In the Torah’s account of the Tribe of Levi it reviews the tragic deaths of Aaron Hakohen’s righteous sons, Nadav and Avihu. On this occasion it adds a hitherto unmentioned detail - that they died without any sons . The Gemara extrapolates from here that had they had sons then they would not have died . The Chasam Sofer zt”l explains that Nadav and Avihu had reached such a high level of closeness to Hashem that they had fulfilled their potential, and there was no further need for them to live in Olam Hazeh. However, had they had children then they would have been needed to stay alive in order to bring them up and provide for their needs. We learn from here that even if a person reaches total perfection in his own personal Avoda, he is nevertheless kept alive so that he can benefit his children. Moreover, it seems from the yesod of the Chasam Sofer that there are two levels in Avodas Hashem - the first is a person’s development of his Torah, midos and relationships to Hashem, and the second, his responsibility to his children. In the ‘pisuchay chosam’, the Chasam Sofer adds that a great tzaddik can be kept alive in order to guide his talmidim as well as his children, implying that a person‘s second stage of Avoda is not limited to helping his children, but also his talmidim .
We find an example of the dualistic nature of Avodas Hashem in Parshas Vayishlach. After Yaakov Avinu emerged from the tremendous challenges of living with Lavan and facing his hostile brother Esav, the Torah describes him as being ’shalem’ - Chazal understand this to mean that he was spiritually complete; he had withstood the spiritual threats of Lavan and Esav and emerged totally pure of any lacking. Yet, the rest of his life was plagued by the difficulties he endured as a result of the mistakes and shortcomings of people around him - his daughter’s lack of tznius in going out resulted in her abduction by Shechem and its eventual destruction by Shimon and Levi. This was followed by the incident with Reuven moving Bilhah’s bed, and the sale of Yosef. It is striking that after emphasizing Yaakov’s individual greatness, it then outlines in great depth the imperfections of the world around him. This shows us that whilst he had completed his own personal Avoda, he remained on this world in order to rectify the lacking of those around him .
Many Gedolim spent a great portion of their lives focused largely on their own personal avoda, but when the time was right, they devoted great amount of energy into serving the Jewish people. Rav Shach zt”l is a perfect example of this, he continuously for many years but when he emerged as a Gadol he totally devoted himself to Klal Yisroel, and never turned away people in need of his help.
The two forms of Avoda also require two different attitudes and approaches; this is demonstrated in the creation of mankind. Whilst all the animals were created in one maamer, man and woman were created in two separate maamarim (sayings); my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that each maamar represented a new stage in creation. The maamar creating man represented the aspect of man’s avoda as an individual and his relationship with himself. The maamar creating woman led to a new stage of creation known as society, whereby man has to interact with those around him. These two stages require very different mindsets - with regard to his attitude towards himself, man has to apply a certain degree of din on himself., involving self-analysis an striving to improve oneself. When he endures suffering he should stress the need to trust in Hashem and to strive to improve his ways. In contrast, man must have a very different view towards other people - when someone else suffers, he must not tell them that it is all from Hashem and that they should strive to grow, rather he should focus on caring for them and acting as if they are not being looked after by anyone, including Hashem. The Brisker Rav zt’l made this point in a remarkable way. He posited that every negative trait has a positive aspect to it - when asked what was the positive aspect of the trait of kefira (denying G-d), he answered that it helps us act properly when out friend is in need. We cannot tell him to have trust in Hashem that everything will be fine, rather we must act, so to speak, as if G-d is not involved in his life and we must take responsibility .
Gedolim also demonstrated a dualistic attitude in their lives - to themselves they were demanding and self-critical, hiding from kavod and refusing help from other people, but to their fellow man, they were kind, caring, tolerant, and full of praise. Nadav and Avihu never had the responsibility of guiding others, and therefore their avoda was limited to self-perfection. May all of us merit to perfect ourselves in both levels of Avodas Hashem - perfecting ourselves and the world around us.
Showing posts with label Bamidbar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bamidbar. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2011
MOSHE’S “SONS” - BAMIDBAR
In its account of the genealogy of the tribes of Israel, the Torah outlines the offspring of Moshe Rabbeinu and Aaron HaKohen Gadol. The Torah includes Aaron’s sons as being part of the offspring of Moshe, as well as of Aaron. Rashi explains that Aaron’s sons are described as the offspring of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah, and one who teaches Torah to his friend’s son is considered to have given birth to him. Therefore, since Moshe taught Aaron’s sons, they are considered to be his sons. The Maharal asks that Moshe did not only teach Aaron’s sons, rather he taught all of Klal Yisroel, and yet we do not see that Moshe is considered to have given birth to all of the Jewish people. He answers that Moshe was commanded to teach the Jewish people, and he taught them that which he was instructed. However, he taught the sons of Aaron over and above what he was commanded. It is this Torah that he voluntarily taught them that earns him the merit of being considered to have given birth to them.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita proves from another episode in Sefer Bamidbar, that HaShem, b’davke wanted Moshe to give of himself from his own volition. In Parshas Pinchas, Hashem instructs Moshe to appoint Yehoshua bin Nun as his successor. He tells Moshe to place his hand on Yehoshua, but Moshe places both hands on Yehoshua. Why did HaShem only ask Moshe to use one hand and why did Moshe use both? Rav Berkovits answers that HaShem wanted Moshe, of his own volition, to lay the second hand on Yehoshua, so that a significant part of Moshe’s transmission to Yehoshua would be voluntary . Moshe understood this and acted accordingly.
It still needs to be explained why only a person who teaches someone voluntarily is considered to have given birth to him, but one who does so out of obligation is not given this accolade. Rav Berkovits Shlita, explains that a when a person has a child he gives part of himself into the new offspring, in that his genetic make-up constitutes a very significant part of this new being. When a person teaches someone Torah, he gives of his own spiritual make-up and puts that into his student. In that way, he is similar to one who has children, the only difference being that the true parent gives of his physical self, whereas the teacher gives of his spiritual self. The Maharal’s explanation demonstrates further that a teacher is only considered to merit this level of giving of himself when he does it purely out of a ratson (desire) to teach the person, and not simply because of obligation. This is because when a person teaches another out of a sense of obligation he is unable to totally give of himself, because his intention is not purely to be mashpia (spiritually influence), rather it is to fulfill his chov (obligation). As a result, there is a qualitative lacking in the transmission process, to the extent that the Torah of the teacher is not fully internalized by the student. Therefore, the student is not considered to be the offspring of the teacher. However, when one teaches because of a desire to share the spiritual wonders of the Torah with another, then he is giving over of his own spiritual essence and this is transmitted to the student. Accordingly, the teacher is equivalent to the child’s parent.
The principle that there is a qualitative difference between Torah taught out of obligation and Torah taught out of one’s own volition, applies to a wide variety of people and situations: A parent is obligated to teach his child Torah, but if he only acts out of his sense of chiyuv then the child will surely sense it and the transmission process will be hindered. Another common example relevant to this topic is when a person who has spent most of his life in yeshiva and kollel may, for a number of reasons, decide to look into a career that involves teaching of some kind. It seems that the main kavannah that motivates him will play a significant role in determining how effective he becomes as a teacher. A person who does so because he feels compelled to do so for financial or other reasons, will not reach his potential as a conveyor of the Mesorah. In this vein, Rav Nochum Pirtzovitz zt”l stressed to his students that parnassa should not be the primary motivation for taking a position in teaching.
This lesson seems to also be relevant to a person who is not in a position to teach children or students on a fixed basis. Firstly, we are all placed in situations where we need to teach others some kind of lesson, and the motivating factors in doing this will play a key role in the effectiveness of the lessons transmitted. Secondly, the principle applies to all forms of giving, not just teaching Torah. Giving out of obligation is far less praiseworthy than giving out of a desire to help one’s fellow. The recipient of the chessed will often sense any feelings of compulsion in the giver and will feel discomfort for placing the giver in a situation he would rather not be in. Furthermore, it seems clear that Rav Dessler’s principle that the great benefit of giving that it leads to greater love for the recipient is only limited to cases where one gives out of volition, and not out of obligation. Indeed, giving because one has no choice, often causes resentment. We have seen how Moshe Rabbeinu merited to have been considered to have given birth to Aaron’s sons because he taught them over and above his actual obligation. May we all merit to emulate Moshe and voluntarily give over of our Torah and ourselves.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita proves from another episode in Sefer Bamidbar, that HaShem, b’davke wanted Moshe to give of himself from his own volition. In Parshas Pinchas, Hashem instructs Moshe to appoint Yehoshua bin Nun as his successor. He tells Moshe to place his hand on Yehoshua, but Moshe places both hands on Yehoshua. Why did HaShem only ask Moshe to use one hand and why did Moshe use both? Rav Berkovits answers that HaShem wanted Moshe, of his own volition, to lay the second hand on Yehoshua, so that a significant part of Moshe’s transmission to Yehoshua would be voluntary . Moshe understood this and acted accordingly.
It still needs to be explained why only a person who teaches someone voluntarily is considered to have given birth to him, but one who does so out of obligation is not given this accolade. Rav Berkovits Shlita, explains that a when a person has a child he gives part of himself into the new offspring, in that his genetic make-up constitutes a very significant part of this new being. When a person teaches someone Torah, he gives of his own spiritual make-up and puts that into his student. In that way, he is similar to one who has children, the only difference being that the true parent gives of his physical self, whereas the teacher gives of his spiritual self. The Maharal’s explanation demonstrates further that a teacher is only considered to merit this level of giving of himself when he does it purely out of a ratson (desire) to teach the person, and not simply because of obligation. This is because when a person teaches another out of a sense of obligation he is unable to totally give of himself, because his intention is not purely to be mashpia (spiritually influence), rather it is to fulfill his chov (obligation). As a result, there is a qualitative lacking in the transmission process, to the extent that the Torah of the teacher is not fully internalized by the student. Therefore, the student is not considered to be the offspring of the teacher. However, when one teaches because of a desire to share the spiritual wonders of the Torah with another, then he is giving over of his own spiritual essence and this is transmitted to the student. Accordingly, the teacher is equivalent to the child’s parent.
The principle that there is a qualitative difference between Torah taught out of obligation and Torah taught out of one’s own volition, applies to a wide variety of people and situations: A parent is obligated to teach his child Torah, but if he only acts out of his sense of chiyuv then the child will surely sense it and the transmission process will be hindered. Another common example relevant to this topic is when a person who has spent most of his life in yeshiva and kollel may, for a number of reasons, decide to look into a career that involves teaching of some kind. It seems that the main kavannah that motivates him will play a significant role in determining how effective he becomes as a teacher. A person who does so because he feels compelled to do so for financial or other reasons, will not reach his potential as a conveyor of the Mesorah. In this vein, Rav Nochum Pirtzovitz zt”l stressed to his students that parnassa should not be the primary motivation for taking a position in teaching.
This lesson seems to also be relevant to a person who is not in a position to teach children or students on a fixed basis. Firstly, we are all placed in situations where we need to teach others some kind of lesson, and the motivating factors in doing this will play a key role in the effectiveness of the lessons transmitted. Secondly, the principle applies to all forms of giving, not just teaching Torah. Giving out of obligation is far less praiseworthy than giving out of a desire to help one’s fellow. The recipient of the chessed will often sense any feelings of compulsion in the giver and will feel discomfort for placing the giver in a situation he would rather not be in. Furthermore, it seems clear that Rav Dessler’s principle that the great benefit of giving that it leads to greater love for the recipient is only limited to cases where one gives out of volition, and not out of obligation. Indeed, giving because one has no choice, often causes resentment. We have seen how Moshe Rabbeinu merited to have been considered to have given birth to Aaron’s sons because he taught them over and above his actual obligation. May we all merit to emulate Moshe and voluntarily give over of our Torah and ourselves.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
YEHUDA AND YISSOCHOR - BAMIDBAR
The Parsha devotes considerable time to describing the formations of the tribes. They were arranged in groups of three. The commentaries point out that they were deliberately placed in such a position so as to be able to exert influence on each other.[1] The first formation was that of Yehuda, Yissochor and Zevulun. Yehuda was directly next to Yissochor. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt "l writes that Yehuda's distinguishing characteristic was the ability to take achrayus (responsibility), both for himself, and for others.[2] He exercised this mida when he took achrayus for the incident with Tamar, when he accepted the consequences of bringing Binyomin down to Mitzrayim and when Nachshon ben Amminadav, the Prince of Yehuda, was the first person to step into the sea at the Yam Suf before it had even split. Yissochor is known to represent Torah; he devoted himself to Torah study whilst his brother Zevulun provided for his physical needs[3], Furthermore, many of the leading members of the Sanhedrin were from Yissochor[4]. In this article we will focus on how Yehuda was intended to exert a positive influence on Yissochor.
In Parshas Vayigash, the Torah describes how the Bney Yisroel left Eretz Yisroel to live in Mitzrayim. We are told that Yaakov Avinu sent Yehuda ahead of him to prepare the way in Goshen.[5] Rashi explains that he was sent to start a Beis Talmud. This set a precedent for all Jewish history that the first priority of a Jewish community should be Torah education. However, it is difficult to understand why Yehuda was sent to establish the Beis Talmud - would not Yissochor have been a more appropriate choice, given that his ikar mida is learning Torah? The Tiferes Shlomo answers that Yehuda was the first person to take achrayus for another to the extent that he was willing to give up his own life. We see this when Yehuda guaranteed to Yaakov that he would protect Binyomin from any danger in Mitzrayim. This was an act of incredible self-sacrifice emanating from Yehuda's deep feeling of responsibility for others. Consequently, the reason that Yaakov sent Yehuda to open the Beis Talmud was so that it's guiding principle would be a sense of achrayus for the well-being of one's fellow Jew.
This idea can help us explain why Yehuda was placed next to Yissochor in the tribe formation - it is not sufficient merely to learn Torah for one's own spiritual benefit, rather one must have the attitude that he is learning Torah so that he can pass it on to others. Moreover, the greater one's ability to learn and understand Torah, the greater the obligation is upon him to be mashpia on others. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt "l epitomised such an attitude. "After resolving a difficulty in Rambam, R. Yisroel fainted. "If I have such talent," he explained upon coming to, "I have a tremendous responsibility. The Heavenly Court will demand of me, "Why didn't you get the whole world to do teshuva?"[6]
How significant a part of our Talmud Torah is the necessity to pass it on to others? The Mishna in Avos states: "If you have learnt much Torah, 'al tachzik tova' to yourself, because that is why you were created."[7] The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach. "[8] It is clear from this explanation of the Mishna that passing on Torah is not merely an aspect of one's Talmud Torah, rather it is part of the very foundation of one's learning.
In this vein, Rav Wolbe zt "l expressed his views on educating our children in their attitude to learning Torah. "I think that we must teach this to youngsters already from the time that they enter into yeshiva katana. Immediately in the first year, we must say to them that they are intrinsically connected to Klal Yisroel, and that they are obligated to give over to Klal Yisroel all the Torah that they will learn in yeshiva katana and yeshiva gedola. This is their avoda - not just to think about themselves. One must know that he must give over his Torah to Klal Yisroel. '[9] It is clear that Rav Wolbe believed that approaching our learning with a sense of achrayus is not just a good mida, rather it is a prerequisite to our relationship with Torah.
If a person does bear this sense of achrayus then he receives a reward over and above the normal reward for Talmud Torah. The Mishna in Avos states that one who is mezakeh the rabim is saved from chet and he receives reward for every mitzva that he caused to be done.[10] The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Zev Segal zt "l would say that if one's years of learning are a preparation for his disseminating Torah in the years to come, the Torah student is already considered a mezakeh es harabim during his years of learning.[11] The Since his learning is done with the intention of enabling him to pass on more to others, then the learning itself provides him with the inestimable merit of one who helps many.Hashem intended for Yehuda to influence Yissochor to learn Torah in order to share it with others. So too we must learn this lesson and approach our own learning with a great sense of achrayus for our fellow Jew, if we do so, then the benefits for ourselves and Klal Yisroel are endle
[1] Ramban, Ch.2, v.2, Also see Gur Aryeh Ch.2, v.3.
[2] Sichos Mussar, Parshas Vayeshev, Maamer 20.
[3] Bereishis Rabbah 72:5.
[4] Targum Yonasan, Bereishis 46:13.
[5] Vayigash, Ch.46, v.28.
[6] Zaitchik, Sparks of Mussar, p.54.
[7] Avos, 2:9.
[8] ibid, Medrash Shmuel. See Medrash David, Lev Eliyahu, Parshas Tazria-Metzora for an identical explanation. It was also heard from R. Zev Leff Shlita in the name of the Klausenberger Rebbe zt "l.
[9] Parsha Shiur: Parshas Bereishis.
[10] Avos 5:18
[11] The Finkelman and Weiss, The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, p.165.
In Parshas Vayigash, the Torah describes how the Bney Yisroel left Eretz Yisroel to live in Mitzrayim. We are told that Yaakov Avinu sent Yehuda ahead of him to prepare the way in Goshen.[5] Rashi explains that he was sent to start a Beis Talmud. This set a precedent for all Jewish history that the first priority of a Jewish community should be Torah education. However, it is difficult to understand why Yehuda was sent to establish the Beis Talmud - would not Yissochor have been a more appropriate choice, given that his ikar mida is learning Torah? The Tiferes Shlomo answers that Yehuda was the first person to take achrayus for another to the extent that he was willing to give up his own life. We see this when Yehuda guaranteed to Yaakov that he would protect Binyomin from any danger in Mitzrayim. This was an act of incredible self-sacrifice emanating from Yehuda's deep feeling of responsibility for others. Consequently, the reason that Yaakov sent Yehuda to open the Beis Talmud was so that it's guiding principle would be a sense of achrayus for the well-being of one's fellow Jew.
This idea can help us explain why Yehuda was placed next to Yissochor in the tribe formation - it is not sufficient merely to learn Torah for one's own spiritual benefit, rather one must have the attitude that he is learning Torah so that he can pass it on to others. Moreover, the greater one's ability to learn and understand Torah, the greater the obligation is upon him to be mashpia on others. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt "l epitomised such an attitude. "After resolving a difficulty in Rambam, R. Yisroel fainted. "If I have such talent," he explained upon coming to, "I have a tremendous responsibility. The Heavenly Court will demand of me, "Why didn't you get the whole world to do teshuva?"[6]
How significant a part of our Talmud Torah is the necessity to pass it on to others? The Mishna in Avos states: "If you have learnt much Torah, 'al tachzik tova' to yourself, because that is why you were created."[7] The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach. "[8] It is clear from this explanation of the Mishna that passing on Torah is not merely an aspect of one's Talmud Torah, rather it is part of the very foundation of one's learning.
In this vein, Rav Wolbe zt "l expressed his views on educating our children in their attitude to learning Torah. "I think that we must teach this to youngsters already from the time that they enter into yeshiva katana. Immediately in the first year, we must say to them that they are intrinsically connected to Klal Yisroel, and that they are obligated to give over to Klal Yisroel all the Torah that they will learn in yeshiva katana and yeshiva gedola. This is their avoda - not just to think about themselves. One must know that he must give over his Torah to Klal Yisroel. '[9] It is clear that Rav Wolbe believed that approaching our learning with a sense of achrayus is not just a good mida, rather it is a prerequisite to our relationship with Torah.
If a person does bear this sense of achrayus then he receives a reward over and above the normal reward for Talmud Torah. The Mishna in Avos states that one who is mezakeh the rabim is saved from chet and he receives reward for every mitzva that he caused to be done.[10] The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Zev Segal zt "l would say that if one's years of learning are a preparation for his disseminating Torah in the years to come, the Torah student is already considered a mezakeh es harabim during his years of learning.[11] The Since his learning is done with the intention of enabling him to pass on more to others, then the learning itself provides him with the inestimable merit of one who helps many.Hashem intended for Yehuda to influence Yissochor to learn Torah in order to share it with others. So too we must learn this lesson and approach our own learning with a great sense of achrayus for our fellow Jew, if we do so, then the benefits for ourselves and Klal Yisroel are endle
[1] Ramban, Ch.2, v.2, Also see Gur Aryeh Ch.2, v.3.
[2] Sichos Mussar, Parshas Vayeshev, Maamer 20.
[3] Bereishis Rabbah 72:5.
[4] Targum Yonasan, Bereishis 46:13.
[5] Vayigash, Ch.46, v.28.
[6] Zaitchik, Sparks of Mussar, p.54.
[7] Avos, 2:9.
[8] ibid, Medrash Shmuel. See Medrash David, Lev Eliyahu, Parshas Tazria-Metzora for an identical explanation. It was also heard from R. Zev Leff Shlita in the name of the Klausenberger Rebbe zt "l.
[9] Parsha Shiur: Parshas Bereishis.
[10] Avos 5:18
[11] The Finkelman and Weiss, The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, p.165.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM - BAMIDBAR
In the Torah’s account of the Tribe of Levi it reviews the tragic deaths of Aaron Hakohen’s righteous sons, Nadav and Avihu. On this occasion it adds a hitherto unmentioned detail - that they died without any sons. The Gemara extrapolates from here that had they had sons then they would not have died. The Chasam Sofer zt”l explains that Nadav and Avihu had reached such a high level of closeness to Hashem that they had fulfilled their potential, and there was no further need for them to live in Olam Hazeh. However, had they had children then they would have been needed to stay alive in order to bring them up and provide for their needs.
We learn from here that even if a person reaches total perfection in his own personal Avoda, he is nevertheless kept alive so that he can benefit his children. Moreover, it seems from the yesod of the Chasam Sofer that there are two levels in Avodas Hashem - the first is a person’s development of his Torah, midos and relationships to Hashem, and the second, his responsibility to his children. In the ‘pisuchay chosam’, the Chasam Sofer adds that a great tzaddik can be kept alive in order to guide his talmidim as well as his children, implying that a person‘s second stage of avoda is not limited to helping his children, but also his talmidim.
We find an example of the dualistic nature of avodas Hashem in Parshas Vayishlach. After Yaakov Avinu emerged from the tremendous challenges of living with Lavan and facing his hostile brother Esav, the Torah describes him as being ’shalem’ - Chazal understand this to mean that he was spiritually complete; he had withstood the spiritual threats of Lavan and Esav and emerged totally pure of any lacking. Yet, the rest of his life is plagued by the difficulties he endured as a result of the mistakes and shortcomings of people around him - his daughter’s lack of tznius in going out resulted in her abduction by Shechem and its eventual destruction by Shimon and Levi. This was followed by the incident with Reuven moving Bilhah’s bed, and the sale of Yosef. It is striking that after emphasizing Yaakov’s individual greatness, it then outlines in great depth the imperfections of the world around us. This shows us that whilst he had completed his own personal Avoda, he remained on this world in order to rectify the lacking of those around him.
Many Gedolim spent a great portion of their lives focused largely on their own personal avoda, but when the time was right, they devoted great amount of energy into serving the Clal. Rav Shach zt”l is a perfect example of this, he learnt b’hasmada for many years but when he emerged as a Gadol he literally made himself hefker to Klal Yisroel, and never turned away people in need of his help.
The two forms of Avoda also require two different attitudes and approaches; this is demonstrated in the creation of mankind. Whilst all the animals were created in one maamer, man and woman were created in two separate maamarim; my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that each maamer represented a new stage in creation. The maamer creating man represented the aspect of man’s avoda as an individual and his relationship with himself. The maamer creating woman led to a new stage of creation known as society, whereby man has to interact with those around him. These two stages require very different mindsets - with regard to his attitude towards himself, man has to apply a certain degree of din on himself., involving self-analysis an striving to improve oneself. When he endures suffering he should stress the need to trust in Hashem and to strive to improve his ways. In contrast, man must have a very different view towards other people - when someone else suffers, he must not tell them that it is all from Hashem and that they should strive to grow, rather he should focus on caring for them and acting as if they are not being looked after by anyone, including Hashem. The Brisker Rav zt’l made this point in a remarkable way. He posited that every negative trait has a positive aspect to it - when asked what was the positive aspect of the trait of of kefira, he answered that it helps us act properly when out friend is in need. We cannot tell him to have trust in Hashem that everything will be fine, rather we must act, so to speak, as if G-d is not involved in his life and we must take responsibility.
Gedolim also demonstrated a dualistic attitude in their lives - to themselves they were demanding and self-critical, hiding from kavod and refusing help from other people, but to their fellow man, they were kind, caring, tolerant, and full of praise. Nadav and Avihu never had the responsibility of guiding others, and therefore their avoda was limited to self-perfection. May all of us merit to perfect ourselves in both levels of Avodas Hashem - perfecting ourselves and the world around us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
