HOW TO GIVE TO OTHERS - RE’EH

This week’s Parsha is the source of the mitzvo to give tzedaka. The Torah tells us that we should give a person “enough for his lack which is lacking to him. ” Chazal learn out from the words, “to him” at the end of the passuk that we must give according to each individual’s specific needs. For example, if a person who was wealthy and used to an extravagant lifestyle then became poor, we must try to give him to the extent that he can live according to his previous standing . In this vein, Chazal tell us of a man who had been accustomed to traveling on a carriage with servants running in front of him. When he lost his money, Hillel HaZaken ensured that he have a carriage to ride and even ran in front of the carriage himself !

This concept teaches us a fundamental principle in chesed - that we must give according to the specific needs of the other person. A significant part of the avoda of chesed is to discern each person’s unique requirements and strive to fulfill them. This is not an easy task because each person views the world through his own eyes and one can easily project his own desires and needs onto others. Consequently he may provide them with what would be important to the giver but is not so important to the receiver. For example, if a person likes apples he may presume that others also do and therefore he will feel he is doing a great chesed by giving them apples. However, the recipient of his ‘chesed’ may prefer oranges, thus the giver did not truly satisfy his friend’s needs because he presumed that he had the same tastes as himself.

This concept, however, seems to contradict the most fundamental mitzvo in bein adam lechaveiro; that of ‘love your neighbor like yourself’. Hillel interpreted this mitzvo to primarily mean, ‘‘that which is hateful to you do not do to your friend”. This teaches us that the mitzvo is to treat one’s friend in the same way that one would like to be treated himself. This implies that one does not have to try to understand his fellow’s specific needs, rather the mitzvo is limited to treating the receiver according to the giver’s own personal preferences. This would indicate that if a person likes apples then he should give apples to his friend because he would like his friend to do the same to him, and the fact that his friend actually prefers oranges is irrelevant.

The Chofetz Chaim zt”l raises this question in the context of hilchos lashon hara : He writes that some statements are not objectively lashon hara, rather they depend on the subject of discussion. For example, to say that Ploni learns 4 hours a day could be a positive statement or a transgression of lashon hara. It depends about who is being spoken about. If one would say that a working man learns 4 hours a day, then that would be a praiseworthy statement, however to say the same thing about an avreich would be lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim then says that one may ask the aforementioned kasha; a person who works himself may argue that he would like people to say about him that he learns 4 hours a day, therefore it should be permissible to say the same thing about someone who is supposed to learn the whole day. The proof of this argument is Hillel’s statement that it is only forbidden to do to someone what we would not like him to do to us, but in this case we would very much like to be spoken about in such a way. The Chofetz Chaim answers that when Hillel said, “that which is hateful to you do not do to your friend”, he meant that if you were on his level or in his situation, then this would be hateful to you, even if it is not actually hateful to you at your present standing. This teaches us that the mitzvo of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ does not in fact contradict the concept of doing chesed according to the other person’s needs. Rather it means that, just like we would like our fellow to do what is beneficial in our eyes, and avoid what it hateful in our eyes, so too, we must treat him in a way that is beneficial in his eyes.

Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l taught and demonstrated the importance of understanding other people’s needs and situations throughout his life. On one occasion, a talmid saw Rav Salanter conversing with someone about mundane matters, which was very out of character for him, because he would generally only speak words of Torah. Later, during a discussion on idle speech, the talmid asked Rav Salanter why he was speaking about such mundane matters. He explained that the man with whom he was speaking was dpressed and it was a great chesed to cheer him up now. Said Rav Salanter, “how could I cheer him up? With talk of Mussar and fear of G-d? The only way was with light, pleasant conversation about worldly matters. ” He understood the needs of this man and acted accordingly.

We have seen how the foundation of true chesed is understanding our fellow’s needs and trying to fulfill them, rather than presuming that that which is important to us is also important to them. This avoda occurs constantly in every kind of relationship. In marriage, it is very common that husband and wife have different interests; for example, when the wife talks about something that is important to her, the husband may not feel a great deal of enthusiasm in this particular topic. However, he or she should recognize that this is important to the other one and therefore express interest in that which is important to her. Similarly, children have very different interests than their parents and their parents may not be so fascinated by the childish pursuits of their children. Nonetheless it is essential that they do not dismiss their children’s enthusiastic discussion because to do so shows a severe lack of empathy and concern with their children’s needs. There are countless likewise situations throughout our lives and it is vital to work on this area in order to become genuine baalei chesed.

THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV

In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.

The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.

This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.

With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.

We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.