"I am the Lord, Your G-d, who took you out of the land of Mitzrayim from being slaves. "
The First of the Ten Commandments is the Mitzva of Emuna, to believe in the one G-d as the first cause of all existence, who constantly creates and sustains all of creation . There is another fundamental concept that is connected to Emuna, that of Bitachon, trust in G-d. Is trusting in G-d a part of the Mitzva of Emuna or is it a separate concept that is not included in any specific Mitzva? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Bitachon is not separate at all, rather it is the natural outgrowth of genuine Emuna; The obligation to have Emuna requires that one believe in the fundamental tenets about G-d such as First Cause and Hashgacha (Divine Providence), whereas Bitachon is applying that belief in practice. If a person cannot do this then it reveals that his Emuna is severely lacking. The Chazon Ish gives an example of Reuven who is constantly expressing his Emuna and how everything that he has is from Hashem; he proclaims his recognition that his livelihood emanates purely from Hashem and that there is no need for anxiety. However, when someone else opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future. Reuven's Emuna seemed to be strong when everything was going smoothly, but when he was put to the test he failed to show sufficient Bitachon. This in turn demonstrates that his Emuna was never genuine .
We learn from the Chazon Ish that an essential aspect of Emuna is bitachon, which means applying one's Emuna to real life situations. The Nesivos Shalom zt"l develops our understanding of Bitachon by explaining that there are two levels of Bitachon. There is an inactive kind of Bitachon and there is a proactive Bitachon. Inactive bitachon applies when one finds himself in a difficult situation in which there is nothing he can do - in such circumstances his Avoda is to trust that everything that happens will ultimately be for the good. Proactive bitachon becomes necessary when a person is required to do something that demonstrates his trust in Hashem. He cites the example of Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds); Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were crying out to Hashem to save them from Pharaoh's advancing army. In response, Hashem told them to stop praying and to go into the sea. The Nesivos Shalom explains that in order for the Jewish people to merit Hashem transcending nature through Krias Yam Suf they had to demonstrate a trust in Hashem that transcended the normal laws of nature. They had to believe that if the Ratson Hashem (will of Hashem) was for them to cross the sea then they should trust that He had the ability to enable them to do so, even if they had no idea how it was possible. Accordingly, their stepping into the raging sea before it split was a display of proactive bitachon that earned them the right to the great miracle of Krias Yam Suf .
By combining the lessons of the Chazon Ish and Nesivos Shalom we conclude that genuine Emuna can only manifest itself in a person who is willing to act with an unswerving trust in G-d; a belief that if Ratson Hashem dictates that he act in a certain way, then he can and must take the required action, and that Hashem will enable him to succeed in whatever he endeavors to do. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l epitomized this attribute to a great degree. He is most well-known for his incredible feats in kiruv rechokim (outreach) however, as one of his closest friends pointed out, all his accomplishments emanated directly from his deep Emuna and Bitachon.
I merited to learn in Yeshivas Aish HaTorah for four years, and in that time I was fortunate to experience Rav Weinberg's greatness first-hand. I never forget how he made a bracha - he spoke to Hashem as if He was really in front of Him, a demonstration of 'shivisi Hashem kenegdi tamid' (I constantly place Hashem in front of me) . When he talked about trusting in G-d, it deeply influenced his listeners, not because he said anything so unusual, but because he lived such Bitachon and the fact that he internalized it so greatly enabled it to rub off on others just by observing him.
Because his Emuna was so genuine he was able to apply it in practice and thereby express the high level of proactive Bitachon that the Nesivos Shalom described . He used to say that if we see problems in the world there is no reason that we shouldn't go out and tackle them if we believe that Hashem so desires. Hashem is willing and able to help us achieve his Ratson even if it demands superhuman achievements. If we demonstrate proactive Bitachon then Hashem could make miracles happen for us. This is exactly what took place in Rav Weinberg's life. At a time when kiruv was virtually unheard of, he saw a dire need to bring back the countless Jews who knew nothing of Torah observance. Many people mocked his dreams as being completely unrealistic and called him a fool. Nevertheless, his conviction that he was fulfilling Ratson Hashem enabled him to overcome numerous setbacks and perform miracles in creating a movement that saved thousands upon thousands of unaffiliated Jews from begin totally lost to Judaism . His son, Rav Hillel Weinberg Shlita described how he began his quest with three young men in a small room in Kirayt Sanz. No-one could have imagined how those humble beginnings could culminate in Aish HaTorah and its offshoots. No-one, that is, except for Rav Noach himself; those closest to him testify that he genuinely believed that he would bring Moshiach through his efforts - his extensive achievements were small in his eyes because he knew that Hashem wanted so much more. At the funeral, his son, Rav Hillel, told us what Rav Weinberg would tell us if he were standing in front of us. He would say that we could be bigger than him, we could be as big as Moshe Rabbeinu! Chazal's words to this effect were not some vague saying, rather they were real and should be taken seriously.
I heard an incredible story about how Rav Weinberg put his Emuna into practice; At the shiva his daughter told over that once a chess champion came to Aish, learned for a few days, and decided to leave. Rav Noach challenged him to a game of chess, on the basis that if the student won, he could leave, but if Rav Noach won, he would stay. Rav Noach won. When asked how he could have had the audacity to propose such a deal, he said that he knew Hashem wanted the young man to stay, so he trusted that Hashem would make him win .
It is appropriate to end with one of his oft-told stories, one that I have discussed before, but one that should never fail to arouse us. Many years ago, Rav Shach zt"l came to Aish HaTorah for a bris. Upon seeing numerous baalei teshuva, people who had come from the most distant backgrounds, Rav Shach told over an idea that he had never expressed before . He quoted the Navi, Hoshea; "Return, Yisroel, to Hashem, your G-d because you have stumbled in your sin ." He asked that the Navi implies that the reason that Yisroel should return to Hashem is because they stumbled in sin - why is the stumbling in sin the reason that Yisroel should return to G-d? He answered by explaining that we know that however powerful evil is, the power of good is greater. Accordingly, the very extent to which Yisroel sinned is the proof that they have the power to do teshuva, because however powerful a person's yetser hara, their yetser tov is greater. Based on this, Rav Shach said, that if one man can destroy six million lives, then one man can save six million lives. He was clearly aroused to express this idea by the remarkable feats that Rav Weinberg had already performed. Rav Hillel added, that the man who caused so much destruction, Hitler, yemach shemo, was not a particularly talented or intelligent person and yet he was able to do so much harm. Therefore, each of us, no matter how ordinary we consider ourselves, have the potential to do more good than the evil that he perpetrated. How can we achieve this? By learning from Rav Noach and developing an Emuna and Bitachon that will strengthen us with the belief that we can achieve incredible feats if Hashem so wills it.
It seems difficult to aspire to the level of Emuna and Bitachon that Rav Noach Weinberg attained. However, his greatness in this and all areas did not come about as a result of his natural talent - it was a result of years of hard work in developing his relationship with Hashem. He constantly exhorted us to learn about and internalize the Six Constant Mitzvos, the Mitzvos that encapsulate a Jew's relationship with Hashem. An appropriate way of remembering him would perhaps be to listen to his teachings and strengthen ourselves in our relationship with Hashem through learning about these Mitzvos, beginning with Emuna . This is the key to achieving the level of proactive Bitachon that the Jews reached at Krias Yam Suf and that Rav Noach Weinberg epitomized throughout his life. May we all merit to learn from Rav Noach Weinberg and ensure that his dreams are fulfilled and that every Jew will return to his Father in Heaven.
Showing posts with label Bitachon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bitachon. Show all posts
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Monday, November 14, 2011
RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH
After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.
Labels:
Bitachon,
Chayei Sarah,
Ramban,
Rashi,
Rav Tzadok HaKohen,
Relying on miracles,
Trust
Monday, August 1, 2011
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CALMNESS AND BITACHON - DEVARIM
Parashas Devarim begins with Moshe Rabbeinu rebuking the Jewish people for the various sins that they committed in the desert. One of the first sins that he addresses is that of the spies. Moshe recalls the events that led to this tragic occurrence. “And you all approached me and said, ‘let us send men ahead of us who will spy out the land for us, and they will tell us the way which we should go in it, and which cities we should come to’.”
Given that all of Moshe’s words involve some kind of rebuke, the question arises, what exactly is the criticism found in these words? Rashi explains that the way in which they approached Moshe was inappropriate. “You all approached me in an irbuvia, the children pushing ahead of the elderly, and the elderly pushing ahead of the leaders.”
The simple understanding of this criticism is that Moshe was rebuking them for a lack in derech eretz (respect) and kavod HaTorah (respect for Torah). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l writes that it is difficult to say that this was the focus of Moshe’s reproof. It is clear from the account of the spies in Parashas Shelach, that the main failing of the spies was a lack of bitachon (trust in HaShem). This caused them to be fearful of the mighty people living in Eretz Yisroel, and to mourn their perceived inability to conquer the land. Accordingly, what is the connection between the fact that the people approached Moshe in an inappropriate manner, with the lack of bitachon that was the true cause of the sin?
Rav Kamenetsky explains that indeed, the lack of bitachon was the cause of the sin of the spies; the lack of derech eretz displayed was merely a symptom of that lacking. Had they had the appropriate level of trust, then they would have calmly approached Moshe, in the correct order. However, since they felt a great deal of anxiety about entering the land, they acted with behala (ie. in an agitated fashion), and broke the conventions of who should approach Moshe first. In this way, their lack of bitachon was the cause of their agitated behavior.
Rav Kamenetsky uses this idea to answer a pressing question in the story of the spies. In Parashas Shelach, the order of the spies is not in the same order as anywhere else in the Torah. Normally, they are written according to their age, but here they are not. The commentaries offer various suggestions as to the reasoning behind the order. Rav Kamenetsky suggests that there is no reasoning to the order of the spies in this instance; the spies, with the exception of Yehoshua and Calev, felt the same anxiety as the people, therefore they also approached their entry to Eretz Yisroel in a state of behala. Behala results in a lack of order, accordingly, it is appropriate that the spies are mentioned in no specific order as a reflection of their agitated attitude.
We have learnt from the principle of Rav Kamenetsky,that when a person acts in an agitated, or hurried fashion, there is a strong possibility that his behavior stems from a lack of trust in HaShem. A person who has such trust, will feel no sense of panic when he needs to do something, and will have no sense of impatience when events do not take place as quickly as he would like them to. Rather, he recognizes that HaShem is constantly guiding him, and any tests that he undergoes are HaShem’s way of giving him opportunities to grow. However, when a person does not have the security that bitachon provides, he feels no sense of calmness (menucha), and may feel eager to make events happen quicker than they should.
The first lesson that one can take from this idea is to be aware of situations when he may have a tendency to be impatient or agitated. When he is aware that he is in this state, he should make every effort to refrain from any action that he may later regret. Rather, he should try to step back and take a measured view of the situation at hand. Secondly, he should understand that his behavior may well stem from a lack of bitachon, and he should try to internalize that which intellectually he knows to be true – that HaShem is with Him and therefore, there is no need to get agitated.
May we all merit to develop the bitachon that will enable us to live with menucha.
Given that all of Moshe’s words involve some kind of rebuke, the question arises, what exactly is the criticism found in these words? Rashi explains that the way in which they approached Moshe was inappropriate. “You all approached me in an irbuvia, the children pushing ahead of the elderly, and the elderly pushing ahead of the leaders.”
The simple understanding of this criticism is that Moshe was rebuking them for a lack in derech eretz (respect) and kavod HaTorah (respect for Torah). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l writes that it is difficult to say that this was the focus of Moshe’s reproof. It is clear from the account of the spies in Parashas Shelach, that the main failing of the spies was a lack of bitachon (trust in HaShem). This caused them to be fearful of the mighty people living in Eretz Yisroel, and to mourn their perceived inability to conquer the land. Accordingly, what is the connection between the fact that the people approached Moshe in an inappropriate manner, with the lack of bitachon that was the true cause of the sin?
Rav Kamenetsky explains that indeed, the lack of bitachon was the cause of the sin of the spies; the lack of derech eretz displayed was merely a symptom of that lacking. Had they had the appropriate level of trust, then they would have calmly approached Moshe, in the correct order. However, since they felt a great deal of anxiety about entering the land, they acted with behala (ie. in an agitated fashion), and broke the conventions of who should approach Moshe first. In this way, their lack of bitachon was the cause of their agitated behavior.
Rav Kamenetsky uses this idea to answer a pressing question in the story of the spies. In Parashas Shelach, the order of the spies is not in the same order as anywhere else in the Torah. Normally, they are written according to their age, but here they are not. The commentaries offer various suggestions as to the reasoning behind the order. Rav Kamenetsky suggests that there is no reasoning to the order of the spies in this instance; the spies, with the exception of Yehoshua and Calev, felt the same anxiety as the people, therefore they also approached their entry to Eretz Yisroel in a state of behala. Behala results in a lack of order, accordingly, it is appropriate that the spies are mentioned in no specific order as a reflection of their agitated attitude.
We have learnt from the principle of Rav Kamenetsky,that when a person acts in an agitated, or hurried fashion, there is a strong possibility that his behavior stems from a lack of trust in HaShem. A person who has such trust, will feel no sense of panic when he needs to do something, and will have no sense of impatience when events do not take place as quickly as he would like them to. Rather, he recognizes that HaShem is constantly guiding him, and any tests that he undergoes are HaShem’s way of giving him opportunities to grow. However, when a person does not have the security that bitachon provides, he feels no sense of calmness (menucha), and may feel eager to make events happen quicker than they should.
The first lesson that one can take from this idea is to be aware of situations when he may have a tendency to be impatient or agitated. When he is aware that he is in this state, he should make every effort to refrain from any action that he may later regret. Rather, he should try to step back and take a measured view of the situation at hand. Secondly, he should understand that his behavior may well stem from a lack of bitachon, and he should try to internalize that which intellectually he knows to be true – that HaShem is with Him and therefore, there is no need to get agitated.
May we all merit to develop the bitachon that will enable us to live with menucha.
Labels:
Bitachon,
Calmness,
Devarim,
Menucha,
Menuchas Hanefesh,
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
HONESTY IN MONEY MATTERS - DEVARIM
“Do not be afraid of any man because the judgement is to Hashem. ” The Torah instructs judges that they should not be intimidated by powerful people when they are deciding a Din Torah, the reason being that ‘the judgement is to Hashem’ - what does this mean? Rashi explains that when a person unjustly takes money from his fellow there is an injustice that needs to be fixed. Therefore Hashem must direct the hashgacha in such a way that the money will be returned to its true owner. In this way the judgement has been ‘placed’ in Hashem’s hands, forcing Him to correct the injustice done. Why is this so serious? Hashem deliberately limits Himself from too much obvious intervention in our lives so as not to interfere with our free will. If His presence was so obvious it would be much more difficult to sin and the balance of bechira would be effected. By causing Hashem to intervene to reimburse the victim of an injustice a person is indeed effecting this delicate balance.
There is another interesting point that we can learn out from this Rashi: When a person commits an aveira in diney mamonos he is not only transgressing in the realm of Bein Adam LeChaveiro but also in that of Bein Adam LeMakom. This point is of significance because there seems to be a tendency to approach Bein Adam LeMakom mitzvos with a different attitude from Bein Adam Lechaveiro mitzvos: When an observant Jew is offered a plate of food he would normally inquire as to the hechsher of the food before he eats it. If he is unclear as to the standards of the hechsher he will ask a shilo. In contrast, it is quite common that when a person is faced with a question as to paying taxes, for example, he is more likely to proceed without looking into the halachic validity of his actions. Perhaps the realisation that mamonos issues also involve Bein Adam LeMakom can motivate us to be more careful in them.
The Gemara supports the idea that mamonos is an area of natural human weakness; “Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says, most people sin in the area of gezel.. ” This Gemara seems hard to understand - do most Jews go around stealing from others?! The Rashbam explains that the Gemara is not referring to outright stealing such as pick-pocketing or shoplifting. Rather it is referring to much more subtle and insidious forms of stealing in which people justify that what they are doing is mutar. The Gemara may also include forms of ‘gezel’ that come as a result of sheer carelessness. For the remainder of this article we will discuss some of those areas of halacha in monetary matters that are often neglected and observe how our Gedolim conducted themselves in these areas.
A classic example of carelessness is not returning borrowed items. It seems to be an all-too-common occurrence that people lend sefarim out and never see them again! Unless the lender intends to forgive failure to return the sefer, this constitutes a form of gezel. Of course people do not purposely intend to steal, but such negligence surely stems from a lack of respect for other people’s property. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l was a living example of how to act in this area. On one occasion he was filling in a kesubah and used the chassan’s pen and forgot to return it to him amidst the hectic nature of the wedding. TWO YEARS later he met again with the pen owner and handed him the pen .
Another area in which there is a great yetser hara to be moreh heter is using other people’s items without express permission. There are many instances in which it is forbidden to assume that the owner will be mochel for someone to use his item without asking first. The ease at which one can be nichshal in this area is demonstrated in the following story. Rav Leib Chassid was the famous tzaddik of Kelm. In his later years he went out for a walk on the road between Kelm and Tavrig. One day a teenage boy driving a wagon passed by and offered him a ride. Reb Leib asked him if the wagon was his, and the by replied that it belonged to his father. “Did he give you permission to take passengers?” Reb Leib asked. The boy admitted that he had never discussed it with his father, adding, “Do I really need his permission for that?” “Yes”, said Reb Leib, “since you have not asked permission you would be a thief if you took any passengers into the wagon. ” It is such sensitivity that is required in order to avoid erring in these halachos.
Avoiding paying taxes to non-Jewish governments is something which one can easily find justification for, however, this is often a violation of Dina d’Malchusa dina . A woman once asked Rav Kamenetsky why her family should not lie about their income in order to obtain food stamps when there was widespread cheating among other ethnic and racial groups to establish eligibility. “Simple” said Reb Yaakov, “they did not stand at Har Sinai, you did.” This answer is the first and most important step in beginning to be more zahir in areas of mamonos. A person can find numerous reasons to justify various hanhagos in monetary areas but he must remember that ultimately everything a Jew does should be based on what Hashem taught us on Har Sinai. Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita devotes an entire shiur to conveying the message that whenever one is faced with an opportunity to make or save money he must first and foremost look to the words of Shulchan Aruch to determine whether or not this form of behaviour is allowed . This often means asking a shilo and not presuming that it is okay to cheat the taxes or go back on a monetery agreement. And even if it is common practise among ‘observant’ Jews to act in a certain questionable manner this is not an iron-clad proof that it is mutar to act in such a way.
A second step to avoid aveiros in mamonos is to be aware of the tremendous yetser hara of chemdas hamamon. The Gemara in Chagiga states that gezel is something that people have great taiva for . Because of this great yetser we must be extra careful and place fences that protect us from faltering. We learn just how far one must go to do this from Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l. He once visited a wealthy man and was alone with him in a room. The man was called out for a few minutes but when he returned he was shocked to see that Rav Yisroel was not in the room. He looked everywhere for him and, to his great surprise was Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that Chazal teach us that a minority of people sin in arayos whilst a majority sin in gezel : We know that it is forbidden to be alone in a room with an erva lest our yester hara overcome us. If the yester hara for gezel is stronger than that for arayos then we must learn out a kal v’chomer that it is assur to be alone with someone elses’ uncounted money ! Rav Yisroel was of course the last person that one would expect would be nichshal in gezel, yet he made fences to protect him from its snares, surely we should emulate him.
We currently find ourselves in the nine days - a time of intense mourning for the Churban and the hester panim that accompanies it. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita suggests that carelessness in mamonos is a direct cause of hester panim: The Torah commands us to use accurate and honest weights and measures . Directly following this parsha comes the parsha of Amalek ? What is the connection between these seemingly disparate inyanim?
The Netsiv explains that cheating in business undermines the basic tenets of Emuna and Bitachon. One who trusts that Hashem will provide for his parnosa will have no desire to break the Torah laws in order to acquire money. However, a person who is willing to cheat and be moreh heter in order to support himself demonstrates that he is not living with a belief that G-d is looking over him. Mida ceneged mida, Hashem says, ‘if you are acting as if I am not around then I will no longer be in your midst and protect you.’ Without heavenly protection we are open prey to our enemies.
Thus we have seen how negligence in diney mamonos is not just a transgression of our relationships with others, but also shows a severe lacking in one’s relationship with Hashem - one who feels the need to ‘bend the rules’ in order to gain or save money is ignoring the basic tenets of bitachon in Hashem. Let us learn from our Gedolim and try to be more zahir in at least one of the areas discussed here - whether it be, being more careful in returning borrowed items or not using other people’s items without permission, or being honest in business. But the most important aitsa is that which Rav Reisman stressed so much - every area of our lives is decided by Shulchan Aruch and we must always verify that our actions accord with its instructions.
What is the reward for zehirus in mamonos? The Yerushalmi in Makkos states that since the yetser hara to steal is so great, the reward to overcome this desire is proportionally great. “One who separates from [stealing] he and his descendants will benefit for every generation till the end of days. ” May we all be zocheh to end the hester panim and bring Hashem back into our lives.
There is another interesting point that we can learn out from this Rashi: When a person commits an aveira in diney mamonos he is not only transgressing in the realm of Bein Adam LeChaveiro but also in that of Bein Adam LeMakom. This point is of significance because there seems to be a tendency to approach Bein Adam LeMakom mitzvos with a different attitude from Bein Adam Lechaveiro mitzvos: When an observant Jew is offered a plate of food he would normally inquire as to the hechsher of the food before he eats it. If he is unclear as to the standards of the hechsher he will ask a shilo. In contrast, it is quite common that when a person is faced with a question as to paying taxes, for example, he is more likely to proceed without looking into the halachic validity of his actions. Perhaps the realisation that mamonos issues also involve Bein Adam LeMakom can motivate us to be more careful in them.
The Gemara supports the idea that mamonos is an area of natural human weakness; “Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says, most people sin in the area of gezel.. ” This Gemara seems hard to understand - do most Jews go around stealing from others?! The Rashbam explains that the Gemara is not referring to outright stealing such as pick-pocketing or shoplifting. Rather it is referring to much more subtle and insidious forms of stealing in which people justify that what they are doing is mutar. The Gemara may also include forms of ‘gezel’ that come as a result of sheer carelessness. For the remainder of this article we will discuss some of those areas of halacha in monetary matters that are often neglected and observe how our Gedolim conducted themselves in these areas.
A classic example of carelessness is not returning borrowed items. It seems to be an all-too-common occurrence that people lend sefarim out and never see them again! Unless the lender intends to forgive failure to return the sefer, this constitutes a form of gezel. Of course people do not purposely intend to steal, but such negligence surely stems from a lack of respect for other people’s property. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l was a living example of how to act in this area. On one occasion he was filling in a kesubah and used the chassan’s pen and forgot to return it to him amidst the hectic nature of the wedding. TWO YEARS later he met again with the pen owner and handed him the pen .
Another area in which there is a great yetser hara to be moreh heter is using other people’s items without express permission. There are many instances in which it is forbidden to assume that the owner will be mochel for someone to use his item without asking first. The ease at which one can be nichshal in this area is demonstrated in the following story. Rav Leib Chassid was the famous tzaddik of Kelm. In his later years he went out for a walk on the road between Kelm and Tavrig. One day a teenage boy driving a wagon passed by and offered him a ride. Reb Leib asked him if the wagon was his, and the by replied that it belonged to his father. “Did he give you permission to take passengers?” Reb Leib asked. The boy admitted that he had never discussed it with his father, adding, “Do I really need his permission for that?” “Yes”, said Reb Leib, “since you have not asked permission you would be a thief if you took any passengers into the wagon. ” It is such sensitivity that is required in order to avoid erring in these halachos.
Avoiding paying taxes to non-Jewish governments is something which one can easily find justification for, however, this is often a violation of Dina d’Malchusa dina . A woman once asked Rav Kamenetsky why her family should not lie about their income in order to obtain food stamps when there was widespread cheating among other ethnic and racial groups to establish eligibility. “Simple” said Reb Yaakov, “they did not stand at Har Sinai, you did.” This answer is the first and most important step in beginning to be more zahir in areas of mamonos. A person can find numerous reasons to justify various hanhagos in monetary areas but he must remember that ultimately everything a Jew does should be based on what Hashem taught us on Har Sinai. Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita devotes an entire shiur to conveying the message that whenever one is faced with an opportunity to make or save money he must first and foremost look to the words of Shulchan Aruch to determine whether or not this form of behaviour is allowed . This often means asking a shilo and not presuming that it is okay to cheat the taxes or go back on a monetery agreement. And even if it is common practise among ‘observant’ Jews to act in a certain questionable manner this is not an iron-clad proof that it is mutar to act in such a way.
A second step to avoid aveiros in mamonos is to be aware of the tremendous yetser hara of chemdas hamamon. The Gemara in Chagiga states that gezel is something that people have great taiva for . Because of this great yetser we must be extra careful and place fences that protect us from faltering. We learn just how far one must go to do this from Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l. He once visited a wealthy man and was alone with him in a room. The man was called out for a few minutes but when he returned he was shocked to see that Rav Yisroel was not in the room. He looked everywhere for him and, to his great surprise was Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that Chazal teach us that a minority of people sin in arayos whilst a majority sin in gezel : We know that it is forbidden to be alone in a room with an erva lest our yester hara overcome us. If the yester hara for gezel is stronger than that for arayos then we must learn out a kal v’chomer that it is assur to be alone with someone elses’ uncounted money ! Rav Yisroel was of course the last person that one would expect would be nichshal in gezel, yet he made fences to protect him from its snares, surely we should emulate him.
We currently find ourselves in the nine days - a time of intense mourning for the Churban and the hester panim that accompanies it. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita suggests that carelessness in mamonos is a direct cause of hester panim: The Torah commands us to use accurate and honest weights and measures . Directly following this parsha comes the parsha of Amalek ? What is the connection between these seemingly disparate inyanim?
The Netsiv explains that cheating in business undermines the basic tenets of Emuna and Bitachon. One who trusts that Hashem will provide for his parnosa will have no desire to break the Torah laws in order to acquire money. However, a person who is willing to cheat and be moreh heter in order to support himself demonstrates that he is not living with a belief that G-d is looking over him. Mida ceneged mida, Hashem says, ‘if you are acting as if I am not around then I will no longer be in your midst and protect you.’ Without heavenly protection we are open prey to our enemies.
Thus we have seen how negligence in diney mamonos is not just a transgression of our relationships with others, but also shows a severe lacking in one’s relationship with Hashem - one who feels the need to ‘bend the rules’ in order to gain or save money is ignoring the basic tenets of bitachon in Hashem. Let us learn from our Gedolim and try to be more zahir in at least one of the areas discussed here - whether it be, being more careful in returning borrowed items or not using other people’s items without permission, or being honest in business. But the most important aitsa is that which Rav Reisman stressed so much - every area of our lives is decided by Shulchan Aruch and we must always verify that our actions accord with its instructions.
What is the reward for zehirus in mamonos? The Yerushalmi in Makkos states that since the yetser hara to steal is so great, the reward to overcome this desire is proportionally great. “One who separates from [stealing] he and his descendants will benefit for every generation till the end of days. ” May we all be zocheh to end the hester panim and bring Hashem back into our lives.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
SHABBOS - VAYAKHEL
The Parsha begins with an exhortation to observe Shabbos: "For six days work will be done and the seventh day shall be holy for you, a day of complete rest for Hashem, whoever does work on it shall be put to death. " The commentaries ask that the wording of the Torah in this passuk needs explanation; it should have said, "for six days you will do work" in the active sense, rather than saying that work will be done in the passive form .
They explain that the Torah is teaching us about the attitude a person should have that will enable him to have the fortitude to refrain from doing melacha (prohibited activity) on Shabbos: Throughout the week a person is required to work in order to earn his livelihood, he cannot sit back and expect G-d to provide for him if he puts in no effort. He is required to put in hishtadlus because of the decree that Hashem placed upon mankind after the sin of Adam HaRishon. However, in truth , all his hishtadlus (effort) is not the reason for his success, rather Hashem is its sole Source. On Shabbos, Hashem commands us to refrain from creative activity to acknowledge this and that all the work we do in the week is only part of the gezeiras hishtadlus (decree to work). However, if one comes to believe that his physical efforts are in fact the cause of his livelihood then he will find it very difficult to refrain from working on Shabbos; he thinks that the more he works the more he will earn and therefore it is logical for him to work on Shabbos as well as the rest of the week. In response to this erroneous attitude, the Torah tells us that one should view the work that he does in a passive sense - that in truth he does not do the work, rather that it is done for him. Hashem, so-to-speak, does the work and provides for each person's livelihood. If one recognizes this then he will find it far easier to refrain from working on Shabbos because he realizes that in truth his work is not the cause of his livelihood .
It seems that this lesson is not limited to avoiding the 39 melachas that are forbidden by the Torah. There is a Rabbinical prohibition of speaking about melacha that one plans to do in the rest of the week . Doing so also shows a level of lack of appreciation of the lesson of Shabbos that Hashem provides one's livelihood. Moreover, whilst it is technically permissible to think about melacha on Shabbos, it is nonetheless praiseworthy to avoid such thoughts completely . Such a level reflects a true appreciation of how Shabbos is a reflection on the fact that Hashem runs the world, and that one's own thoughts of melacha are of no benefit.
This idea is brought out in the Gemara in Shabbos: The Gemara tells of a righteous man who saw that there was a hole in the fence of his field on Shabbos. He thought about fixing it after Shabbos, and then remembered that it was Shabbos and felt guilty about thinking about melacho on Shabbos. As a show of regret he then decided never to fix that fence and as a reward a miracle occurred and a tzlaf tree grew from which he was able to support himself and his family . There are two difficulties with this Gemara: Firstly, why did he refrain from ever fixing the fence - what was the benefit of doing so and how could it rectify his initial mistake? Secondly, what was the significance of the reward he received, how was that a measure for measure response to his decision never to build the fence?
It seems that we can answer these problems through the principle we are discussing. When this righteous man saw the fence, he thought about fixing it, momentarily forgetting the lesson of Shabbos, that Hashem is the Source of one's livelihood and that man's efforts are worthless without Hashem's help. In order to rectify this 'error' he decided to never fix the fence to demonstrate that he did indeed recognize that his own efforts were not the cause of his livelihood. As a reward for this attitude, Hashem showed him measure for measure that he was correct, and provided him with a new source of income, the tzlaf tree without any input from the man himself! This proved that Hashem can provide a person with his livelihood regardless of his hishtadlus.
Throughout the week it is very difficult to see through the illusion that man's hishtadlus is not the true cause of his livelihood, and that Hashem is the sole Provider. Shabbos provides man with the opportunity to see clearly that all his hishtadlus is ultimately unnecessary . On Shabbos whilst the rest of the world continues striving to earn their living through effort, observant Jews rest from such activity, recognizing that Hashem runs the world without needing man's input. As we have seen, this attitude does not only express itself through avoidance of melacha, it even extends to refraining from speaking about melacha. The highest level is to even avoid thinking about melacha that needs to be done. All these prohibitions are supposed to instill in us the realization that all our accomplishments throughout the week only come about because Hashem so desires. May we all merit to observe Shabbos free of action, speech and thought about melacha.
They explain that the Torah is teaching us about the attitude a person should have that will enable him to have the fortitude to refrain from doing melacha (prohibited activity) on Shabbos: Throughout the week a person is required to work in order to earn his livelihood, he cannot sit back and expect G-d to provide for him if he puts in no effort. He is required to put in hishtadlus because of the decree that Hashem placed upon mankind after the sin of Adam HaRishon. However, in truth , all his hishtadlus (effort) is not the reason for his success, rather Hashem is its sole Source. On Shabbos, Hashem commands us to refrain from creative activity to acknowledge this and that all the work we do in the week is only part of the gezeiras hishtadlus (decree to work). However, if one comes to believe that his physical efforts are in fact the cause of his livelihood then he will find it very difficult to refrain from working on Shabbos; he thinks that the more he works the more he will earn and therefore it is logical for him to work on Shabbos as well as the rest of the week. In response to this erroneous attitude, the Torah tells us that one should view the work that he does in a passive sense - that in truth he does not do the work, rather that it is done for him. Hashem, so-to-speak, does the work and provides for each person's livelihood. If one recognizes this then he will find it far easier to refrain from working on Shabbos because he realizes that in truth his work is not the cause of his livelihood .
It seems that this lesson is not limited to avoiding the 39 melachas that are forbidden by the Torah. There is a Rabbinical prohibition of speaking about melacha that one plans to do in the rest of the week . Doing so also shows a level of lack of appreciation of the lesson of Shabbos that Hashem provides one's livelihood. Moreover, whilst it is technically permissible to think about melacha on Shabbos, it is nonetheless praiseworthy to avoid such thoughts completely . Such a level reflects a true appreciation of how Shabbos is a reflection on the fact that Hashem runs the world, and that one's own thoughts of melacha are of no benefit.
This idea is brought out in the Gemara in Shabbos: The Gemara tells of a righteous man who saw that there was a hole in the fence of his field on Shabbos. He thought about fixing it after Shabbos, and then remembered that it was Shabbos and felt guilty about thinking about melacho on Shabbos. As a show of regret he then decided never to fix that fence and as a reward a miracle occurred and a tzlaf tree grew from which he was able to support himself and his family . There are two difficulties with this Gemara: Firstly, why did he refrain from ever fixing the fence - what was the benefit of doing so and how could it rectify his initial mistake? Secondly, what was the significance of the reward he received, how was that a measure for measure response to his decision never to build the fence?
It seems that we can answer these problems through the principle we are discussing. When this righteous man saw the fence, he thought about fixing it, momentarily forgetting the lesson of Shabbos, that Hashem is the Source of one's livelihood and that man's efforts are worthless without Hashem's help. In order to rectify this 'error' he decided to never fix the fence to demonstrate that he did indeed recognize that his own efforts were not the cause of his livelihood. As a reward for this attitude, Hashem showed him measure for measure that he was correct, and provided him with a new source of income, the tzlaf tree without any input from the man himself! This proved that Hashem can provide a person with his livelihood regardless of his hishtadlus.
Throughout the week it is very difficult to see through the illusion that man's hishtadlus is not the true cause of his livelihood, and that Hashem is the sole Provider. Shabbos provides man with the opportunity to see clearly that all his hishtadlus is ultimately unnecessary . On Shabbos whilst the rest of the world continues striving to earn their living through effort, observant Jews rest from such activity, recognizing that Hashem runs the world without needing man's input. As we have seen, this attitude does not only express itself through avoidance of melacha, it even extends to refraining from speaking about melacha. The highest level is to even avoid thinking about melacha that needs to be done. All these prohibitions are supposed to instill in us the realization that all our accomplishments throughout the week only come about because Hashem so desires. May we all merit to observe Shabbos free of action, speech and thought about melacha.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
RAV NOACH WEINBERG ZT"L - YISRO
"I am the Lord, Your G-d, who took you out of the land of Mitzrayim from being slaves. "
The First of the Ten Commandments is the Mitzva of Emuna, to believe in the one G-d as the first cause of all existence, who constantly creates and sustains all of creation . There is another fundamental concept that is connected to Emuna, that of Bitachon, trust in G-d. Is trusting in G-d a part of the Mitzva of Emuna or is it a separate concept that is not included in any specific Mitzva? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Bitachon is not separate at all, rather it is the natural outgrowth of genuine Emuna; The obligation to have Emuna requires that one believe in the fundamental tenets about G-d such as First Cause and Hashgacha (Divine Providence), whereas Bitachon is applying that belief in practice. If a person cannot do this then it reveals that his Emuna is severely lacking. The Chazon Ish gives an example of Reuven who is constantly expressing his Emuna and how everything that he has is from Hashem; he proclaims his recognition that his livelihood emanates purely from Hashem and that there is no need for anxiety. However, when someone else opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future. Reuven's Emuna seemed to be strong when everything was going smoothly, but when he was put to the test he failed to show sufficient Bitachon. This in turn demonstrates that his Emuna was never genuine .
We learn from the Chazon Ish that an essential aspect of Emuna is bitachon, which means applying one's Emuna to real life situations. The Nesivos Shalom zt"l develops our understanding of Bitachon by explaining that there are two levels of Bitachon. There is an inactive kind of Bitachon and there is a proactive Bitachon. Inactive bitachon applies when one finds himself in a difficult situation in which there is nothing he can do - in such circumstances his Avoda is to trust that everything that happens will ultimately be for the good. Proactive bitachon becomes necessary when a person is required to do something that demonstrates his trust in Hashem. He cites the example of Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds); Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were crying out to Hashem to save them from Pharaoh's advancing army. In response, Hashem told them to stop praying and to go into the sea. The Nesivos Shalom explains that in order for the Jewish people to merit Hashem transcending nature through Krias Yam Suf they had to demonstrate a trust in Hashem that transcended the normal laws of nature. They had to believe that if the Ratson Hashem (will of Hashem) was for them to cross the sea then they should trust that He had the ability to enable them to do so, even if they had no idea how it was possible. Accordingly, their stepping into the raging sea before it split was a display of proactive bitachon that earned them the right to the great miracle of Krias Yam Suf .
By combining the lessons of the Chazon Ish and Nesivos Shalom we conclude that genuine Emuna can only manifest itself in a person who is willing to act with an unswerving trust in G-d; a belief that if Ratson Hashem dictates that he act in a certain way, then he can and must take the required action, and that Hashem will enable him to succeed in whatever he endeavors to do. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l epitomized this attribute to a great degree. He is most well-known for his incredible feats in kiruv rechokim (outreach) however, as one of his closest friends pointed out, all his accomplishments emanated directly from his deep Emuna and Bitachon.
I merited to learn in Yeshivas Aish HaTorah for four years, and in that time I was fortunate to experience Rav Weinberg's greatness first-hand. I never forget how he made a bracha - he spoke to Hashem as if He was really in front of Him, a demonstration of 'shivisi Hashem kenegdi tamid' (I constantly place Hashem in front of me) . When he talked about trusting in G-d, it deeply influenced his listeners, not because he said anything so unusual, but because he lived such Bitachon and the fact that he internalized it so greatly enabled it to rub off on others just by observing him.
Because his Emuna was so genuine he was able to apply it in practice and thereby express the high level of proactive Bitachon that the Nesivos Shalom described . He used to say that if we see problems in the world there is no reason that we shouldn't go out and tackle them if we believe that Hashem so desires. Hashem is willing and able to help us achieve his Ratson even if it demands superhuman achievements. If we demonstrate proactive Bitachon then Hashem could make miracles happen for us. This is exactly what took place in Rav Weinberg's life. At a time when kiruv was virtually unheard of, he saw a dire need to bring back the countless Jews who knew nothing of Torah observance. Many people mocked his dreams as being completely unrealistic and called him a fool. Nevertheless, his conviction that he was fulfilling Ratson Hashem enabled him to overcome numerous setbacks and perform miracles in creating a movement that saved thousands upon thousands of unaffiliated Jews from begin totally lost to Judaism . His son, Rav Hillel Weinberg Shlita described how he began his quest with three young men in a small room in Kirayt Sanz. No-one could have imagined how those humble beginnings could culminate in Aish HaTorah and its offshoots. No-one, that is, except for Rav Noach himself; those closest to him testify that he genuinely believed that he would bring Moshiach through his efforts - his extensive achievements were small in his eyes because he knew that Hashem wanted so much more. At the funeral, his son, Rav Hillel, told us what Rav Weinberg would tell us if he were standing in front of us. He would say that we could be bigger than him, we could be as big as Moshe Rabbeinu! Chazal's words to this effect were not some vague saying, rather they were real and should be taken seriously.
I heard an incredible story about how Rav Weinberg put his Emuna into practice; At the shiva his daughter told over that once a chess champion came to Aish, learned for a few days, and decided to leave. Rav Noach challenged him to a game of chess, on the basis that if the student won, he could leave, but if Rav Noach won, he would stay. Rav Noach won. When asked how he could have had the audacity to propose such a deal, he said that he knew Hashem wanted the young man to stay, so he trusted that Hashem would make him win .
It is appropriate to end with one of his oft-told stories, one that I have discussed before, but one that should never fail to arouse us. Many years ago, Rav Shach zt"l came to Aish HaTorah for a bris. Upon seeing numerous baalei teshuva, people who had come from the most distant backgrounds, Rav Shach told over an idea that he had never expressed before . He quoted the Navi, Hoshea; "Return, Yisroel, to Hashem, your G-d because you have stumbled in your sin ." He asked that the Navi implies that the reason that Yisroel should return to Hashem is because they stumbled in sin - why is the stumbling in sin the reason that Yisroel should return to G-d? He answered by explaining that we know that however powerful evil is, the power of good is greater. Accordingly, the very extent to which Yisroel sinned is the proof that they have the power to do teshuva, because however powerful a person's yetser hara, their yetser tov is greater. Based on this, Rav Shach said, that if one man can destroy six million lives, then one man can save six million lives. He was clearly aroused to express this idea by the remarkable feats that Rav Weinberg had already performed. Rav Hillel added, that the man who caused so much destruction, Hitler, yemach shemo, was not a particularly talented or intelligent person and yet he was able to do so much harm. Therefore, each of us, no matter how ordinary we consider ourselves, have the potential to do more good than the evil that he perpetrated. How can we achieve this? By learning from Rav Noach and developing an Emuna and Bitachon that will strengthen us with the belief that we can achieve incredible feats if Hashem so wills it.
It seems difficult to aspire to the level of Emuna and Bitachon that Rav Noach Weinberg attained. However, his greatness in this and all areas did not come about as a result of his natural talent - it was a result of years of hard work in developing his relationship with Hashem. He constantly exhorted us to learn about and internalize the Six Constant Mitzvos, the Mitzvos that encapsulate a Jew's relationship with Hashem. An appropriate way of remembering him would perhaps be to listen to his teachings and strengthen ourselves in our relationship with Hashem through learning about these Mitzvos, beginning with Emuna . This is the key to achieving the level of proactive Bitachon that the Jews reached at Krias Yam Suf and that Rav Noach Weinberg epitomized throughout his life. May we all merit to learn from Rav Noach Weinberg and ensure that his dreams are fulfilled and that every Jew will return to his Father in Heaven.
The First of the Ten Commandments is the Mitzva of Emuna, to believe in the one G-d as the first cause of all existence, who constantly creates and sustains all of creation . There is another fundamental concept that is connected to Emuna, that of Bitachon, trust in G-d. Is trusting in G-d a part of the Mitzva of Emuna or is it a separate concept that is not included in any specific Mitzva? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Bitachon is not separate at all, rather it is the natural outgrowth of genuine Emuna; The obligation to have Emuna requires that one believe in the fundamental tenets about G-d such as First Cause and Hashgacha (Divine Providence), whereas Bitachon is applying that belief in practice. If a person cannot do this then it reveals that his Emuna is severely lacking. The Chazon Ish gives an example of Reuven who is constantly expressing his Emuna and how everything that he has is from Hashem; he proclaims his recognition that his livelihood emanates purely from Hashem and that there is no need for anxiety. However, when someone else opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future. Reuven's Emuna seemed to be strong when everything was going smoothly, but when he was put to the test he failed to show sufficient Bitachon. This in turn demonstrates that his Emuna was never genuine .
We learn from the Chazon Ish that an essential aspect of Emuna is bitachon, which means applying one's Emuna to real life situations. The Nesivos Shalom zt"l develops our understanding of Bitachon by explaining that there are two levels of Bitachon. There is an inactive kind of Bitachon and there is a proactive Bitachon. Inactive bitachon applies when one finds himself in a difficult situation in which there is nothing he can do - in such circumstances his Avoda is to trust that everything that happens will ultimately be for the good. Proactive bitachon becomes necessary when a person is required to do something that demonstrates his trust in Hashem. He cites the example of Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds); Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were crying out to Hashem to save them from Pharaoh's advancing army. In response, Hashem told them to stop praying and to go into the sea. The Nesivos Shalom explains that in order for the Jewish people to merit Hashem transcending nature through Krias Yam Suf they had to demonstrate a trust in Hashem that transcended the normal laws of nature. They had to believe that if the Ratson Hashem (will of Hashem) was for them to cross the sea then they should trust that He had the ability to enable them to do so, even if they had no idea how it was possible. Accordingly, their stepping into the raging sea before it split was a display of proactive bitachon that earned them the right to the great miracle of Krias Yam Suf .
By combining the lessons of the Chazon Ish and Nesivos Shalom we conclude that genuine Emuna can only manifest itself in a person who is willing to act with an unswerving trust in G-d; a belief that if Ratson Hashem dictates that he act in a certain way, then he can and must take the required action, and that Hashem will enable him to succeed in whatever he endeavors to do. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l epitomized this attribute to a great degree. He is most well-known for his incredible feats in kiruv rechokim (outreach) however, as one of his closest friends pointed out, all his accomplishments emanated directly from his deep Emuna and Bitachon.
I merited to learn in Yeshivas Aish HaTorah for four years, and in that time I was fortunate to experience Rav Weinberg's greatness first-hand. I never forget how he made a bracha - he spoke to Hashem as if He was really in front of Him, a demonstration of 'shivisi Hashem kenegdi tamid' (I constantly place Hashem in front of me) . When he talked about trusting in G-d, it deeply influenced his listeners, not because he said anything so unusual, but because he lived such Bitachon and the fact that he internalized it so greatly enabled it to rub off on others just by observing him.
Because his Emuna was so genuine he was able to apply it in practice and thereby express the high level of proactive Bitachon that the Nesivos Shalom described . He used to say that if we see problems in the world there is no reason that we shouldn't go out and tackle them if we believe that Hashem so desires. Hashem is willing and able to help us achieve his Ratson even if it demands superhuman achievements. If we demonstrate proactive Bitachon then Hashem could make miracles happen for us. This is exactly what took place in Rav Weinberg's life. At a time when kiruv was virtually unheard of, he saw a dire need to bring back the countless Jews who knew nothing of Torah observance. Many people mocked his dreams as being completely unrealistic and called him a fool. Nevertheless, his conviction that he was fulfilling Ratson Hashem enabled him to overcome numerous setbacks and perform miracles in creating a movement that saved thousands upon thousands of unaffiliated Jews from begin totally lost to Judaism . His son, Rav Hillel Weinberg Shlita described how he began his quest with three young men in a small room in Kirayt Sanz. No-one could have imagined how those humble beginnings could culminate in Aish HaTorah and its offshoots. No-one, that is, except for Rav Noach himself; those closest to him testify that he genuinely believed that he would bring Moshiach through his efforts - his extensive achievements were small in his eyes because he knew that Hashem wanted so much more. At the funeral, his son, Rav Hillel, told us what Rav Weinberg would tell us if he were standing in front of us. He would say that we could be bigger than him, we could be as big as Moshe Rabbeinu! Chazal's words to this effect were not some vague saying, rather they were real and should be taken seriously.
I heard an incredible story about how Rav Weinberg put his Emuna into practice; At the shiva his daughter told over that once a chess champion came to Aish, learned for a few days, and decided to leave. Rav Noach challenged him to a game of chess, on the basis that if the student won, he could leave, but if Rav Noach won, he would stay. Rav Noach won. When asked how he could have had the audacity to propose such a deal, he said that he knew Hashem wanted the young man to stay, so he trusted that Hashem would make him win .
It is appropriate to end with one of his oft-told stories, one that I have discussed before, but one that should never fail to arouse us. Many years ago, Rav Shach zt"l came to Aish HaTorah for a bris. Upon seeing numerous baalei teshuva, people who had come from the most distant backgrounds, Rav Shach told over an idea that he had never expressed before . He quoted the Navi, Hoshea; "Return, Yisroel, to Hashem, your G-d because you have stumbled in your sin ." He asked that the Navi implies that the reason that Yisroel should return to Hashem is because they stumbled in sin - why is the stumbling in sin the reason that Yisroel should return to G-d? He answered by explaining that we know that however powerful evil is, the power of good is greater. Accordingly, the very extent to which Yisroel sinned is the proof that they have the power to do teshuva, because however powerful a person's yetser hara, their yetser tov is greater. Based on this, Rav Shach said, that if one man can destroy six million lives, then one man can save six million lives. He was clearly aroused to express this idea by the remarkable feats that Rav Weinberg had already performed. Rav Hillel added, that the man who caused so much destruction, Hitler, yemach shemo, was not a particularly talented or intelligent person and yet he was able to do so much harm. Therefore, each of us, no matter how ordinary we consider ourselves, have the potential to do more good than the evil that he perpetrated. How can we achieve this? By learning from Rav Noach and developing an Emuna and Bitachon that will strengthen us with the belief that we can achieve incredible feats if Hashem so wills it.
It seems difficult to aspire to the level of Emuna and Bitachon that Rav Noach Weinberg attained. However, his greatness in this and all areas did not come about as a result of his natural talent - it was a result of years of hard work in developing his relationship with Hashem. He constantly exhorted us to learn about and internalize the Six Constant Mitzvos, the Mitzvos that encapsulate a Jew's relationship with Hashem. An appropriate way of remembering him would perhaps be to listen to his teachings and strengthen ourselves in our relationship with Hashem through learning about these Mitzvos, beginning with Emuna . This is the key to achieving the level of proactive Bitachon that the Jews reached at Krias Yam Suf and that Rav Noach Weinberg epitomized throughout his life. May we all merit to learn from Rav Noach Weinberg and ensure that his dreams are fulfilled and that every Jew will return to his Father in Heaven.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH
After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential person of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential person of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.
Friday, March 12, 2010
HISHTADLUS IN RUCHNIUS - PEKUDEI
After the Avodas Hamishkan was completed the workmen could not erect the Mishkan because of its massive weight. Since Moshe Rabbeinu had not had a share in the actual work of the Mishkan, Hashem wanted him to have the honor of erecting it. Hashem told him to make the attempt and the Mishkan would stand on its own, and it would appear to the onlookers as if he put it up himself[1].
This incident poses a difficulty - it seems clear that just as all the builders of the Mishkan were rewarded for their work, so too Moshe Rabbeinu was surely rewarded for the actual hakamas Hamishkan - why is this the case, he did not actually do anything, Hashem performed the erecting Himself?! In reality we are only able to perform any mitzvo because Hashem enables us to do so - Hashem is constantly sustaining the world and every human being in it - without this siata dishmaya we would not be able to do anything. The only difference in the case of the erecting of the Mishkan is that it was an open miracle whereas every mitzvo that we perform is a hidden miracle. The reward that we receive is not because of the result but because of the effort that we make. Moshe Rabbein made the effort to erect the Mishkan, therefore he was rewarded as if he performed it himself.
Sifsei Chaim develops this theme further; he writes that we all realize that we do not have the ability to achieve anything in gashmius without Hashem. If that is so, then why do we do so much activity? After chet Adam haRishon, Hashem decreed that man must exert physical effort in order to survive - however “we must realise that, in reality we do not achieve anything, all of our actions are only the exertion of the necessary effort which is a fulfillment of the passuk “you will eat bread by the sweat of your brow.”[2] All of our work in earning our parnasa and other worldly activities are a result of this ‘gezeiras hishtadlus‘, we are required to expend such effort but we must recognize that ultimately it does not really achieve anything. However, we are less aware that the same is true even in the realm of ruchnius. We do have free will, which is the ability to decide whether we will choose good or bad, however, the final result is not in our control at all. For example, a person may expend great effort in buying a beautiful esrog, but when he comes to use it on Yom Tov he may drop the esrog and the pitom could break. We can make the decision to do the mitzva but only Hashem can actually enable us to completely fulfill it.
Based on the yesod that the gezeiras hishtadlus applies equally to gashmius and ruchnius, one may want to equate the two realms in another way: It is well known that bitachon is more important than hishtadlus in gashmius, and the more bitachon we have the more we will receive regardless of the hishtadlus that we put in. So too one may approach ruchnius with the same attitude - that the ikar avoda in ruchnius is bitachon and that hishtadlus is merely a secondary factor. However, Sifsei Chaim stresses that it is incorrect to totally equate ruchnius and gashmius in this regard - there is a crucial difference between the two: “In matters of gashmius, the required hishtadlus is a penalty that one must pay and it is not good to add to payment of the penalty [ie. one should minimize his hishtadlus as much as possible]. In contrast, in avodas Hashem he must do as much histhadlus as possible and strive with all his strength..”
This is a very important lesson; we generally recognize that bitachon is an essential aspect of avodas Hashem and that our own hishtadlus should be minimized as much as possible, however one may also have the same attitude in spiritual matters; he may limit his hishtadlus in ruchnius with the mistaken assumption that he can trust in Hashem to do the work for him - this is a serious mistake for, as Sifsei Chaim explains, in ruchnius there is no limit to how much effort one should expend. This idea is illustrated by the following story involving Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz zt”l. “As a teenager, Hertzl Shechter was invariably a few minutes late for Reb Shraga Feivel’s 9.00am Tanach shiur, and one day he received a notice that ‘the Boss’ wanted to speak to him. Shechter entered the room trembling. “Nu, Hertzl, when are you going to start coming on time?” Reb Shraga Feivel asked. Shifting uncomfortably in his seat, Shechter could manage nothing more than, “Im yirtzeh Hashem.” But Reb Shraga Feivel was not to be put off so easily. “Nein,” he began shaking his head, “not im yirtzeh Hashem, Im yirtzeh Hertzl - no, not if Hashem wants; rather if Hertzl wants.”[3] There are times when a person should not comfort himself with the fact that Hashem will ensure that everything runs smoothly, rather he must take the intiative himself.
If there is a misconception about the role of hishtadlus in one’s own personal avodas Hashem, then this is certainly the case with regard to the state of Klal Yisroel. One may easily be tempted to think that, no matter how bad the situation is, Hashem will not let it deteriorate indefinitely and that we can trust that eventually things will improve ‘mimayla’. Chazal teach us that this is a grave error; if people do not take action to resolve the problems of Klal Yisrael then they will only persist - Hashem requires us to bring about an improvement through our own efforts. This idea is expressed in the Mishna in Pirkei Avos: “In a place where there are no men hishtadel [strive] to be a man.”[4] Many commentaries explain this to mean that when there is a lack of people serving the needs of the Klal, one must stand up and fill the gap.[5] Rav Hirsch zt”l writes that in normal circumstances one should be humble and avoid publicity, however when people are needed to serve the klal then humility and tsnius are totally inappropriate, rather one should do whatever is necessary to improve the situation even if it involves receiving unwanted publicity.[6] It is noteworthy that the Mishna chose to use the word, ‘histhadel’ when it could have simply said ‘in a place where there are no men be a man.” The reason for this is that the word, ‘hishtadel’ implies great effort; the Mishna is teaching us that it is not enough to merely ‘try’ to help the community, rather, one must exert great effort into the task at hand.
The Alter of Novardok stressed the need for such exertion in the battle to uphold the Torah. “When a person becomes aware of as grievous a failing within society as its present educational structure, which has taken such a tremendous toll on our youth - how much must he summon up all of his powers to guard the breach, remove the impediment and raise up the standard of truth…. there is no alternative but to rouse ourselves from our slumber, consider the dangers which confront us and go out with energy and drive, and use all our talents and sensitivities to do all that we are able.”[7] One may argue that there is a great limit to what a single person can achieve even if he expends much effort: The Alter seems to have thought differently: He once said that, “if a person works as hard for the benefit of the public as he works for the benefit of a single member of his family, he could found a hundred yeshivas!”[8]
A common question that non-observant Jews ask is ‘why did G-d let the Holocaust happen’? Of course, this is an issue that cannot be explained easily. However, there is another question that can help answer it; ‘Why did man let the Holocaust happen?’ Hashem created the world and He constantly oversees it, and yet he has given man control of the world - man has the capability to build it or destroy it, it is the action of man that leads to pain and suffering, not G-d.
Throughout his life, Moshe Rabbeinu was willing to extend great effort to fulfill the Ratson Hashem - as a result Hashem gave him the ability to achieve superhuman results such as lifting the beams of the Mishkan. We can learn from this that all Hashem requires is that we extend the effort, the results are in Hashem’s hands.
[1] Rashi, Pekudey, 39:33,
[2] Sifsei Chaim, Midos v’Avodas Hashem, 2nd Chelek, p.24.
[3] Rosenblum, Reb Shraga Feivel, p.175.
[4] Avos 2:6
[5] See Rashi, Bartenura, Tiferes Yisroel, Mili d’Avos, Rav Hirsch on Avos.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Madreigos Haadam, Maamer Mezakeh es harabim, Ch.1 p227..
[8] Zaitchik, Sparks of Mussar, p.113.
Labels:
Bitachon,
effort,
hishtadlus,
Pekudei,
Pekudey
Sunday, January 31, 2010
YISRO AND RAV NOACH WEINBERG ZT"L
"I am the Lord, Your G-d, who took you out of the land of Mitzrayim from being slaves.[1]"
The First of the Ten Commandments is the Mitzva of Emuna, to believe in the one G-d as the first cause of all existence, who constantly creates and sustains all of creation[2]. There is another fundamental concept that is connected to Emuna, that of Bitachon, trust in G-d. Is trusting in G-d a part of the Mitzva of Emuna or is it a separate concept that is not included in any specific Mitzva? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Bitachon is not separate at all, rather it is the natural outgrowth of genuine Emuna; The obligation to have Emuna requires that one believe in the fundamental tenets about G-d such as First Cause and Hashgacha (Divine Providence), whereas Bitachon is applying that belief in practice. If a person cannot do this then it reveals that his Emuna is severely lacking. The Chazon Ish gives an example of Reuven who is constantly expressing his Emuna and how everything that he has is from Hashem; he proclaims his recognition that his livelihood emanates purely from Hashem and that there is no need for anxiety. However, when someone else opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future. Reuven's Emuna seemed to be strong when everything was going smoothly, but when he was put to the test he failed to show sufficient Bitachon. This in turn demonstrates that his Emuna was never genuine[3].
We learn from the Chazon Ish that an essential aspect of Emuna is bitachon, which means applying one's Emuna to real life situations. The Nesivos Shalom zt"l develops our understanding of Bitachon by explaining that there are two levels of Bitachon. There is an inactive kind of Bitachon and there is a proactive Bitachon. Inactive bitachon applies when one finds himself in a difficult situation in which there is nothing he can do - in such circumstances his Avoda is to trust that everything that happens will ultimately be for the good. Proactive bitachon becomes necessary when a person is required to do something that demonstrates his trust in Hashem. He cites the example of Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds); Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were crying out to Hashem to save them from Pharaoh's advancing army. In response, Hashem told them to stop praying and to go into the sea. The Nesivos Shalom explains that in order for the Jewish people to merit Hashem transcending nature through Krias Yam Suf they had to demonstrate a trust in Hashem that transcended the normal laws of nature. They had to believe that if the Ratson Hashem (will of Hashem) was for them to cross the sea then they should trust that He had the ability to enable them to do so, even if they had no idea how it was possible. Accordingly, their stepping into the raging sea before it split was a display of proactive bitachon that earned them the right to the great miracle of Krias Yam Suf[4].
By combining the lessons of the Chazon Ish and Nesivos Shalom we conclude that genuine Emuna can only manifest itself in a person who is willing to act with an unswerving trust in G-d; a belief that if Ratson Hashem dictates that he act in a certain way, then he can and must take the required action, and that Hashem will enable him to succeed in whatever he endeavors to do. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l epitomized this attribute to a great degree. He is most well-known for his incredible feats in kiruv rechokim (outreach) however, as one of his closest friends[5] pointed out, all his accomplishments emanated directly from his deep Emuna and Bitachon.
I merited to learn in Yeshivas Aish HaTorah for four years, and in that time I was fortunate to experience Rav Weinberg's greatness first-hand. I never forget how he made a bracha - he spoke to Hashem as if He was really in front of Him, a demonstration of 'shivisi Hashem kenegdi tamid' (I constantly place Hashem in front of me)[6]. When he talked about trusting in G-d, it deeply influenced his listeners, not because he said anything so unusual, but because he lived such Bitachon and the fact that he internalized it so greatly enabled it to rub off on others just by observing him.
Because his Emuna was so genuine he was able to apply it in practice and thereby express the high level of proactive Bitachon that the Nesivos Shalom described[7]. He used to say that if we see problems in the world there is no reason that we shouldn't go out and tackle them if we believe that Hashem so desires. Hashem is willing and able to help us achieve his Ratson even if it demands superhuman achievements. If we demonstrate proactive Bitachon then Hashem could make miracles happen for us. This is exactly what took place in Rav Weinberg's life. At a time when kiruv was virtually unheard of, he saw a dire need to bring back the countless Jews who knew nothing of Torah observance. Many people mocked his dreams as being completely unrealistic and called him a fool. Nevertheless, his conviction that he was fulfilling Ratson Hashem enabled him to overcome numerous setbacks and perform miracles in creating a movement that saved thousands upon thousands of unaffiliated Jews from begin totally lost to Judaism[8]. His son, Rav Hillel Weinberg Shlita described how he began his quest with three young men in a small room in Kirayt Sanz. No-one could have imagined how those humble beginnings could culminate in Aish HaTorah and its offshoots. No-one, that is, except for Rav Noach himself; those closest to him testify that he genuinely believed that he would bring Moshiach through his efforts - his extensive achievements were small in his eyes because he knew that Hashem wanted so much more. At the funeral, his son, Rav Hillel, told us what Rav Weinberg would tell us if he were standing in front of us. He would say that we could be bigger than him, we could be as big as Moshe Rabbeinu! Chazal's words to this effect were not some vague saying, rather they were real and should be taken seriously.
I heard an incredible story about how Rav Weinberg put his Emuna into practice; At the shiva his daughter told over that once a chess champion came to Aish, learned for a few days, and decided to leave. Rav Noach challenged him to a game of chess, on the basis that if the student won, he could leave, but if Rav Noach won, he would stay. Rav Noach won. When asked how he could have had the audacity to propose such a deal, he said that he knew Hashem wanted the young man to stay, so he trusted that Hashem would make him win[9].
It is appropriate to end with one of his oft-told stories, one that I have discussed before, but one that should never fail to arouse us. Many years ago, Rav Shach zt"l came to Aish HaTorah for a bris. Upon seeing numerous baalei teshuva, people who had come from the most distant backgrounds, Rav Shach told over an idea that he had never expressed before[10]. He quoted the Navi, Hoshea; "Return, Yisroel, to Hashem, your G-d because you have stumbled in your sin[11]." He asked that the Navi implies that the reason that Yisroel should return to Hashem is because they stumbled in sin - why is the stumbling in sin the reason that Yisroel should return to G-d? He answered by explaining that we know that however powerful evil is, the power of good is greater. Accordingly, the very extent to which Yisroel sinned is the proof that they have the power to do teshuva, because however powerful a person's yetser hara, their yetser tov is greater. Based on this, Rav Shach said, that if one man can destroy six million lives, then one man can save six million lives. He was clearly aroused to express this idea by the remarkable feats that Rav Weinberg had already performed. Rav Hillel added, that the man who caused so much destruction, Hitler, yemach shemo, was not a particularly talented or intelligent person and yet he was able to do so much harm. Therefore, each of us, no matter how ordinary we consider ourselves, have the potential to do more good than the evil that he perpetrated. How can we achieve this? By learning from Rav Noach and developing an Emuna and Bitachon that will strengthen us with the belief that we can achieve incredible feats if Hashem so wills it.
It seems difficult to aspire to the level of Emuna and Bitachon that Rav Noach Weinberg attained. However, his greatness in this and all areas did not come about as a result of his natural talent - it was a result of years of hard work in developing his relationship with Hashem. He constantly exhorted us to learn about and internalize the Six Constant Mitzvos, the Mitzvos that encapsulate a Jew's relationship with Hashem. An appropriate way of remembering him would perhaps be to listen to his teachings and strengthen ourselves in our relationship with Hashem through learning about these Mitzvos, beginning with Emuna[12]. This is the key to achieving the level of proactive Bitachon that the Jews reached at Krias Yam Suf and that Rav Noach Weinberg epitomized throughout his life. May we all merit to learn from Rav Noach Weinberg and ensure that his dreams are fulfilled and that every Jew will return to his Father in Heaven.
[1] Yisro, 20:2.
[2] See Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvos.
[3] See Emuna and Bitachon of the Chazon Ish, Ch.2, Part 2.
[4] Nesivos Shalom, Parshas Beshalach.
[5] Rav Chaim Uri Freund, Rosh Yeshivas Toldos Aharon.
[6] See Rema, Orach Chaim, Simun 1, sif 1.
[7] Incidentally, Rav Noach was a great-grandson of the first Slonimer Rebbe, the Beis Avraham, and a cousin with the Nesivos Shalom.
[8] Included amongst his achievements are; His establishment of the thriving Aish HaTorah Yeshiva in the Old City opposite the Western Wall; over 25 branches throughout the world spanning five continents, including places such as Moscow, Australia and Chile; the Fellowships program which have brought 10,000 secular Jews on inspiring trips to Israel; the Discovery Program which teaches the evidence of the validity of Torah to skeptical Jews, this is attended by nearly 10,000 people each year; the Aish HaTorah website which has 260,000 subscribers, and receives over 2 million hits per month, making it the largest Jewish website in the world.
[9] Heard from Rbsn Gila Manolson.
[10] This fact was heard directly from Rav Weinberg himself.
[11] Hoshea, 14:2.
[12] Here are suggested sources to begin learning about the 'shesh mitzvos': The Sefer HaChinuch is the source of the concept that there are Six Mitzvos that a person is constantly obligated to fulfill. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l in the second Biur Halacha of Mishna Berurah, discusses the importance of these Mitzvos. In addition excellent shiurim by Rav Weinberg himself and ybl"c, my Rebbe Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita, can be obtained in the Aish HaTorah tape library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)