesh HaChaim writes that a lack of clarity as to whether we are doing a mitzva or aveiro originates with the chet of Adam Harishon. Before the sin, Adam had total clarity as to what was good and evil, in his eyes, committing an aveira was as clearly damaging as putting one’s hand in fire. When he ate from the tree of knowledge of tov ve’ra he brought into himself a mix of good and evil. The consequence of this was that he lost that great clarity about the nature of evil, to the point that now, his yetser hara could now confuse him as to what is right and wrong. This is also the meaning behind that Gemara that states that when a person commits the same sin twice it becomes permissible in his eyes. Rav Yisroel Salanter was said to have commented that when he commits the sin a third time it becomes a mitzva in his eyes!
We have noted in the past the observation of the Baal HaTania that pertains to this point. He writes that if one were to offer a Torah observant Jew money to blatantly commit a sin, he will not do so because he intellectually understands that the spiritual damage done by the sin will outweigh any material gain. And yet a person sins without any monetary gain because he convinces himself that he is not actually sinning.
We learn from the explanation of the Ben Ish Chai that whilst we cannot request of Hashem to stop us sinning, with regard to the challenge of being tricked by the yetser hara, tefilla is a highly beneficial and necessary weapon. The yetser hara is constantly striving to deceive us into sinning and we must maintain a constant vigilance of being caught in the trap of rationalizations. As well as a consistent method of cheshbon hanefesh, the key tool to gaining clarity is to daven that Hashem help us open our eyes and enable us to follow the true path of Avodas Hashem.
The Ben Ish Chai and Maskil leDavid both ask that these tefillas seem to contradict a well-known axiom, that ‘everything is in the hands of heaven except for fear of heaven.’ This means that the one thing that is completely in the control of man is the ability to choose between right and wrong. Davenning for things beyond our control, such as health and parnasa, can be highly beneficial because those things are totally dependent on Divine Providence. However, davenning to not sin would seem to have no benefit because Hashem does not determine whether we sin - that is completely in our hands. Consequently, it is very hard to understand why Moshe davenned for Yehoshua and why Kalev davenned for himself.to avoid sinning - whether they would sin or not was not dependent on Hashem, it was dependent on their own free will!
The Ben Ish Chai explains that there are two different ways by which a person can come to commit a sin. One is where he has total clarity that a certain act is forbidden but he nonetheless decides to do it with a clear recognition that he is sinning. The second is where his yetser hara clouds his judgment and persuades him that this act is permissible, enabling him to rationalize that he is not sinning at all. The principle that fear of heaven is completely our own hands only applies to the first form of sinning, where a person is absolutely clear that acting in such a way constitutes a sin. In this area there is no benefit for a person to pray for Hashem to stop him committing this sin, it is purely in his own hands and Hashem cannot, so-to-speak, change his free will decision. However, this is not the case with regard to the second form of nisayon where a person may genuinely believe that he is not sinning. The main factor that causes him to sin in such a case is lack of clarity as to the correct course of action. This it not completely within one‘s free will. When a person wants to do the right thing but is at risk of being seduced by his yetser hara he can turn to Hashem to help him not be clouded by its rationalizations. Therefore, in this situation it is beneficial to pray to Hashem.
The Ben Ish Chai continues by explaining Yehoshua and Kalev faced the second form of nisayon where tefilla can help. The meraglim were great people and did not deliberately speak badly about the land without justifying their behavior. The Ben Ish Chai offers a novel explanation of their motivations; they felt that if they would tell the Jewish people about the great prosperity of Eretz Yisroel then they would enter with impure motives of physical gain rather than purely as a result of following Hashem’s command. Consequently, they decided to speak badly about the land with the hope that the Jewish people would nevertheless want to enter the land, leshem shamayim and would thus gain far greater reward. However, in truth, this reasoning was really the work of the yetser hara’s attempts to prevent the people from entering the land at all, as indeed occurred. Moshe davenned for Yehoshua that he would be protected from such types of rationalizations that would make him believe that it was a mitzva to speak badly about the land ! Similarly, Kalev prayed that he should maintain the clarity that would prevent him from falling into the clutches of the yetser hara.
We have seen that there are two ways in which a person can come to sin; either by knowingly sinning or by begin duped by the yetser hara that he is not sinning at all. It seems that by far the more prevalent challenge is posed by the threat of being tricked into thinking that one is not sinning at all. The Nefesh HaChaim writes that a lack of clarity as to whether we are doing a mitzva or aveiro originates with the chet of Adam Harishon. Before the sin, Adam had total clarity as to what was good and evil, in his eyes, committing an aveira was as clearly damaging as putting one’s hand in fire. When he ate from the tree of knowledge of tov ve’ra he brought into himself a mix of good and evil. The consequence of this was that he lost that great clarity about the nature of evil, to the point that now, his yetser hara could now confuse him as to what is right and wrong. This is also the meaning behind that Gemara that states that when a person commits the same sin twice it becomes permissible in his eyes. Rav Yisroel Salanter was said to have commented that when he commits the sin a third time it becomes a mitzva in his eyes!
We have noted in the past the observation of the Baal HaTania that pertains to this point. He writes that if one were to offer a Torah observant Jew money to blatantly commit a sin, he will not do so because he intellectually understands that the spiritual damage done by the sin will outweigh any material gain. And yet a person sins without any monetary gain because he convinces himself that he is not actually sinning.
We learn from the explanation of the Ben Ish Chai that whilst we cannot request of Hashem to stop us sinning, with regard to the challenge of being tricked by the yetser hara, tefilla is a highly beneficial and necessary weapon. The yetser hara is constantly striving to deceive us into sinning and we must maintain a constant vigilance of being caught in the trap of rationalizations. As well as a consistent method of cheshbon hanefesh, the key tool to gaining clarity is to daven that Hashem help us open our eyes and enable us to follow the true path of Avodas Hashem.
SPYING AFTER OUR HEARTS - SHELACH
And they will be tzitzis for you, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem, and perform them; and you shall not spy (loh sasuroo) after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.”
Parshas Shelach ends with the third paragraph of the Shema. That paragraph discusses the Mitzvo of Tzitzit and continues with another fundamental Mitzvo – not to follow our hearts and eyes. The Sifri elaborates on the meaning of these words. It explains that following one’s heart refers to meenus (herecy), whereas following one’s eyes refers to immorality. The simple understanding of the Sifri with regards to following one’s heart, is that this is the source for the prohibition against espousing beliefs that are antithetical to Torah.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita, points out that there is a great difficulty with this understanding. Without the Mitzvo of ‘loh sassuroo’, there are a number of Mitzvos in the Torah that prohibit heretical beliefs: In the first of the Ten Commandments, The Torah commands us to believe that HaShem is the only G-d, who is all-powerful, created and sustains the whole universe, and has no beginning or end. The next Mitzvo exhorts us not to follow any other gods, which means that we cannot attribute any independent power to any force in the world. In the Mitzvo of ‘Shema’, the Torah further commands us to believe in the oneness of HaShem. The attitudes that the Torah forbids in these Mitzvos are the main beliefs that represent herecy. Accordingly, it would seem that the Torah has already sufficiently instructed us to avoid heretical beliefs. What is the Mitzvo of loh sassuroo coming to add?
Rav Berkovits answers that the other Mitzvos are instructing us to have basic philosophical ideas on an intellectual level; for example, a person must believe intellectually that there is one G-d who created the world. However, an intellectual realization is not always sufficient to ensure that a person will adhere to the fundamental tenets of Jewish thought. A person may intellectually recognize these truths, however, his emotions or his physical desires (taivas) may cause him to act in conflict with his beliefs. In this vein, Chazal tell us that a person only sins when a ruach shtus (spirit of irrationality) enters into him. This means that his actions contradict what he rationally knows to be true. The Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ commands us to avoid this pitfall. By telling us not to go after our hearts, the Torah is instructing us not to allow our emotions to cause us to act against what we intellectually know to be true.
This is not to say that the Torah views emotions in a negative light. This is certainly not the case and there is great room for expression of emotions in Torah. However, when emotions are not channeled through intellect, the consequences can be disastrous. The Torah is the vessel through which we are supposed to mold our intellect and filter our emotions through a prism of the Torah outlook.
The incident of the spies provides us with examples of the correct and incorrect approaches with regard to following one’s heart. Here too, the root word, ‘lasur’, (to spy) is utilized by the Torah. HaShem instructed Moshe to send people to spy out the land. Moshe instructed the spies about which features to look for in the land. Included amongst his instructions he told them to observe the produce of the land, in order to see whether it was fruitful or not. He further instructed them to take note if there was a righteous man in the land, whose merit could protect the people there. With these directives, Moshe was alluding to the spies that they should observe the land with a certain disposition, one that was based on Torah hashkafa. He was telling them to view everything that they saw with spiritual eyes, so that large fruit would be viewed in a positive light, and that the significance of tzaddikim there was an important factor.
Sadly, the majority of the spies did not heed Moshe’s instructions. They did indeed see large fruit, however they chose to interpret it in a negative fashion, and conveyed the message that this demonstrated that the land was strange in that it produced oversized fruits. They were guilty of a further misinterpretation when they saw a large number of funerals taking place in the land. They used this to show that the land destroyed its inhabitants, when, in truth HaShem caused large numbers of deaths so that the people would be busy with funerals and not notice the spies. What was the cause of their skewed attitude? They fell prey to the pitfall of following their emotions. They lacked trust in HaShem, and therefore felt fear at the prospect of having to enter Eretz Yisroel. Because of this flawed attitude they viewed everything they saw through a distorted vision. The only spies who overcame this test were Kalev and Yehoshua. They viewed everything they saw in a positive fashion because they were strong in their trust in HaShem – this prevented them from allowing any fear they may have had, to overcome what they knew to be true.
We have seen how the Torah connects the lesson of the spies to the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’. The ten spies who sinned provide us with the example of how going after one’s heart leads to sin and ultimately herecy. The Torah imparts a further lesson as to how to avoid the pitfall of interpreting what we see in a detrimental fashion. In the very same verse in which the Torah tells us, ‘loh sasuroo’, it discusses the Mitzvo of tzitzis. “And they will be for you tzitzis, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem and perform them; and you shall not spy after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.” The verse tells us that tzitzis will somehow remind us of the Mitzvos and this in turn will enable us to avoid following our heart and eyes. What is the connection between tzitzis and ‘loh sasuroo’? Rashi points out that Tzitzis remind us of the 613 Mitzvos because the gematria of ‘tzitzis’ is 600; in addition, there are eight strings and five knots – the total of these three figures is 613. In this way, by looking at tzitzis a person is supposed to go through this sequence of thought that will bring him to connect the tzitzis with the 613 Mitzvos. The obvious problem with this is that most people will see tzitzis and fail to make the connection that the Torah seems to expect they should make. It would have seemed to be more effective to command that tzitzis say a big ‘613’ on them, so that everyone will automatically be reminded of the 613 Mitzvos when they see it! The answer is that the Torah is teaching us that one must strive to be the kind of person who sees the world in such a way that a mundane item of clothing such as tzitzis will lead him to a sequence of thought that will remind him of the 613 Mitzvos. When a person brings himself to this level, then, as a consequence he will be able to observe the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ because he will not see the world in a skewed manner based on his emotions, rather he will see it with spiritual eyes.
We have seen that a constant theme of the Parsha is that the way a person thinks, will play a decisive role in how he interprets what he sees. It is no easy task to become the kind of person who sees everything with spiritual eyes, however the first stage is to strive to make one’s intellect and emotions in line with the Torah’s directives. The more saturated a person is with the Torah’s teachings, the more he will be able to emulate Kalev and Yehoshua. May we all merit to guide our emotions to bring us closer to Torah.
Parshas Shelach ends with the third paragraph of the Shema. That paragraph discusses the Mitzvo of Tzitzit and continues with another fundamental Mitzvo – not to follow our hearts and eyes. The Sifri elaborates on the meaning of these words. It explains that following one’s heart refers to meenus (herecy), whereas following one’s eyes refers to immorality. The simple understanding of the Sifri with regards to following one’s heart, is that this is the source for the prohibition against espousing beliefs that are antithetical to Torah.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita, points out that there is a great difficulty with this understanding. Without the Mitzvo of ‘loh sassuroo’, there are a number of Mitzvos in the Torah that prohibit heretical beliefs: In the first of the Ten Commandments, The Torah commands us to believe that HaShem is the only G-d, who is all-powerful, created and sustains the whole universe, and has no beginning or end. The next Mitzvo exhorts us not to follow any other gods, which means that we cannot attribute any independent power to any force in the world. In the Mitzvo of ‘Shema’, the Torah further commands us to believe in the oneness of HaShem. The attitudes that the Torah forbids in these Mitzvos are the main beliefs that represent herecy. Accordingly, it would seem that the Torah has already sufficiently instructed us to avoid heretical beliefs. What is the Mitzvo of loh sassuroo coming to add?
Rav Berkovits answers that the other Mitzvos are instructing us to have basic philosophical ideas on an intellectual level; for example, a person must believe intellectually that there is one G-d who created the world. However, an intellectual realization is not always sufficient to ensure that a person will adhere to the fundamental tenets of Jewish thought. A person may intellectually recognize these truths, however, his emotions or his physical desires (taivas) may cause him to act in conflict with his beliefs. In this vein, Chazal tell us that a person only sins when a ruach shtus (spirit of irrationality) enters into him. This means that his actions contradict what he rationally knows to be true. The Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ commands us to avoid this pitfall. By telling us not to go after our hearts, the Torah is instructing us not to allow our emotions to cause us to act against what we intellectually know to be true.
This is not to say that the Torah views emotions in a negative light. This is certainly not the case and there is great room for expression of emotions in Torah. However, when emotions are not channeled through intellect, the consequences can be disastrous. The Torah is the vessel through which we are supposed to mold our intellect and filter our emotions through a prism of the Torah outlook.
The incident of the spies provides us with examples of the correct and incorrect approaches with regard to following one’s heart. Here too, the root word, ‘lasur’, (to spy) is utilized by the Torah. HaShem instructed Moshe to send people to spy out the land. Moshe instructed the spies about which features to look for in the land. Included amongst his instructions he told them to observe the produce of the land, in order to see whether it was fruitful or not. He further instructed them to take note if there was a righteous man in the land, whose merit could protect the people there. With these directives, Moshe was alluding to the spies that they should observe the land with a certain disposition, one that was based on Torah hashkafa. He was telling them to view everything that they saw with spiritual eyes, so that large fruit would be viewed in a positive light, and that the significance of tzaddikim there was an important factor.
Sadly, the majority of the spies did not heed Moshe’s instructions. They did indeed see large fruit, however they chose to interpret it in a negative fashion, and conveyed the message that this demonstrated that the land was strange in that it produced oversized fruits. They were guilty of a further misinterpretation when they saw a large number of funerals taking place in the land. They used this to show that the land destroyed its inhabitants, when, in truth HaShem caused large numbers of deaths so that the people would be busy with funerals and not notice the spies. What was the cause of their skewed attitude? They fell prey to the pitfall of following their emotions. They lacked trust in HaShem, and therefore felt fear at the prospect of having to enter Eretz Yisroel. Because of this flawed attitude they viewed everything they saw through a distorted vision. The only spies who overcame this test were Kalev and Yehoshua. They viewed everything they saw in a positive fashion because they were strong in their trust in HaShem – this prevented them from allowing any fear they may have had, to overcome what they knew to be true.
We have seen how the Torah connects the lesson of the spies to the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’. The ten spies who sinned provide us with the example of how going after one’s heart leads to sin and ultimately herecy. The Torah imparts a further lesson as to how to avoid the pitfall of interpreting what we see in a detrimental fashion. In the very same verse in which the Torah tells us, ‘loh sasuroo’, it discusses the Mitzvo of tzitzis. “And they will be for you tzitzis, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem and perform them; and you shall not spy after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.” The verse tells us that tzitzis will somehow remind us of the Mitzvos and this in turn will enable us to avoid following our heart and eyes. What is the connection between tzitzis and ‘loh sasuroo’? Rashi points out that Tzitzis remind us of the 613 Mitzvos because the gematria of ‘tzitzis’ is 600; in addition, there are eight strings and five knots – the total of these three figures is 613. In this way, by looking at tzitzis a person is supposed to go through this sequence of thought that will bring him to connect the tzitzis with the 613 Mitzvos. The obvious problem with this is that most people will see tzitzis and fail to make the connection that the Torah seems to expect they should make. It would have seemed to be more effective to command that tzitzis say a big ‘613’ on them, so that everyone will automatically be reminded of the 613 Mitzvos when they see it! The answer is that the Torah is teaching us that one must strive to be the kind of person who sees the world in such a way that a mundane item of clothing such as tzitzis will lead him to a sequence of thought that will remind him of the 613 Mitzvos. When a person brings himself to this level, then, as a consequence he will be able to observe the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ because he will not see the world in a skewed manner based on his emotions, rather he will see it with spiritual eyes.
We have seen that a constant theme of the Parsha is that the way a person thinks, will play a decisive role in how he interprets what he sees. It is no easy task to become the kind of person who sees everything with spiritual eyes, however the first stage is to strive to make one’s intellect and emotions in line with the Torah’s directives. The more saturated a person is with the Torah’s teachings, the more he will be able to emulate Kalev and Yehoshua. May we all merit to guide our emotions to bring us closer to Torah.
Monday, June 6, 2011
HUMILITY - THE KEY TO GREATNESS - BEHAALOSECHA
In the end of the Parsha, Hashem describes Moshe Rabbeinu as the most humble man upon the face of the Earth. According to the Torah’s definition of greatness, Moshe represents the ultimate level a person can reach; he attained the greatest closeness to Hashem humanly possible, learnt the most Torah and was the teacher of all of Klal Yisroel. It is clear that his outstanding humility is directly connected to his greatness. This begs the question; there are numerous good midos such as kindness and honesty so why is it the mida of humility in particular that is the one that enabled him to become so great?
In order to answer this it is instructive to analyse the mida which is the opposite of humility - arrogance. The Gemara in Sota describes Hashem’s hatred for the arrogant person - Hashem says that there is no room for Himself and the arrogant person (baal geiva) to ‘reside together. What does this mean? The baal geiva believes that he does not need Hashem to succeed in life. He feels that his own talents are sufficient and therefore he does not need Hashem’s ‘help’. Accordingly, Hashem responds mida ceneged mida and complies with this attitude - He provides the baal geiva with no siata dishmaya in his endeavors. That is the meaning of the idea that Hashem won’t reside with him. Therefore, he is greatly limited to what he can achieve by his own talents - because he is a mere human being he is limited. He may be intelligent, but his intelligence will only take him to a certain point. After that he is helpless.
The anav has the opposite attitude. He realises that he has talents but that they are G-d given. Accordingly, he acknowledges that anything he strives to do can only be accomplished with Heavenly help (siata dishmaya). This realisation is not limiting, in fact it is incredibly empowering. For once a person recognizes that Hashem provides him with whatever ability is necessary, it becomes obvious that his potential is unlimited because the source for his success is Himself unlimited! If a person is willing to exert the necessary hishtadlus in doing Ratson Hashem then he can achieve success that even transcends the regular laws of nature (derech hateva). This explains why Moshe Rabbeinu’s mida of humility enabled him to reach such incredible heights. He realised that anything he tried to do was only through the power given to him by Hashem. This recognition removed any limitations on what he could do, and as we see many times in the Torah he attained supernatural achievements.
In Parshas Vayakhel The Ramban describes an example of how humility - the recognition that Hashem is the source of all our strengths - can enable ordinary people to achieve great things. The Torah, in discussing the building of the Mishkan, tells us that “every man whose heart inspired him came.” The Ramban explains that this refers to the people who came to do the skilled work such as sewing, weaving and building. But there is a difficulty with this explanation - the Jews in Mitzrayim had no opportunity to learn skilled activities such as these so how did these people suddenly possess the ability to do them?! He answers that “their hearts were raised in the ways of Hashem” to the degree that they found in their nature the ability to do things that they had never learnt how to do. They realised that Hashem is the source of all our ability and consequently they were able to achieve the impossible.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l develops this theme even further. He quotes the passuk in Mishlei, “Go to the ant, you lazy one, see its ways and become wise.” The Medrash explains what we are supposed to learn from the ant: “This ant only lives six months and all it needs to eat [it’s whole life] is one and a half kernels of wheat, and it goes and gathers all the wheat and barley that it can find… and why does it do this? Because it says to itself, ‘perhaps Hashem will decree for me life and this food will be ready for me to eat’. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai said that he once saw an ant’s hole in which there was 300 Cor of grain, therefore Shlomo Hamelech said ‘go to the ant, lazy one’, you too should prepare for yourself mitzvos from Olam Hazeh for Olam Haba.”
Rav Shmuelevitz notes that the ant gathers 300 Cor based on the distant possibility that he may live long enough to eat it - this, he writes, “would be a miracle without comparison, because in six months he eats one and a half kernels, if so to eat 300 Cor he would need to live hundreds of thousands of years! Such a miracle has never occurred in the history of the world… nevertheless the ant works hard to do this. In the same way, man is obligated to work and prepare himself in Olam Hazeh for Olam Haba, and if he does not do so - does not work according to the remotest possibility of a miracle, then he is considered lazy!” He then explains that this is the explanation of the Tana d’bey Eliyahu that everyone is obligated to ask himself when he will reach the level of the Avos. “All one’s behavior and actions must be directed at reaching the level of the actions of the Holy Avos. Even though the distance is extremely far, much farther than the 300 Cor for the ant, and b’derech hateva it is impossible to reach it, nevertheless man is obligated to strive to do whatever he can to attain it.” He continues that such ambitious goals can indeed be attained but only through siata dishmaya. Indeed he points out that our ability to ever conquer the yetser hara is only possible due to Hashem’s help, as stated in the Gemara that “if not for Hashem’s help we cannot defeat the yetser hara.”
Thus we have seen that humility, the recognition that we can only achieve anything in life with Hashem’s help, is the key to greatness. Once we tap into this unlimited source then we can reach incredible heights. Of course, the level which Moshe Rabbeinu achieved seems very distant, however we could all find instances in our lives where it was clear that the siata dishmaya was the cause of our success. If we can access the feeling that we experience on those occasions then we can quite easily recognize that Hashem is the source of all our abilities.
Thus we have seen how humility should be the catalyst to inspire us to strive to achieve great things. However, it is important to be aware that there is a negative side to humility. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l addresses a common tendency of people to underestimate themselves by claiming that they are greatly limited in their talents and that they can never achieve greatness. He writes that this kind of humility is the atsas yetser hara. Indeed, according to what we have seen thus far, this attitude is exactly the opposite of genuine humility; Genuine humility empowers a person, whilst this false humility only serves to inhibit him. It seems that this attitude actually derives from a different negative trait - laziness, which is really a manifestation of the desire for comfort. It is not easy to achieve greatness; it requires great effort and the willingness to face setbacks and even failure. This is difficult, therefore it is very tempting for a person to ‘write himself off’ and thereby exempt himself from even trying - this is certainly the more 'comfortable' option. However, we must be very weary that Hashem has far higher expectations of us and that we will be judged according to that measure. Moreover, if we do overcome this initial reluctance to try then we can experience the great feeling of actually making an effort to do something that can help many people - this is a far deeper pleasure than that of comfort.
How much can a person achieve when he plugs into Hashem’s unlimited power? When one visits the home of a Rabbi in Aish Hatorah it is very likely that he will see a photo of Rav Shach zt”l with a statement underneath it: About 30 years ago, he visited Aish HaTorah and spoke there. He was struck by the remarkable number of baalei teshuva that were standing in front of him. He suddenly decided to speak in the Beis Medrash - he discussed the concept that however powerful the forces for evil can be, the forces for Good must be greater. Based on this he made a remarkable statement: “if one man can kill six million Jews, then it must be that one man can save six million Jews.” This is the statement that accompanies the picture of Rav Shach - this is a lesson that we should never forget. Hashem is infinitely more powerful than the most powerful reshaim. If we only tap into His power then we can genuinely strive to reach Rav Shach’s vision.
In order to answer this it is instructive to analyse the mida which is the opposite of humility - arrogance. The Gemara in Sota describes Hashem’s hatred for the arrogant person - Hashem says that there is no room for Himself and the arrogant person (baal geiva) to ‘reside together. What does this mean? The baal geiva believes that he does not need Hashem to succeed in life. He feels that his own talents are sufficient and therefore he does not need Hashem’s ‘help’. Accordingly, Hashem responds mida ceneged mida and complies with this attitude - He provides the baal geiva with no siata dishmaya in his endeavors. That is the meaning of the idea that Hashem won’t reside with him. Therefore, he is greatly limited to what he can achieve by his own talents - because he is a mere human being he is limited. He may be intelligent, but his intelligence will only take him to a certain point. After that he is helpless.
The anav has the opposite attitude. He realises that he has talents but that they are G-d given. Accordingly, he acknowledges that anything he strives to do can only be accomplished with Heavenly help (siata dishmaya). This realisation is not limiting, in fact it is incredibly empowering. For once a person recognizes that Hashem provides him with whatever ability is necessary, it becomes obvious that his potential is unlimited because the source for his success is Himself unlimited! If a person is willing to exert the necessary hishtadlus in doing Ratson Hashem then he can achieve success that even transcends the regular laws of nature (derech hateva). This explains why Moshe Rabbeinu’s mida of humility enabled him to reach such incredible heights. He realised that anything he tried to do was only through the power given to him by Hashem. This recognition removed any limitations on what he could do, and as we see many times in the Torah he attained supernatural achievements.
In Parshas Vayakhel The Ramban describes an example of how humility - the recognition that Hashem is the source of all our strengths - can enable ordinary people to achieve great things. The Torah, in discussing the building of the Mishkan, tells us that “every man whose heart inspired him came.” The Ramban explains that this refers to the people who came to do the skilled work such as sewing, weaving and building. But there is a difficulty with this explanation - the Jews in Mitzrayim had no opportunity to learn skilled activities such as these so how did these people suddenly possess the ability to do them?! He answers that “their hearts were raised in the ways of Hashem” to the degree that they found in their nature the ability to do things that they had never learnt how to do. They realised that Hashem is the source of all our ability and consequently they were able to achieve the impossible.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l develops this theme even further. He quotes the passuk in Mishlei, “Go to the ant, you lazy one, see its ways and become wise.” The Medrash explains what we are supposed to learn from the ant: “This ant only lives six months and all it needs to eat [it’s whole life] is one and a half kernels of wheat, and it goes and gathers all the wheat and barley that it can find… and why does it do this? Because it says to itself, ‘perhaps Hashem will decree for me life and this food will be ready for me to eat’. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai said that he once saw an ant’s hole in which there was 300 Cor of grain, therefore Shlomo Hamelech said ‘go to the ant, lazy one’, you too should prepare for yourself mitzvos from Olam Hazeh for Olam Haba.”
Rav Shmuelevitz notes that the ant gathers 300 Cor based on the distant possibility that he may live long enough to eat it - this, he writes, “would be a miracle without comparison, because in six months he eats one and a half kernels, if so to eat 300 Cor he would need to live hundreds of thousands of years! Such a miracle has never occurred in the history of the world… nevertheless the ant works hard to do this. In the same way, man is obligated to work and prepare himself in Olam Hazeh for Olam Haba, and if he does not do so - does not work according to the remotest possibility of a miracle, then he is considered lazy!” He then explains that this is the explanation of the Tana d’bey Eliyahu that everyone is obligated to ask himself when he will reach the level of the Avos. “All one’s behavior and actions must be directed at reaching the level of the actions of the Holy Avos. Even though the distance is extremely far, much farther than the 300 Cor for the ant, and b’derech hateva it is impossible to reach it, nevertheless man is obligated to strive to do whatever he can to attain it.” He continues that such ambitious goals can indeed be attained but only through siata dishmaya. Indeed he points out that our ability to ever conquer the yetser hara is only possible due to Hashem’s help, as stated in the Gemara that “if not for Hashem’s help we cannot defeat the yetser hara.”
Thus we have seen that humility, the recognition that we can only achieve anything in life with Hashem’s help, is the key to greatness. Once we tap into this unlimited source then we can reach incredible heights. Of course, the level which Moshe Rabbeinu achieved seems very distant, however we could all find instances in our lives where it was clear that the siata dishmaya was the cause of our success. If we can access the feeling that we experience on those occasions then we can quite easily recognize that Hashem is the source of all our abilities.
Thus we have seen how humility should be the catalyst to inspire us to strive to achieve great things. However, it is important to be aware that there is a negative side to humility. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l addresses a common tendency of people to underestimate themselves by claiming that they are greatly limited in their talents and that they can never achieve greatness. He writes that this kind of humility is the atsas yetser hara. Indeed, according to what we have seen thus far, this attitude is exactly the opposite of genuine humility; Genuine humility empowers a person, whilst this false humility only serves to inhibit him. It seems that this attitude actually derives from a different negative trait - laziness, which is really a manifestation of the desire for comfort. It is not easy to achieve greatness; it requires great effort and the willingness to face setbacks and even failure. This is difficult, therefore it is very tempting for a person to ‘write himself off’ and thereby exempt himself from even trying - this is certainly the more 'comfortable' option. However, we must be very weary that Hashem has far higher expectations of us and that we will be judged according to that measure. Moreover, if we do overcome this initial reluctance to try then we can experience the great feeling of actually making an effort to do something that can help many people - this is a far deeper pleasure than that of comfort.
How much can a person achieve when he plugs into Hashem’s unlimited power? When one visits the home of a Rabbi in Aish Hatorah it is very likely that he will see a photo of Rav Shach zt”l with a statement underneath it: About 30 years ago, he visited Aish HaTorah and spoke there. He was struck by the remarkable number of baalei teshuva that were standing in front of him. He suddenly decided to speak in the Beis Medrash - he discussed the concept that however powerful the forces for evil can be, the forces for Good must be greater. Based on this he made a remarkable statement: “if one man can kill six million Jews, then it must be that one man can save six million Jews.” This is the statement that accompanies the picture of Rav Shach - this is a lesson that we should never forget. Hashem is infinitely more powerful than the most powerful reshaim. If we only tap into His power then we can genuinely strive to reach Rav Shach’s vision.
UNDERSTANDING COMPLAINTS - BEHAALOSECHA
“The people were like those who seek complaints in the ears of HaShem, and HaShem heard and His wrath flared…”
As the Jewish people were on the verge of entering Eretz Yisroel, they began complaining to HaShem. It is not immediately apparent what exactly they were complaining about. Rashi, based on the Sifri, explains that, in truth, they had no specific complaint, rather they were seeking a pretext to justify distancing themselves from HaShem. In a similar vein, the Seforno writes that they had no valid reason to complain, but they made it appear as if they were complaining about the difficulty of the journey. These explanations help answer the question of why the Torah writes that they were “like” complainers, as opposed to being actual complainers. It is possible to answer that the Torah is alluding that they were not really complaining about anything. Therefore they were not genuine complainers who had a real grievance, rather they were like complainers in that they made out as if they had a gripe.
We learn from the Sifri that there are occasions when a person can voice a complaint or make an argument, when in truth, he doesn’t really believe in what he is saying. Rather he is using it as an excuse to justify an undesirable form of behavior. In the case of the misonenim, this undesirable behavior manifested itself in the people’s desire to distance themselves from HaShem.
We see a further striking example of how, what a person says does not necessarily represent what he means, in the argument between Kayin and Hevel that culminated in the murder of Hevel. The Torah tells us that Kayin spoke with Hevel before he killed him. “And Kayin spoke to Hevel his brother, and whilst they were in the field, Kayin rose up against his brother, Hevel, and killed him.” The Torah does not tell us what Kayin spoke about with Hevel. Targum Yonasan tells us that Kayin spoke words of kefira (denial of G-d) to Hevel, arguing that there was no G-d, and no concept of reward and punishment. Hevel argued with Kayin and in the midst of their argument, Kayin rose up and killed Hevel. Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita, asks why the Torah refrained from presenting this seemingly fundamental philosophical debate, leaving it to Chazal to fill in the details. He answers that the Torah was teaching us that Kayin didn’t necessarily believe in what he was saying, rather he was looking for an excuse to initiate an argument with his brother. The Torah refrained from revealing Kayin’s words because their actual content was irrelevant. We see again from here that a person’s most passionate arguments may be a screen to hide his true intentions.
In this vein, the story is told of a number of yeshiva bachurim in the Yeshiva of Volozhin, who left the yeshiva and ultimately left Torah observance. Years later, they approached their Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, and told him that they had kashas on fundamental aspects of Torah thought, that they wanted to pose to him.
Before they could ask their questions, he rhetorically asked them what came first – did they have kashas that caused them to leave Yiddishkeit, or did they leave Yiddishkeit and then come up with the kashas. His point was that they didn’t leave observance because of deep philosophical questions. Rather, they left Torah and then came up with the kashas so as to give their abhorrent behavior a veil of validity.
This phenomenon remains common nowadays. Rav Dovid Orlofsky Shlita tells of a Mashgiach of a Yeshiva who approached him with regard to a yeshiva bachur who claimed to have doubts in Emuna, and as a result, was beginning to get involved in objectionable activities. The Mashgiach told Rav Orlofsky that he had spent much time with the boy discussing Jewish thought, studying the philosophical works of great Jewish thinkers such as the Rambam and Rav Yehuda HaLevi . Yet nothing had helped, and he continued on his path away from Torah. Rav Orlofsky explained that it was clear that bachur had no genuine issues in Emuna, rather he enjoyed going to town more than learning in the Beis Medrash! All the Mashgiach’s philosophical arguments met deaf ears, because they meant nothing to the boy. It was more instructive to address the real issues that were causing his descent from Yiddishkeit.
How can a person develop the skill of discerning when a person is saying one thing but doesn’t really mean what he is saying? The incident of the misonenim also helps answer this. After the people began complaining, ostensibly about the difficult journey, the Torah tells us that, “HaShem heard (vayishma) and His wrath flared…” What does the Torah come to teach us by telling us the seemingly obvious fact that HaShem ‘heard’? The verb, ‘lishmoa’ does not merely mean to hear, rather it also can mean, ‘to understand’. Therefore, the Torah is telling us that HaShem understood the true intents of the people – that they had no real complaint, rather they were looking to distance themselves from Him. He reacted accordingly.
Or course, we are not able to understand a person’s thoughts. However we can strive to emulate HaShem by discerning what he really means when he says something, and consequently come to a more accurate understanding of what he really means. For example, a person may ask, why there is so much suffering in the world. There are numerous possible reasons as to why a person may ask such a question; he may have experienced a tragedy and be grappling with it; he may have a genuine desire to understand this difficult issue; or he may be simply using this issue as an excuse to attack Judaism. The only way to discern his true intent is to probe further as to what exactly he means – in this way, one can address his real issue. Similarly, a child may complain that he does not enjoy school. A parent could take this complaint at face value and try to help him enjoy learning more. However, if the parent probes further, he may discover that in truth the child has no problem with his studies, rather there is a different problem, for example, another boy may be bullying him and therefore he doesn’t want to go to school. With this understanding, the parent can now address the problem in a far more effective way.
The lessons of the episode of the misonenim are as relevant today as they were in the desert. May we all merit to emulate HaShem and learn to understand the true meaning of people’s words.
As the Jewish people were on the verge of entering Eretz Yisroel, they began complaining to HaShem. It is not immediately apparent what exactly they were complaining about. Rashi, based on the Sifri, explains that, in truth, they had no specific complaint, rather they were seeking a pretext to justify distancing themselves from HaShem. In a similar vein, the Seforno writes that they had no valid reason to complain, but they made it appear as if they were complaining about the difficulty of the journey. These explanations help answer the question of why the Torah writes that they were “like” complainers, as opposed to being actual complainers. It is possible to answer that the Torah is alluding that they were not really complaining about anything. Therefore they were not genuine complainers who had a real grievance, rather they were like complainers in that they made out as if they had a gripe.
We learn from the Sifri that there are occasions when a person can voice a complaint or make an argument, when in truth, he doesn’t really believe in what he is saying. Rather he is using it as an excuse to justify an undesirable form of behavior. In the case of the misonenim, this undesirable behavior manifested itself in the people’s desire to distance themselves from HaShem.
We see a further striking example of how, what a person says does not necessarily represent what he means, in the argument between Kayin and Hevel that culminated in the murder of Hevel. The Torah tells us that Kayin spoke with Hevel before he killed him. “And Kayin spoke to Hevel his brother, and whilst they were in the field, Kayin rose up against his brother, Hevel, and killed him.” The Torah does not tell us what Kayin spoke about with Hevel. Targum Yonasan tells us that Kayin spoke words of kefira (denial of G-d) to Hevel, arguing that there was no G-d, and no concept of reward and punishment. Hevel argued with Kayin and in the midst of their argument, Kayin rose up and killed Hevel. Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita, asks why the Torah refrained from presenting this seemingly fundamental philosophical debate, leaving it to Chazal to fill in the details. He answers that the Torah was teaching us that Kayin didn’t necessarily believe in what he was saying, rather he was looking for an excuse to initiate an argument with his brother. The Torah refrained from revealing Kayin’s words because their actual content was irrelevant. We see again from here that a person’s most passionate arguments may be a screen to hide his true intentions.
In this vein, the story is told of a number of yeshiva bachurim in the Yeshiva of Volozhin, who left the yeshiva and ultimately left Torah observance. Years later, they approached their Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, and told him that they had kashas on fundamental aspects of Torah thought, that they wanted to pose to him.
Before they could ask their questions, he rhetorically asked them what came first – did they have kashas that caused them to leave Yiddishkeit, or did they leave Yiddishkeit and then come up with the kashas. His point was that they didn’t leave observance because of deep philosophical questions. Rather, they left Torah and then came up with the kashas so as to give their abhorrent behavior a veil of validity.
This phenomenon remains common nowadays. Rav Dovid Orlofsky Shlita tells of a Mashgiach of a Yeshiva who approached him with regard to a yeshiva bachur who claimed to have doubts in Emuna, and as a result, was beginning to get involved in objectionable activities. The Mashgiach told Rav Orlofsky that he had spent much time with the boy discussing Jewish thought, studying the philosophical works of great Jewish thinkers such as the Rambam and Rav Yehuda HaLevi . Yet nothing had helped, and he continued on his path away from Torah. Rav Orlofsky explained that it was clear that bachur had no genuine issues in Emuna, rather he enjoyed going to town more than learning in the Beis Medrash! All the Mashgiach’s philosophical arguments met deaf ears, because they meant nothing to the boy. It was more instructive to address the real issues that were causing his descent from Yiddishkeit.
How can a person develop the skill of discerning when a person is saying one thing but doesn’t really mean what he is saying? The incident of the misonenim also helps answer this. After the people began complaining, ostensibly about the difficult journey, the Torah tells us that, “HaShem heard (vayishma) and His wrath flared…” What does the Torah come to teach us by telling us the seemingly obvious fact that HaShem ‘heard’? The verb, ‘lishmoa’ does not merely mean to hear, rather it also can mean, ‘to understand’. Therefore, the Torah is telling us that HaShem understood the true intents of the people – that they had no real complaint, rather they were looking to distance themselves from Him. He reacted accordingly.
Or course, we are not able to understand a person’s thoughts. However we can strive to emulate HaShem by discerning what he really means when he says something, and consequently come to a more accurate understanding of what he really means. For example, a person may ask, why there is so much suffering in the world. There are numerous possible reasons as to why a person may ask such a question; he may have experienced a tragedy and be grappling with it; he may have a genuine desire to understand this difficult issue; or he may be simply using this issue as an excuse to attack Judaism. The only way to discern his true intent is to probe further as to what exactly he means – in this way, one can address his real issue. Similarly, a child may complain that he does not enjoy school. A parent could take this complaint at face value and try to help him enjoy learning more. However, if the parent probes further, he may discover that in truth the child has no problem with his studies, rather there is a different problem, for example, another boy may be bullying him and therefore he doesn’t want to go to school. With this understanding, the parent can now address the problem in a far more effective way.
The lessons of the episode of the misonenim are as relevant today as they were in the desert. May we all merit to emulate HaShem and learn to understand the true meaning of people’s words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
