As we begin the period of the three weeks that culminates in Tisha B'Av, we strive to find ways of improving ourselves, so we can ensure that this will be the last year without the Beis HaMikdash. The famous gemara in Gittin about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches us a great deal about the cause of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and what we need to rectify in order to bring about its rebuilding.
The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. An unnamed man was a sworn enemy of Bar Kamtza but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a banquet, but the servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came to the affair, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After that offer was refused, he volunteered to pay half the cost of the whole banquet, but instead he was thrown out. There were a number of rabbis in attendance, who remained silent throughout this unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.
The Iyun Yaakov, ztz”l, asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for these events, since he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai, ztz”l, answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the banquet and witnessed how Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that if someone can protest a wrongdoing but does not, it is considered as if he himself committed it. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha, who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the destruction.
Furthermore, the rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events, because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza’s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story: Inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, the Beis HaMikdash may not have been destroyed. Their indifference to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.
This lesson, that apathy destroyed the second Beis HaMikdash, seems somewhat contradictory to the Gemara in Yoma, which states that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the destruction. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not limited to active hatred; it can also include apathy. We see this from the first time the root of the word sinah (hatred) appears in the Torah: In parashas Vayetzei, after Yaakov Avinu marries Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, “Hashem saw that Leah was senuah (literally, “hated”).” The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one he loves less is called senuah—he does not hate her, but he loves her less than his favorite. Therefore, says the Ramban, Yaakov did not hate Leah; rather, his love for her was lacking. And therefore we can understand that the word sinah does not necessarily imply an active hatred; rather, it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in Yoma need not have been a virulent hatred; it could also have included apathy and lack of concern for one’s fellow.
In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibschutz, ztz”l, writes that the sinas chinam described in the Gemara refers not to active hatred, but to disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, because people were not willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, “Do you have a greater hater than this: one who sees his friend drowning in a river [of sin] and does not protest?!” Based on this redefinition of sinah, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma involves not only active hatred; it also includes apathy toward the pain of one’s fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.
The fact that the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very prevalent today, and they apply to many areas of our lives, whether it be in the realm of sharing another’s pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or reaching out to the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious soul searching to assess our performance in these areas and strive to improve in some way.
May this be the last Tishah b’Av or mourning that we endure.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
FASTING ON SHIVA ASAR B'TAMMUZ
The fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz begins the mourning period known as the 'Three Weeks'. On this day, the walls of Jerusalem were broken down, and three weeks later, the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed . It is instructive to delve deeper into the purpose of fasting, in order to enter into this sad period with the appropriate state of mind.
The Ben Ish Chai zt"l writes that there are two main purposes of fasting. The first reason is fairly apparent - that fasting diverts a person from physical involvement so that he can focus on more spiritual matters. His second reason is a little less obvious; he explains that when a person fasts, he feels hungry and endures considerable discomfort. By placing himself in such a predicament, he can come to a greater appreciation of the constant hunger and discomfort that a poor person faces throughout his life. This increased awareness will heighten his feelings of pity for the poor man's situation, and will motivate him to offer greater assistance to his unfortunate fellow.
The Ben Ish Chai applies this explanation to clarify an enigmatic gemara in Brachos. The gemara tells us, 'the reward for fasting is charity '. He explains that the gemara is telling us that the consequence of fasting is that a person will give more charity. His very act of fasting will cause him to be more caring about the poor people whom he constantly encounters, and accordingly he will want to help them to a greater degree. It is possible to add that fasting has another benefit related to doing chesed with those less fortunate than oneself. As well as causing a person to give more abundantly, it enables him to improve his giving in a qualitative fashion. By temporarily placing oneself in a situation similar to that of the poor person, he is able to show a far greater sense of understanding for his fellow's desperate situation. When the giver shows that he truly empathizes with the receiver, then the act of giving constitutes a far greater act of chesed.
Rav Shach zt"l excelled in doing chesed by showing an understanding of his fellow's challenges. On one occasion he heard about a widower who was depressed to the point that he stopped functioning. Rav Shach decided to visit the man in an attempt to bring him out of his depression. Receiving no response to his knock, he let himself in, and found the man lying motionless on the couch. "I know what you are going through," he said to the man. "I'm also a widower. My world is dark and I have no joy." The man's eyes lit up for the first time in months - this encounter was the catalyst of the man's resumption of a normal life. What was Rav Shach's secret? By stressing that he too experienced the feelings of losing a spouse, he showed the man that somebody truly understood his pain .
In this instance, the giver had first-hand experience of the receiver's situation. When one is fortunate enough not to endure the same difficulty, he must adapt the lesson of the Ben Ish Chai and try to somehow place himself in a state where he can somewhat relate to his fellow's plight.
This lesson of fasting is particularly relevant to the 'Three Weeks' Chazal say that the Second Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of failings in the area of bein adam lechaveiro . A failure to empathize with the situation of one's fellow is one of the main causes for such flaws. It is far easier for a person to harm others when he has no sensitivity to the pain that he causes them . The Ben Ish Chai teaches us that fasting can be an effective way of eroding one's apathy for his fellow Jews. May we utilize the fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz to improve our conduct in bein adam lechaveiro.
The Ben Ish Chai zt"l writes that there are two main purposes of fasting. The first reason is fairly apparent - that fasting diverts a person from physical involvement so that he can focus on more spiritual matters. His second reason is a little less obvious; he explains that when a person fasts, he feels hungry and endures considerable discomfort. By placing himself in such a predicament, he can come to a greater appreciation of the constant hunger and discomfort that a poor person faces throughout his life. This increased awareness will heighten his feelings of pity for the poor man's situation, and will motivate him to offer greater assistance to his unfortunate fellow.
The Ben Ish Chai applies this explanation to clarify an enigmatic gemara in Brachos. The gemara tells us, 'the reward for fasting is charity '. He explains that the gemara is telling us that the consequence of fasting is that a person will give more charity. His very act of fasting will cause him to be more caring about the poor people whom he constantly encounters, and accordingly he will want to help them to a greater degree. It is possible to add that fasting has another benefit related to doing chesed with those less fortunate than oneself. As well as causing a person to give more abundantly, it enables him to improve his giving in a qualitative fashion. By temporarily placing oneself in a situation similar to that of the poor person, he is able to show a far greater sense of understanding for his fellow's desperate situation. When the giver shows that he truly empathizes with the receiver, then the act of giving constitutes a far greater act of chesed.
Rav Shach zt"l excelled in doing chesed by showing an understanding of his fellow's challenges. On one occasion he heard about a widower who was depressed to the point that he stopped functioning. Rav Shach decided to visit the man in an attempt to bring him out of his depression. Receiving no response to his knock, he let himself in, and found the man lying motionless on the couch. "I know what you are going through," he said to the man. "I'm also a widower. My world is dark and I have no joy." The man's eyes lit up for the first time in months - this encounter was the catalyst of the man's resumption of a normal life. What was Rav Shach's secret? By stressing that he too experienced the feelings of losing a spouse, he showed the man that somebody truly understood his pain .
In this instance, the giver had first-hand experience of the receiver's situation. When one is fortunate enough not to endure the same difficulty, he must adapt the lesson of the Ben Ish Chai and try to somehow place himself in a state where he can somewhat relate to his fellow's plight.
This lesson of fasting is particularly relevant to the 'Three Weeks' Chazal say that the Second Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of failings in the area of bein adam lechaveiro . A failure to empathize with the situation of one's fellow is one of the main causes for such flaws. It is far easier for a person to harm others when he has no sensitivity to the pain that he causes them . The Ben Ish Chai teaches us that fasting can be an effective way of eroding one's apathy for his fellow Jews. May we utilize the fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz to improve our conduct in bein adam lechaveiro.
ACCEPTING REBUKE - MATTOS
When the Sfas Emes was a boy, he was looked after by his grandfather, the great Chiddushei Harim. On one occasion, the Sfas Emes stayed awake for most of the night learning Torah until he fell asleep in the early morning. He awoke after a short time to find himself a few minutes late for the shiur that the Chiddushei Harim taught. When the Chiddushei Harim saw that he arrived late he was unaware that his grandson had been awake for most of the night, and strongly rebuked him, presuming that his tardiness was the result of an element of laziness. Instead of defending himself, the Sfas Emes listened quietly to the scolding he received. His friend later asked him why he did not respond to the Chiddushei Harim’s criticism, and thereby spare himself of the rebuke . The Sfas Emes replied, saying, “would I waste the opportunity of being rebuked by my grandfather!” He based this line of thinking on an incident in Parshas Mattos .
The B’nei Gad and Reuven approached Moshe Rabbeinu, asking that he allow them to remain on Eiver HaYarden where there was sufficient land for them to farm their animals. Moshe replied with a strong rebuke - his main point of criticism was that by not entering Eretz Yisrael they would be abandoning their brethren in the upcoming conquest. In a lengthy passage, Moshe ominously reminds them of the incident of the spies and its terrible consequences. In reply to Moshe’s criticisms, the B’nei Gad and Reuven said that they would join the rest of the nation in conquering the land. The Sfas Emes pointed out that in truth, they had intended to join the conquest right from the beginning but Moshe Rabbeinu did not understand this from their request and consequently rebuked them for being unwilling to join their brethren in conquering the land. If so, why did they not interrupt him right at the beginning of his condemnation instead of having to endure such a strong rebuke? The Sfas Emes explained that they wanted to hear the word of rebuke from a great man, and were therefore happy to listen to his criticisms even though they could easily refute them early on. So too, although he could have stemmed the rebuke of his grandfather by justifying his tardiness, he preferred to hear the rebuke of a tzaddik .
What was the great quality of being rebuked by a great man that caused the B’nei Gad and Reuven to bear such stinging rebuke? The Gemara in Taanis tells us that the curses with which the Prophet, Achiya HaShiloni cursed the Jewish people are greater than the blessings with which Bilaam blessed them . The Gemara bases this idea on a passuk in Mishlei: “The blows of a beloved one are trustworthy, and the kisses of an enemy are damaging. ” The commentaries explain that the ‘blows’ delivered by one’s beloved here refer to words of rebuke. The rebuke of someone who genuinely cares about his friend is of great benefit because it is aimed at helping him improve himself. This is a great kindness because it helps one improve his spiritual standing. When the B’nei Gad and Reuven heard Moshe Rabbeinu rebuke them, they knew that he was doing so from the purest of motives and only had their best interests in mind. Thus, even though they could defend themselves, it was more worthwhile to listen to his words and try to somehow grow from them.
Thus far, we have seen how the rebuke of a tzaddik is of great value, however it seems that even the tochacha of a less righteous person can be of considerable benefit. Moreover, even rebuke that is given in the wrong way, can still nonetheless help someone tremendously. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the prohibition to take revenge is based on the concept that whatever happens to a person is directed by Hashem. Even if someone acted towards a person in a negative fashion, it is nevertheless fruitless to bear a grudge or take revenge because the pain caused would not have occurred had Hashem so desired . Thus, when a person is rebuked in what he perceives to be a hurtful way, it is highly commendable that he ignore the failings of the rebuker and focus on what he actually said and accept the rebuke. There is often an element of truth in the rebuke proving that this rebuke was sent from Hashem as a means of communicating that he should strive to change his ways.
Shlomo HaMelech makes a similar point in Mishlei: “Hear advice and accept rebuke so that you will become wise in your latter days .” It is interesting to note that with regard to advice, we are told to ’hear’, whereas in relation to rebuke we should ’accept it’. Hearing implies an element of contemplation and thought - when a person is given advice he should think about it before he acts upon it. In contrast when one is rebuked he should accept it without analyzing the validity of the rebuke - rather he should view it as a message from Hashem to improve himself and act accordingly. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l excelled in his reaction towards incorrect rebuke. On one occasion, he answered the phone only to be met with a barrage of criticism from someone who was incensed at one of his halachic rulings. He patiently listened to the tirade until it ended and did not even try to defend himself. A shocked student asked him why he did not respond to such an inappropriate rebuke. He answered that he so rarely receives any rebuke that he was grateful for the opportunity to hear such strong words - and even though in this specific area the rebuke was unfounded, there must be some other area where he could improve himself and he should use the rebuke to improve in that area !
On another occasion Rav Moshe was rebuked for a perceived transgression. He answered the rebuke in a teshuva that is found in Igros Moshe . He begins the teshuva saying: I was very happy that maalas kevodo was so zealous in fulfilling the mitzvo of rebuke according to his understanding, and chas v’shalom that I should be upset at this… bli neder I will no longer travel in a car during the time of candlelighting even though there is absolutely no prohibition in it, and there is not even maaris ayiin .” After completely refuting the arguments of the rebuker he ends, saying, “from his beloved who blesses him with the merit of the mitzvo of rebuke that he did for the honor of HashemYisbarach and for the honor of Shabbos Kodesh..”
It is understandable that most people are not on the level of Rav Feinstein and do not enjoy being rebuked - it is unpleasant be told that one has a character flaw or acted in an improper fashion. However, if a person can move past the feelings of pain he experiences and tries to learn from the rebuke then he can transform it into a tremendous tool for growth and can use it to be a better Eved Hashem.
The B’nei Gad and Reuven approached Moshe Rabbeinu, asking that he allow them to remain on Eiver HaYarden where there was sufficient land for them to farm their animals. Moshe replied with a strong rebuke - his main point of criticism was that by not entering Eretz Yisrael they would be abandoning their brethren in the upcoming conquest. In a lengthy passage, Moshe ominously reminds them of the incident of the spies and its terrible consequences. In reply to Moshe’s criticisms, the B’nei Gad and Reuven said that they would join the rest of the nation in conquering the land. The Sfas Emes pointed out that in truth, they had intended to join the conquest right from the beginning but Moshe Rabbeinu did not understand this from their request and consequently rebuked them for being unwilling to join their brethren in conquering the land. If so, why did they not interrupt him right at the beginning of his condemnation instead of having to endure such a strong rebuke? The Sfas Emes explained that they wanted to hear the word of rebuke from a great man, and were therefore happy to listen to his criticisms even though they could easily refute them early on. So too, although he could have stemmed the rebuke of his grandfather by justifying his tardiness, he preferred to hear the rebuke of a tzaddik .
What was the great quality of being rebuked by a great man that caused the B’nei Gad and Reuven to bear such stinging rebuke? The Gemara in Taanis tells us that the curses with which the Prophet, Achiya HaShiloni cursed the Jewish people are greater than the blessings with which Bilaam blessed them . The Gemara bases this idea on a passuk in Mishlei: “The blows of a beloved one are trustworthy, and the kisses of an enemy are damaging. ” The commentaries explain that the ‘blows’ delivered by one’s beloved here refer to words of rebuke. The rebuke of someone who genuinely cares about his friend is of great benefit because it is aimed at helping him improve himself. This is a great kindness because it helps one improve his spiritual standing. When the B’nei Gad and Reuven heard Moshe Rabbeinu rebuke them, they knew that he was doing so from the purest of motives and only had their best interests in mind. Thus, even though they could defend themselves, it was more worthwhile to listen to his words and try to somehow grow from them.
Thus far, we have seen how the rebuke of a tzaddik is of great value, however it seems that even the tochacha of a less righteous person can be of considerable benefit. Moreover, even rebuke that is given in the wrong way, can still nonetheless help someone tremendously. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the prohibition to take revenge is based on the concept that whatever happens to a person is directed by Hashem. Even if someone acted towards a person in a negative fashion, it is nevertheless fruitless to bear a grudge or take revenge because the pain caused would not have occurred had Hashem so desired . Thus, when a person is rebuked in what he perceives to be a hurtful way, it is highly commendable that he ignore the failings of the rebuker and focus on what he actually said and accept the rebuke. There is often an element of truth in the rebuke proving that this rebuke was sent from Hashem as a means of communicating that he should strive to change his ways.
Shlomo HaMelech makes a similar point in Mishlei: “Hear advice and accept rebuke so that you will become wise in your latter days .” It is interesting to note that with regard to advice, we are told to ’hear’, whereas in relation to rebuke we should ’accept it’. Hearing implies an element of contemplation and thought - when a person is given advice he should think about it before he acts upon it. In contrast when one is rebuked he should accept it without analyzing the validity of the rebuke - rather he should view it as a message from Hashem to improve himself and act accordingly. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l excelled in his reaction towards incorrect rebuke. On one occasion, he answered the phone only to be met with a barrage of criticism from someone who was incensed at one of his halachic rulings. He patiently listened to the tirade until it ended and did not even try to defend himself. A shocked student asked him why he did not respond to such an inappropriate rebuke. He answered that he so rarely receives any rebuke that he was grateful for the opportunity to hear such strong words - and even though in this specific area the rebuke was unfounded, there must be some other area where he could improve himself and he should use the rebuke to improve in that area !
On another occasion Rav Moshe was rebuked for a perceived transgression. He answered the rebuke in a teshuva that is found in Igros Moshe . He begins the teshuva saying: I was very happy that maalas kevodo was so zealous in fulfilling the mitzvo of rebuke according to his understanding, and chas v’shalom that I should be upset at this… bli neder I will no longer travel in a car during the time of candlelighting even though there is absolutely no prohibition in it, and there is not even maaris ayiin .” After completely refuting the arguments of the rebuker he ends, saying, “from his beloved who blesses him with the merit of the mitzvo of rebuke that he did for the honor of HashemYisbarach and for the honor of Shabbos Kodesh..”
It is understandable that most people are not on the level of Rav Feinstein and do not enjoy being rebuked - it is unpleasant be told that one has a character flaw or acted in an improper fashion. However, if a person can move past the feelings of pain he experiences and tries to learn from the rebuke then he can transform it into a tremendous tool for growth and can use it to be a better Eved Hashem.
THE VALUE OF LIFE - MATTOS
“And Bilaam the son of Beor they killed with the sword. ” It would seem that the death of Bilaam Harasha was a punishment for his efforts to harm Klal Yisroel in the desert. The Gemara, however, cites a far earlier crime that he committed as the reason for his untimely death. “Three were in that aitsa [of how Pharaoh should treat the Jewish people], Bilaam, Iyov and Yisro: Bilaam advised [to harm them] and was killed; Iyov was silent and was judged with yissurim; Yisro escaped and was zocheh that his descendants should sit in the lishkas hagazis. ” Bilaam was punished with death at the hands of Klal Yisroel because of his evil advice to Pharaoh many years earlier. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l points out that this Gemara poses a great difficulty: It is clear that Bilaam deserved a far greater punishment than Iyov, because Iyov didn’t commit an active crime, rather he remained silent. Yet, it would seem that Iyov’s onesh was far greater than that of Bilaam. Whilst Bilaam suffered a quick death, Iyov had to endure suffering that no other man has ever experienced. How can this be understood?
Rav Shmuelevitz answers that life itself is the greatest gift possible and that any pain, no matter how bad, is infinitely greater than death. Consequently, Bilaam’s onesh was far more severe than Iyov’s - Iyov still had the gift of life, Bilaam lost it forever. Rav Leib Chasman zt”l offers an excellent mashal to help understand this concept; imagine a man wins a huge prize on the lottery, and at that every moment, one of his jugs breaks. Would this minor inconvenience bother him at all at this time of great joy?! The happiness that he experiences due to the lottery prize nullifies any feelings of pain that come in everyday life. So too, a person should have the same attitude in life - his joy at the mere fact of his existence should be so great that it should render any difficulties as meaningless, even sufferings as great as those that Iyov endured. For they are nothing in comparison with the wonderful gift of life .
Why is the gift of life so precious? The Mishna in Pirkei Avos can help answer this question: “One moment of repentance and good deeds in Olam Hazeh is greater than all of Chayei Olam Haba, and one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Habah is greater than all of Chayei Olam Hazeh. ” This Mishna seems to contradict itself - it begins by stating that Olam Hazeh is incomparably greater than Olam Haba and ends by saying the opposite! The commentaries explain that the two parts of the Mishna are focussing on different aspects. The second part of the Mishna is comparing the pleasure that one can attain in the two ‘worlds‘. In that sense, Olam Haba is infinitely greater than Olam Hazeh - there is no earthly pleasure that can begin to compare with one moment of pleasure in Olam Haba. The pleasure there is that of connecting to Hashem, the Source of all creation - all other pleasures are meaningless and transitory in comparison. However, the first part of the Mishna is focussing on the ability to create more of a connection to HaShem. In that aspect Olam Hazeh is infinitely greater because it is the place of free will in which we have the ability to choose to become closer to HaShem by performing mitzvos. In Olam Haba there is no more opportunity to increase the connection to Him. We can now understand why life is so precious - each moment is a priceless opportunity to attain more closeness to HaShem, the ultimate pleasure that will accompany us for eternity in Olam Haba. The Gra expressed the value of Olam Hazeh on his deathbed. He held his Tsitsit and cried, saying, “how precious is Olam Hazeh that for a few prutot it is possible to gain merit for the mitzvo of Tsitsit and to see the ‘pney hashechina’, whereas in Olam Haba it is impossible to gain anything.”
This idea is also demonstrated by the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara tells of Elazar Ben Durdaya, an inveterate sinner. On one occasion, when he was about to commit a terrible sin, he was told that even if he repented his teshuva will never be accepted. This ‘sentence’ effected him so deeply that he did repent and he died in a state of perfect teshuva. As his soul left him, a Bas Kol came out and said that Rabbi Elazar Ben Durdaya is ready to go into Olam Haba. The Gemara then says that when Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this maaseh he cried out, “there are those that earn Olam Haba in many years and there are those that earn it in one moment.” The commentaries wonder why Rebbi was so upset by this maaseh - he, a person who had struggled for many years in Avodas Hashem, was surely destined for a far greater portion in Olam Haba than someone who earned Olam Haba for one moment of inspired teshuva!? Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l answers in the name of his father, that Rebbi was crying because he saw the power of one moment in Olam Hazeh; in one moment a person can earn infinite bliss, therefore he was crying at any failure to utilise each moment in the best possible way. Each moment is an incredible opportunity at creating more Olam Haba.
The Chofetz Chaim applies this concept to halacha . He brings the Sefer Hachinuch who writes that there are six mitzvos that are constantly incumbent upon man and that every second throughout a person’s life a person can fulfil them by merely thinking about them. Consequently, there is no limit to the reward for performing these mitvzos. This can also help explain why Jewish law is so against ending a person’s life prematurely, even if he is unable to live a normal life. Rav Zev Leff Shlita points out that even a person in a coma may well be able to perform numerous mitzvos by his thought. He can fulfil the Mitzvos that only require thought and moreover, Chazal tell us that if a person has a desire to perform a mitzvo but is prevented from doing so, he nevertheless receives reward as if he did indeed fulfil the mitzvo. Therefore, every second more of life is a great opportunity to create more Olam Haba.
We have seen how every second of life is infinitely precious. Yet we often think that little can be achieved in a few minutes here or there. However, experience has proven differently. The Chasam Sofer was once asked how he became a Gadol, he answered that he became a Gadol in five minutes. He meant that by utilising every available moment he was able to learn so much more. Rav Moshe Feinstein once had a very large smile on his face - he explained that he had just completed Shas. This was not a novel achievement for him, he was known to have finished Shas dozens of times, but this siyum was different. It comprised of his learning in the gaps at Chasunas; by consistently learning small amounts he eventually learnt all of Shas this way. We too can use small amounts of time to attain surprisingly great achievements in learning. There are people who learn one Mishna a day, this seems a somewhat trivial amount, but after years of consistently doing this they have completed whole Sedarim of Mishnayos. Another important benefit of small sedarim is that one can use them to learn areas of Torah that are not normally given sufficient attention. One Talmid Chacham in Eretz Yisroel is well-known for his expertise in all areas of Torah, including Navi, Hashkafa, and Mussar, as well as his all encompassing grasp of Shas and poskim. When asked how he managed to learn such a wide array of subjects he explained that he had many small sedarim - by learning Maharal or Navi for ten minutes a day, he gradually attained a wide knowledge in them. Similarly, Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita often emphasizes that in order to know Navi, one need not devote hours each day to it. He attained his expertise in it by learning it for a few minutes each night. Nowadays there are many ways in which one can utilise small sedarim - there are books such as ’A Lesson a Day’ and ’Praying with Fire’ which enable people to learn small but significant amounts of highly important subjects each day.
We have seen how precious the gift of life is and the great value of every moment of life. Life is full of challenges and there are times when a person can feel despondent - but if he remembers that life itself is cause for joy then he can overcome any negative feelings: When the Alter of Novardok first started to build yeshivas, he was unsuccessful. He built yeshivas and they collapsed, he organised groups and they disintegrated. In addition, he and his approach were attacked by opponents. At that time he came to Kelm and his Rebbi, The Alter of Kelm noticed he looked sad and understood why. That Motsei Shabbos when a group had gathered to hear his shmuese, he stood at the podium and remained silent for a very, very long time. Then he banged his hand on the shtender and thundered, “It is enough for a living being that he is alive.” Over and over he repeated his words until finally he told the group to doven Maariv. “That session” said the Alter of Novardok “dispelled my gloom and cleared my thoughts. ” The Alter of Kelm taught the Alter of Novardok a priceless lesson - as long as one is alive, there is nothing to complain about. May we all be zocheh to appreciate the gift of life and use it to its fullest.
Rav Shmuelevitz answers that life itself is the greatest gift possible and that any pain, no matter how bad, is infinitely greater than death. Consequently, Bilaam’s onesh was far more severe than Iyov’s - Iyov still had the gift of life, Bilaam lost it forever. Rav Leib Chasman zt”l offers an excellent mashal to help understand this concept; imagine a man wins a huge prize on the lottery, and at that every moment, one of his jugs breaks. Would this minor inconvenience bother him at all at this time of great joy?! The happiness that he experiences due to the lottery prize nullifies any feelings of pain that come in everyday life. So too, a person should have the same attitude in life - his joy at the mere fact of his existence should be so great that it should render any difficulties as meaningless, even sufferings as great as those that Iyov endured. For they are nothing in comparison with the wonderful gift of life .
Why is the gift of life so precious? The Mishna in Pirkei Avos can help answer this question: “One moment of repentance and good deeds in Olam Hazeh is greater than all of Chayei Olam Haba, and one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Habah is greater than all of Chayei Olam Hazeh. ” This Mishna seems to contradict itself - it begins by stating that Olam Hazeh is incomparably greater than Olam Haba and ends by saying the opposite! The commentaries explain that the two parts of the Mishna are focussing on different aspects. The second part of the Mishna is comparing the pleasure that one can attain in the two ‘worlds‘. In that sense, Olam Haba is infinitely greater than Olam Hazeh - there is no earthly pleasure that can begin to compare with one moment of pleasure in Olam Haba. The pleasure there is that of connecting to Hashem, the Source of all creation - all other pleasures are meaningless and transitory in comparison. However, the first part of the Mishna is focussing on the ability to create more of a connection to HaShem. In that aspect Olam Hazeh is infinitely greater because it is the place of free will in which we have the ability to choose to become closer to HaShem by performing mitzvos. In Olam Haba there is no more opportunity to increase the connection to Him. We can now understand why life is so precious - each moment is a priceless opportunity to attain more closeness to HaShem, the ultimate pleasure that will accompany us for eternity in Olam Haba. The Gra expressed the value of Olam Hazeh on his deathbed. He held his Tsitsit and cried, saying, “how precious is Olam Hazeh that for a few prutot it is possible to gain merit for the mitzvo of Tsitsit and to see the ‘pney hashechina’, whereas in Olam Haba it is impossible to gain anything.”
This idea is also demonstrated by the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara tells of Elazar Ben Durdaya, an inveterate sinner. On one occasion, when he was about to commit a terrible sin, he was told that even if he repented his teshuva will never be accepted. This ‘sentence’ effected him so deeply that he did repent and he died in a state of perfect teshuva. As his soul left him, a Bas Kol came out and said that Rabbi Elazar Ben Durdaya is ready to go into Olam Haba. The Gemara then says that when Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this maaseh he cried out, “there are those that earn Olam Haba in many years and there are those that earn it in one moment.” The commentaries wonder why Rebbi was so upset by this maaseh - he, a person who had struggled for many years in Avodas Hashem, was surely destined for a far greater portion in Olam Haba than someone who earned Olam Haba for one moment of inspired teshuva!? Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l answers in the name of his father, that Rebbi was crying because he saw the power of one moment in Olam Hazeh; in one moment a person can earn infinite bliss, therefore he was crying at any failure to utilise each moment in the best possible way. Each moment is an incredible opportunity at creating more Olam Haba.
The Chofetz Chaim applies this concept to halacha . He brings the Sefer Hachinuch who writes that there are six mitzvos that are constantly incumbent upon man and that every second throughout a person’s life a person can fulfil them by merely thinking about them. Consequently, there is no limit to the reward for performing these mitvzos. This can also help explain why Jewish law is so against ending a person’s life prematurely, even if he is unable to live a normal life. Rav Zev Leff Shlita points out that even a person in a coma may well be able to perform numerous mitzvos by his thought. He can fulfil the Mitzvos that only require thought and moreover, Chazal tell us that if a person has a desire to perform a mitzvo but is prevented from doing so, he nevertheless receives reward as if he did indeed fulfil the mitzvo. Therefore, every second more of life is a great opportunity to create more Olam Haba.
We have seen how every second of life is infinitely precious. Yet we often think that little can be achieved in a few minutes here or there. However, experience has proven differently. The Chasam Sofer was once asked how he became a Gadol, he answered that he became a Gadol in five minutes. He meant that by utilising every available moment he was able to learn so much more. Rav Moshe Feinstein once had a very large smile on his face - he explained that he had just completed Shas. This was not a novel achievement for him, he was known to have finished Shas dozens of times, but this siyum was different. It comprised of his learning in the gaps at Chasunas; by consistently learning small amounts he eventually learnt all of Shas this way. We too can use small amounts of time to attain surprisingly great achievements in learning. There are people who learn one Mishna a day, this seems a somewhat trivial amount, but after years of consistently doing this they have completed whole Sedarim of Mishnayos. Another important benefit of small sedarim is that one can use them to learn areas of Torah that are not normally given sufficient attention. One Talmid Chacham in Eretz Yisroel is well-known for his expertise in all areas of Torah, including Navi, Hashkafa, and Mussar, as well as his all encompassing grasp of Shas and poskim. When asked how he managed to learn such a wide array of subjects he explained that he had many small sedarim - by learning Maharal or Navi for ten minutes a day, he gradually attained a wide knowledge in them. Similarly, Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita often emphasizes that in order to know Navi, one need not devote hours each day to it. He attained his expertise in it by learning it for a few minutes each night. Nowadays there are many ways in which one can utilise small sedarim - there are books such as ’A Lesson a Day’ and ’Praying with Fire’ which enable people to learn small but significant amounts of highly important subjects each day.
We have seen how precious the gift of life is and the great value of every moment of life. Life is full of challenges and there are times when a person can feel despondent - but if he remembers that life itself is cause for joy then he can overcome any negative feelings: When the Alter of Novardok first started to build yeshivas, he was unsuccessful. He built yeshivas and they collapsed, he organised groups and they disintegrated. In addition, he and his approach were attacked by opponents. At that time he came to Kelm and his Rebbi, The Alter of Kelm noticed he looked sad and understood why. That Motsei Shabbos when a group had gathered to hear his shmuese, he stood at the podium and remained silent for a very, very long time. Then he banged his hand on the shtender and thundered, “It is enough for a living being that he is alive.” Over and over he repeated his words until finally he told the group to doven Maariv. “That session” said the Alter of Novardok “dispelled my gloom and cleared my thoughts. ” The Alter of Kelm taught the Alter of Novardok a priceless lesson - as long as one is alive, there is nothing to complain about. May we all be zocheh to appreciate the gift of life and use it to its fullest.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
THE TRUE KANO’US - PINCHAS
The parsha begins with Hashem rewarding Pinchas greatly for his act of zealousness in killing Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchas was from the tribe of Levi whilst Zimri was from the tribe of Shimon. This is not the first time in the Torah that these two tribes are associated with one another - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l provides an illuminating account of the history of these two tribes and how they developed in such different ways .
In parshas Vayishlach, we are told of how Shechem kidnapped Deena. All of the brothers conspired to bring her back - their plan was to persuade the people of Shechem to undergo bris mila and then they would come and retrieve Deena whilst the people were still recovering. However, Shimon and Levi planned a more drastic course of action - they believed that all of the people of Shechem were chayav misa for their part in the taking of Deena and proceeded to wipe out the whole city in the process of saving her. Yaakov Avinu strongly disagreed with their course of action, fearing that it would greatly damage the reputation of his family. Shimon and Levi defended their actions, saying, “should our sister be treated like a harlot?!”
It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticized Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel. ” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah . Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi?
He answers that Yaakov saw that they possessed a positive mida that the other brothers did not. He recognized their motivation in destroying Shechem - they were willing to risk their whole lives in order to defend the kavod of their sister. The other brothers also saw the terrible situation in which Deena was in, but only Shimon and Levi felt the pain as if it were their own pain. Rav Kamenetsky writes: “Yaakov saw that their actions stemmed from an inner pain and genuine empathy with the pain of another, and this motivated them to a burning zealousness that was without limit, to the point where they could not find menuchas nanefesh until they destroyed the whole city. Only men of this character, who feel the pain of their fellow as if it is their own pain - only they would … be moser nefesh and give up their physical resources, in order to wander from city to city to spread the Torah of Hashem in the world and to teach the children of Bnei Yisroel.”
Yaakov Avniu saw in Shimon and Levi a zealousness that could potentially be used for a very positive purpose, spreading Torah in Klal Yisroel. However, in this week’s parsha we see how the descendants of these two Bnei Yaakov, followed very different paths: Pinchas, a member of the Tribe of Levi, was able to channel his zealousness to doing the ratson Hashem - his act of violence brought an end to the plague that killed thousands of people. Hashem rewarded him highly to show that He acknowledged that Pinchas was acting purely leshem shamayim. However, Zimri, a Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, expressed the zealousness of his ancestor in a forbidden way, breaking boundaries that the Torah forbade. How did these two tribes divert so drastically from each other? Rav Kamenetsky explains that whilst most of Klal Yisroel were slaves in Mitzrayim, the tribe of Levi was free to learn Torah. It was this period of internalization of Torah values that enabled the Leviim to channel their zealousness in the right way. In contrast the members of Shevet Shimon never had the opportunity to learn Torah in the same way. Consequently their zealousness was without guidance and therefore expressed itself in forbidden ways. Rav Kamenetsky observes: “When zealousness is guided and bound by the limits of the Torah then it will succeed…. But without guidance, boundaries, and the hanhagas haTorah… it [zealousness] does not have the power to succeed and ultimately will remove the kanai from the world.”
There are a number of lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes.
Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behavior, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel. ’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel.
Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today. ”
Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world? ”
Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularization that was becoming rampant in their times.
Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashem . May we all merit to be true kano’im leHashem.
In parshas Vayishlach, we are told of how Shechem kidnapped Deena. All of the brothers conspired to bring her back - their plan was to persuade the people of Shechem to undergo bris mila and then they would come and retrieve Deena whilst the people were still recovering. However, Shimon and Levi planned a more drastic course of action - they believed that all of the people of Shechem were chayav misa for their part in the taking of Deena and proceeded to wipe out the whole city in the process of saving her. Yaakov Avinu strongly disagreed with their course of action, fearing that it would greatly damage the reputation of his family. Shimon and Levi defended their actions, saying, “should our sister be treated like a harlot?!”
It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticized Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel. ” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah . Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi?
He answers that Yaakov saw that they possessed a positive mida that the other brothers did not. He recognized their motivation in destroying Shechem - they were willing to risk their whole lives in order to defend the kavod of their sister. The other brothers also saw the terrible situation in which Deena was in, but only Shimon and Levi felt the pain as if it were their own pain. Rav Kamenetsky writes: “Yaakov saw that their actions stemmed from an inner pain and genuine empathy with the pain of another, and this motivated them to a burning zealousness that was without limit, to the point where they could not find menuchas nanefesh until they destroyed the whole city. Only men of this character, who feel the pain of their fellow as if it is their own pain - only they would … be moser nefesh and give up their physical resources, in order to wander from city to city to spread the Torah of Hashem in the world and to teach the children of Bnei Yisroel.”
Yaakov Avniu saw in Shimon and Levi a zealousness that could potentially be used for a very positive purpose, spreading Torah in Klal Yisroel. However, in this week’s parsha we see how the descendants of these two Bnei Yaakov, followed very different paths: Pinchas, a member of the Tribe of Levi, was able to channel his zealousness to doing the ratson Hashem - his act of violence brought an end to the plague that killed thousands of people. Hashem rewarded him highly to show that He acknowledged that Pinchas was acting purely leshem shamayim. However, Zimri, a Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, expressed the zealousness of his ancestor in a forbidden way, breaking boundaries that the Torah forbade. How did these two tribes divert so drastically from each other? Rav Kamenetsky explains that whilst most of Klal Yisroel were slaves in Mitzrayim, the tribe of Levi was free to learn Torah. It was this period of internalization of Torah values that enabled the Leviim to channel their zealousness in the right way. In contrast the members of Shevet Shimon never had the opportunity to learn Torah in the same way. Consequently their zealousness was without guidance and therefore expressed itself in forbidden ways. Rav Kamenetsky observes: “When zealousness is guided and bound by the limits of the Torah then it will succeed…. But without guidance, boundaries, and the hanhagas haTorah… it [zealousness] does not have the power to succeed and ultimately will remove the kanai from the world.”
There are a number of lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes.
Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behavior, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel. ’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel.
Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today. ”
Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world? ”
Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularization that was becoming rampant in their times.
Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashem . May we all merit to be true kano’im leHashem.
WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA - PINCHAS
Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables .” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people ? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?
Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’ .
There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation , however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?
In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children . Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.
Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah, and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they made in Charan ’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt .
The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’ ’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’
We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem .” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment . Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality.. ”
This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.
We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.
Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’ .
There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation , however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?
In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children . Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.
Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah, and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they made in Charan ’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt .
The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’ ’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’
We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem .” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment . Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality.. ”
This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.
We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
MONEY AND HONOR - BALAK
Bilaam Harasha is considered to be the archetype of a person with bad midos. The Mishna in Avos describes him as having an ‘ayin raah‘ (he looked upon people in a negative way), a ‘ruach gevoah‘ (he was arrogant), and a ‘nefesh rechava ’ (he was greedy).
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great. ” Superficially it would see that we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma ?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying that even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money: One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual form of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he may be satiated - this is because the body is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction. ” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money may be a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great. ” Superficially it would see that we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma ?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying that even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money: One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual form of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he may be satiated - this is because the body is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction. ” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money may be a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
LIVING FOR HASHEM - BALAK
Chazal tell us that Bilaam harasha had incredible powers of prophecy which in some ways were even greater than those of Moshe Rabbeinu. Yet, at the same time, he possessed numerous bad midos. How can these two opposite factors come together in one man? The answer is that Bilaam never worked to attain his madreiga. In contrast to the Jewish neviim who had to climb the ladder of Rav Pinchas Ben Yair and reach the highest levels of tzidkus, Bilaam was given his prophetic abilities without having earned them. He clearly knew the emes, that the G-d of the Jews was the only true G-d, and that keeping the Torah would reap the ultimate reward, but, he never internalised these truths and therefore was unable to match his behaviour with his hasagos.
However, we see from his brachos to Klal Yisroel that he hoped to attain the spiritual reward that awaits tzadikkim. In his first set of blessings he expressed this desire: “May my soul die the death of the upright, and may my end be like his. ” The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh writes that Bilaam did not simply hope to get reward without having done any righteous act, rather he intended “that when the day of death would arrive he would improve his evil ways…he desired that at the time of death he would do teshuva and be like the righteous of the nations.” Bilaam realised that he was living a life of sheker and that he would suffer in the next world, so he wanted to do teshuva, but only at the end of his life. The Ohr Hachaim continues with an amazing observation.
“Likewise I have seen reshaim who told me that if they would be certain that if they did teshuva and would then immediately die, that they would do so, but they know that they could not maintain their teshuva for a longer period of time, because the foolish and old king [the yetser hara] dominates them.”
These reshaim, like Bilaam, knew the truth but they were not prepared to live by it, they were only willing to die by it. When a Torah observant Jew sees this attitude he is struck by its foolishness, however, in a certain way, it can effect us all. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l demonstrates this point : He quotes a Medrash that discusses the moments before Krias Yam Suf: It tells us that when the Jewish people were at the sea, each tribe was arguing with the other about who should enter the sea first, no-one wanted to take the first fateful steps, until Nachshon ben Amminadav stepped in first. Rav Shmuelevitz asks, how can it be that no-one wanted to step into the sea? Throughout history Jews have been willing to give up their lives and those of their children for the sake of Kiddush Hashem, how is it possible that the Dor Deah were not able to make the same sacrifice?! He answers that had they been commanded to enter the sea in order to give up their lives then they would have gladly done so, but that was not the test in this instance. Rather, “they were commanded to enter in order to be saved, to jump in in order to live.”
The avoda at the Yam Suf was not to die for Hashem but to live for Him. It is much easier to give up one’s life for Hashem and then be exempt from mitzvos, than to stay alive and face the challenges that life poses.
How is this yesod relevant to us? Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita says that there is a basic question that everyone should ask themselves: ‘What am I living for, what is the purpose of my life?’ This is not such an easy question to answer in a genuine way - Torah observant Jews know that the purpose of life is to get close to Hashem but this can be a vague concept - there are many different ways in which to do this, and it is not so easy to find a specific answer to fit each individual’s unique situation and strength. Rav Weinberg gives one suggestion that can help make it a little less abstract. A person should think what he would be willing to die for. Then, he should say to himself, ‘I want to live for that.’
A good example of this is chinch; we would all willingly give up our lives for our children, yet do we devote enough time and energy towards living for them. There was a baal habayis who worked long hours trying to support his family. He even worked on Sundays. Every week his son would ask him if he had time to play with him on Sunday but his father would always answer that he had to work. One week, the desperate son asked his father, “dad, how much money do you earn on Sunday?” The bemused father answered him, and the son offered to pay the father whatever he normally earned so that he could be free to spend time with his son! This story has a sad irony; the whole reason that the father was working so hard was so as to give his children a good life, but he got so caught up in his work, that he missed the tachlis, he wasn’t being a father to his son.
Another example of this is our attitude towards Klal Yisroel. Most, if not all of us, would be willing to give up our lives for the Jewish people if they were threatened with physical or spiritual destruction. But are we willing to live for the Jewish people? Do we spend some time helping our fellow Jew in need? There are many thousands of Jews who don’t have enough food on the table and millions who have no idea what Judaism is about. Do we take out any time out of our busy lives to help them? Rav Pam zt”l drives this point home in his haskama to the biography of Irving Bunim zt”l.
“We hear so much talk these days about ahavas Yisroel, but if you want to know the real meaning of these words, translated into action, read the chapters in this book on the rescue efforts of Vaad Hatzala, headed by Reb Aron, Rav Kalmanowitz, and Irving Bunim. These men, along with the Sternbuchs in Switzerland and Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandel in Slovakia, knew no bounds in their persistent determination to move heaven and earth tosave lives, to alleviate suffering. Read it! It will move you. It will inspire you. It will give you a deeper understanding of achrayus for Klal Yisroel…But it may also disturb you, for it may be induce some painful soul-searching. Did we really do all we could to save lives then, or, for that matter, are we doing enough today to respond to the crying, desperate needs of Klal Yisroel in this generation ?”
We are living in a time where Klal Yisroel needs us, but it doesn’t need us to die by Kiddush Hashem, rather to live by it. Bilaam is described as a rasha despite his lofty hasagos. He knew what Hashem wanted from him, but he wasn’t willing to live by it, only to die by it. We know better than Bilaam, we are prepared to live for Hashem, but sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees and forget the tachlis. By reviewing now and again what we would be willing to die for, we can remind ourselves of what we should be living for. And what is the reward for ‘living’ for Hashem?
At the Yam Suf, no-one wanted to enter until Nachshon be Amminadav went in, he was prepared to live for Hashem, the Medrash tells that that it was because of this act that the tribe of Yehuda was zocheh to Malchus . Rav Shmuelevitz describes the significance of this moment: “At that moment the tribe of Yehuda felt himself responsible for all of Yisroel to do what was required of them, and from this feeling, they became higher and greater than all of Yisroel, and were filled with strength and might to cross the sea as if it was completely dry, and through this, Yehuda was zocheh to Malchus . We too, can be zocheh to greatness if we learn from Nachshon’s lesson and live for Hashem.
However, we see from his brachos to Klal Yisroel that he hoped to attain the spiritual reward that awaits tzadikkim. In his first set of blessings he expressed this desire: “May my soul die the death of the upright, and may my end be like his. ” The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh writes that Bilaam did not simply hope to get reward without having done any righteous act, rather he intended “that when the day of death would arrive he would improve his evil ways…he desired that at the time of death he would do teshuva and be like the righteous of the nations.” Bilaam realised that he was living a life of sheker and that he would suffer in the next world, so he wanted to do teshuva, but only at the end of his life. The Ohr Hachaim continues with an amazing observation.
“Likewise I have seen reshaim who told me that if they would be certain that if they did teshuva and would then immediately die, that they would do so, but they know that they could not maintain their teshuva for a longer period of time, because the foolish and old king [the yetser hara] dominates them.”
These reshaim, like Bilaam, knew the truth but they were not prepared to live by it, they were only willing to die by it. When a Torah observant Jew sees this attitude he is struck by its foolishness, however, in a certain way, it can effect us all. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l demonstrates this point : He quotes a Medrash that discusses the moments before Krias Yam Suf: It tells us that when the Jewish people were at the sea, each tribe was arguing with the other about who should enter the sea first, no-one wanted to take the first fateful steps, until Nachshon ben Amminadav stepped in first. Rav Shmuelevitz asks, how can it be that no-one wanted to step into the sea? Throughout history Jews have been willing to give up their lives and those of their children for the sake of Kiddush Hashem, how is it possible that the Dor Deah were not able to make the same sacrifice?! He answers that had they been commanded to enter the sea in order to give up their lives then they would have gladly done so, but that was not the test in this instance. Rather, “they were commanded to enter in order to be saved, to jump in in order to live.”
The avoda at the Yam Suf was not to die for Hashem but to live for Him. It is much easier to give up one’s life for Hashem and then be exempt from mitzvos, than to stay alive and face the challenges that life poses.
How is this yesod relevant to us? Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita says that there is a basic question that everyone should ask themselves: ‘What am I living for, what is the purpose of my life?’ This is not such an easy question to answer in a genuine way - Torah observant Jews know that the purpose of life is to get close to Hashem but this can be a vague concept - there are many different ways in which to do this, and it is not so easy to find a specific answer to fit each individual’s unique situation and strength. Rav Weinberg gives one suggestion that can help make it a little less abstract. A person should think what he would be willing to die for. Then, he should say to himself, ‘I want to live for that.’
A good example of this is chinch; we would all willingly give up our lives for our children, yet do we devote enough time and energy towards living for them. There was a baal habayis who worked long hours trying to support his family. He even worked on Sundays. Every week his son would ask him if he had time to play with him on Sunday but his father would always answer that he had to work. One week, the desperate son asked his father, “dad, how much money do you earn on Sunday?” The bemused father answered him, and the son offered to pay the father whatever he normally earned so that he could be free to spend time with his son! This story has a sad irony; the whole reason that the father was working so hard was so as to give his children a good life, but he got so caught up in his work, that he missed the tachlis, he wasn’t being a father to his son.
Another example of this is our attitude towards Klal Yisroel. Most, if not all of us, would be willing to give up our lives for the Jewish people if they were threatened with physical or spiritual destruction. But are we willing to live for the Jewish people? Do we spend some time helping our fellow Jew in need? There are many thousands of Jews who don’t have enough food on the table and millions who have no idea what Judaism is about. Do we take out any time out of our busy lives to help them? Rav Pam zt”l drives this point home in his haskama to the biography of Irving Bunim zt”l.
“We hear so much talk these days about ahavas Yisroel, but if you want to know the real meaning of these words, translated into action, read the chapters in this book on the rescue efforts of Vaad Hatzala, headed by Reb Aron, Rav Kalmanowitz, and Irving Bunim. These men, along with the Sternbuchs in Switzerland and Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandel in Slovakia, knew no bounds in their persistent determination to move heaven and earth tosave lives, to alleviate suffering. Read it! It will move you. It will inspire you. It will give you a deeper understanding of achrayus for Klal Yisroel…But it may also disturb you, for it may be induce some painful soul-searching. Did we really do all we could to save lives then, or, for that matter, are we doing enough today to respond to the crying, desperate needs of Klal Yisroel in this generation ?”
We are living in a time where Klal Yisroel needs us, but it doesn’t need us to die by Kiddush Hashem, rather to live by it. Bilaam is described as a rasha despite his lofty hasagos. He knew what Hashem wanted from him, but he wasn’t willing to live by it, only to die by it. We know better than Bilaam, we are prepared to live for Hashem, but sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees and forget the tachlis. By reviewing now and again what we would be willing to die for, we can remind ourselves of what we should be living for. And what is the reward for ‘living’ for Hashem?
At the Yam Suf, no-one wanted to enter until Nachshon be Amminadav went in, he was prepared to live for Hashem, the Medrash tells that that it was because of this act that the tribe of Yehuda was zocheh to Malchus . Rav Shmuelevitz describes the significance of this moment: “At that moment the tribe of Yehuda felt himself responsible for all of Yisroel to do what was required of them, and from this feeling, they became higher and greater than all of Yisroel, and were filled with strength and might to cross the sea as if it was completely dry, and through this, Yehuda was zocheh to Malchus . We too, can be zocheh to greatness if we learn from Nachshon’s lesson and live for Hashem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
