During its outline of the various korbanos (sacrifices), the Torah forbids bringing offerings of leaven and honey . It then immediately tells us that, in contrast, we must include salt in all the meal-offerings. What is the difference between salt with honey and leaven, to the extent that salt is obligatory, whilst the other two substances are forbidden?! The commentaries point out that there is great symbolism in the korbanos, and that each of these three substances represent various character traits – by analyzing their symbolism we can answer this question.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
Showing posts with label Chasam Sofer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chasam Sofer. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Thursday, July 14, 2011
THE VALUE OF LIFE - MATTOS
“And Bilaam the son of Beor they killed with the sword. ” It would seem that the death of Bilaam Harasha was a punishment for his efforts to harm Klal Yisroel in the desert. The Gemara, however, cites a far earlier crime that he committed as the reason for his untimely death. “Three were in that aitsa [of how Pharaoh should treat the Jewish people], Bilaam, Iyov and Yisro: Bilaam advised [to harm them] and was killed; Iyov was silent and was judged with yissurim; Yisro escaped and was zocheh that his descendants should sit in the lishkas hagazis. ” Bilaam was punished with death at the hands of Klal Yisroel because of his evil advice to Pharaoh many years earlier. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l points out that this Gemara poses a great difficulty: It is clear that Bilaam deserved a far greater punishment than Iyov, because Iyov didn’t commit an active crime, rather he remained silent. Yet, it would seem that Iyov’s onesh was far greater than that of Bilaam. Whilst Bilaam suffered a quick death, Iyov had to endure suffering that no other man has ever experienced. How can this be understood?
Rav Shmuelevitz answers that life itself is the greatest gift possible and that any pain, no matter how bad, is infinitely greater than death. Consequently, Bilaam’s onesh was far more severe than Iyov’s - Iyov still had the gift of life, Bilaam lost it forever. Rav Leib Chasman zt”l offers an excellent mashal to help understand this concept; imagine a man wins a huge prize on the lottery, and at that every moment, one of his jugs breaks. Would this minor inconvenience bother him at all at this time of great joy?! The happiness that he experiences due to the lottery prize nullifies any feelings of pain that come in everyday life. So too, a person should have the same attitude in life - his joy at the mere fact of his existence should be so great that it should render any difficulties as meaningless, even sufferings as great as those that Iyov endured. For they are nothing in comparison with the wonderful gift of life .
Why is the gift of life so precious? The Mishna in Pirkei Avos can help answer this question: “One moment of repentance and good deeds in Olam Hazeh is greater than all of Chayei Olam Haba, and one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Habah is greater than all of Chayei Olam Hazeh. ” This Mishna seems to contradict itself - it begins by stating that Olam Hazeh is incomparably greater than Olam Haba and ends by saying the opposite! The commentaries explain that the two parts of the Mishna are focussing on different aspects. The second part of the Mishna is comparing the pleasure that one can attain in the two ‘worlds‘. In that sense, Olam Haba is infinitely greater than Olam Hazeh - there is no earthly pleasure that can begin to compare with one moment of pleasure in Olam Haba. The pleasure there is that of connecting to Hashem, the Source of all creation - all other pleasures are meaningless and transitory in comparison. However, the first part of the Mishna is focussing on the ability to create more of a connection to HaShem. In that aspect Olam Hazeh is infinitely greater because it is the place of free will in which we have the ability to choose to become closer to HaShem by performing mitzvos. In Olam Haba there is no more opportunity to increase the connection to Him. We can now understand why life is so precious - each moment is a priceless opportunity to attain more closeness to HaShem, the ultimate pleasure that will accompany us for eternity in Olam Haba. The Gra expressed the value of Olam Hazeh on his deathbed. He held his Tsitsit and cried, saying, “how precious is Olam Hazeh that for a few prutot it is possible to gain merit for the mitzvo of Tsitsit and to see the ‘pney hashechina’, whereas in Olam Haba it is impossible to gain anything.”
This idea is also demonstrated by the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara tells of Elazar Ben Durdaya, an inveterate sinner. On one occasion, when he was about to commit a terrible sin, he was told that even if he repented his teshuva will never be accepted. This ‘sentence’ effected him so deeply that he did repent and he died in a state of perfect teshuva. As his soul left him, a Bas Kol came out and said that Rabbi Elazar Ben Durdaya is ready to go into Olam Haba. The Gemara then says that when Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this maaseh he cried out, “there are those that earn Olam Haba in many years and there are those that earn it in one moment.” The commentaries wonder why Rebbi was so upset by this maaseh - he, a person who had struggled for many years in Avodas Hashem, was surely destined for a far greater portion in Olam Haba than someone who earned Olam Haba for one moment of inspired teshuva!? Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l answers in the name of his father, that Rebbi was crying because he saw the power of one moment in Olam Hazeh; in one moment a person can earn infinite bliss, therefore he was crying at any failure to utilise each moment in the best possible way. Each moment is an incredible opportunity at creating more Olam Haba.
The Chofetz Chaim applies this concept to halacha . He brings the Sefer Hachinuch who writes that there are six mitzvos that are constantly incumbent upon man and that every second throughout a person’s life a person can fulfil them by merely thinking about them. Consequently, there is no limit to the reward for performing these mitvzos. This can also help explain why Jewish law is so against ending a person’s life prematurely, even if he is unable to live a normal life. Rav Zev Leff Shlita points out that even a person in a coma may well be able to perform numerous mitzvos by his thought. He can fulfil the Mitzvos that only require thought and moreover, Chazal tell us that if a person has a desire to perform a mitzvo but is prevented from doing so, he nevertheless receives reward as if he did indeed fulfil the mitzvo. Therefore, every second more of life is a great opportunity to create more Olam Haba.
We have seen how every second of life is infinitely precious. Yet we often think that little can be achieved in a few minutes here or there. However, experience has proven differently. The Chasam Sofer was once asked how he became a Gadol, he answered that he became a Gadol in five minutes. He meant that by utilising every available moment he was able to learn so much more. Rav Moshe Feinstein once had a very large smile on his face - he explained that he had just completed Shas. This was not a novel achievement for him, he was known to have finished Shas dozens of times, but this siyum was different. It comprised of his learning in the gaps at Chasunas; by consistently learning small amounts he eventually learnt all of Shas this way. We too can use small amounts of time to attain surprisingly great achievements in learning. There are people who learn one Mishna a day, this seems a somewhat trivial amount, but after years of consistently doing this they have completed whole Sedarim of Mishnayos. Another important benefit of small sedarim is that one can use them to learn areas of Torah that are not normally given sufficient attention. One Talmid Chacham in Eretz Yisroel is well-known for his expertise in all areas of Torah, including Navi, Hashkafa, and Mussar, as well as his all encompassing grasp of Shas and poskim. When asked how he managed to learn such a wide array of subjects he explained that he had many small sedarim - by learning Maharal or Navi for ten minutes a day, he gradually attained a wide knowledge in them. Similarly, Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita often emphasizes that in order to know Navi, one need not devote hours each day to it. He attained his expertise in it by learning it for a few minutes each night. Nowadays there are many ways in which one can utilise small sedarim - there are books such as ’A Lesson a Day’ and ’Praying with Fire’ which enable people to learn small but significant amounts of highly important subjects each day.
We have seen how precious the gift of life is and the great value of every moment of life. Life is full of challenges and there are times when a person can feel despondent - but if he remembers that life itself is cause for joy then he can overcome any negative feelings: When the Alter of Novardok first started to build yeshivas, he was unsuccessful. He built yeshivas and they collapsed, he organised groups and they disintegrated. In addition, he and his approach were attacked by opponents. At that time he came to Kelm and his Rebbi, The Alter of Kelm noticed he looked sad and understood why. That Motsei Shabbos when a group had gathered to hear his shmuese, he stood at the podium and remained silent for a very, very long time. Then he banged his hand on the shtender and thundered, “It is enough for a living being that he is alive.” Over and over he repeated his words until finally he told the group to doven Maariv. “That session” said the Alter of Novardok “dispelled my gloom and cleared my thoughts. ” The Alter of Kelm taught the Alter of Novardok a priceless lesson - as long as one is alive, there is nothing to complain about. May we all be zocheh to appreciate the gift of life and use it to its fullest.
Rav Shmuelevitz answers that life itself is the greatest gift possible and that any pain, no matter how bad, is infinitely greater than death. Consequently, Bilaam’s onesh was far more severe than Iyov’s - Iyov still had the gift of life, Bilaam lost it forever. Rav Leib Chasman zt”l offers an excellent mashal to help understand this concept; imagine a man wins a huge prize on the lottery, and at that every moment, one of his jugs breaks. Would this minor inconvenience bother him at all at this time of great joy?! The happiness that he experiences due to the lottery prize nullifies any feelings of pain that come in everyday life. So too, a person should have the same attitude in life - his joy at the mere fact of his existence should be so great that it should render any difficulties as meaningless, even sufferings as great as those that Iyov endured. For they are nothing in comparison with the wonderful gift of life .
Why is the gift of life so precious? The Mishna in Pirkei Avos can help answer this question: “One moment of repentance and good deeds in Olam Hazeh is greater than all of Chayei Olam Haba, and one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Habah is greater than all of Chayei Olam Hazeh. ” This Mishna seems to contradict itself - it begins by stating that Olam Hazeh is incomparably greater than Olam Haba and ends by saying the opposite! The commentaries explain that the two parts of the Mishna are focussing on different aspects. The second part of the Mishna is comparing the pleasure that one can attain in the two ‘worlds‘. In that sense, Olam Haba is infinitely greater than Olam Hazeh - there is no earthly pleasure that can begin to compare with one moment of pleasure in Olam Haba. The pleasure there is that of connecting to Hashem, the Source of all creation - all other pleasures are meaningless and transitory in comparison. However, the first part of the Mishna is focussing on the ability to create more of a connection to HaShem. In that aspect Olam Hazeh is infinitely greater because it is the place of free will in which we have the ability to choose to become closer to HaShem by performing mitzvos. In Olam Haba there is no more opportunity to increase the connection to Him. We can now understand why life is so precious - each moment is a priceless opportunity to attain more closeness to HaShem, the ultimate pleasure that will accompany us for eternity in Olam Haba. The Gra expressed the value of Olam Hazeh on his deathbed. He held his Tsitsit and cried, saying, “how precious is Olam Hazeh that for a few prutot it is possible to gain merit for the mitzvo of Tsitsit and to see the ‘pney hashechina’, whereas in Olam Haba it is impossible to gain anything.”
This idea is also demonstrated by the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara tells of Elazar Ben Durdaya, an inveterate sinner. On one occasion, when he was about to commit a terrible sin, he was told that even if he repented his teshuva will never be accepted. This ‘sentence’ effected him so deeply that he did repent and he died in a state of perfect teshuva. As his soul left him, a Bas Kol came out and said that Rabbi Elazar Ben Durdaya is ready to go into Olam Haba. The Gemara then says that when Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this maaseh he cried out, “there are those that earn Olam Haba in many years and there are those that earn it in one moment.” The commentaries wonder why Rebbi was so upset by this maaseh - he, a person who had struggled for many years in Avodas Hashem, was surely destined for a far greater portion in Olam Haba than someone who earned Olam Haba for one moment of inspired teshuva!? Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l answers in the name of his father, that Rebbi was crying because he saw the power of one moment in Olam Hazeh; in one moment a person can earn infinite bliss, therefore he was crying at any failure to utilise each moment in the best possible way. Each moment is an incredible opportunity at creating more Olam Haba.
The Chofetz Chaim applies this concept to halacha . He brings the Sefer Hachinuch who writes that there are six mitzvos that are constantly incumbent upon man and that every second throughout a person’s life a person can fulfil them by merely thinking about them. Consequently, there is no limit to the reward for performing these mitvzos. This can also help explain why Jewish law is so against ending a person’s life prematurely, even if he is unable to live a normal life. Rav Zev Leff Shlita points out that even a person in a coma may well be able to perform numerous mitzvos by his thought. He can fulfil the Mitzvos that only require thought and moreover, Chazal tell us that if a person has a desire to perform a mitzvo but is prevented from doing so, he nevertheless receives reward as if he did indeed fulfil the mitzvo. Therefore, every second more of life is a great opportunity to create more Olam Haba.
We have seen how every second of life is infinitely precious. Yet we often think that little can be achieved in a few minutes here or there. However, experience has proven differently. The Chasam Sofer was once asked how he became a Gadol, he answered that he became a Gadol in five minutes. He meant that by utilising every available moment he was able to learn so much more. Rav Moshe Feinstein once had a very large smile on his face - he explained that he had just completed Shas. This was not a novel achievement for him, he was known to have finished Shas dozens of times, but this siyum was different. It comprised of his learning in the gaps at Chasunas; by consistently learning small amounts he eventually learnt all of Shas this way. We too can use small amounts of time to attain surprisingly great achievements in learning. There are people who learn one Mishna a day, this seems a somewhat trivial amount, but after years of consistently doing this they have completed whole Sedarim of Mishnayos. Another important benefit of small sedarim is that one can use them to learn areas of Torah that are not normally given sufficient attention. One Talmid Chacham in Eretz Yisroel is well-known for his expertise in all areas of Torah, including Navi, Hashkafa, and Mussar, as well as his all encompassing grasp of Shas and poskim. When asked how he managed to learn such a wide array of subjects he explained that he had many small sedarim - by learning Maharal or Navi for ten minutes a day, he gradually attained a wide knowledge in them. Similarly, Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita often emphasizes that in order to know Navi, one need not devote hours each day to it. He attained his expertise in it by learning it for a few minutes each night. Nowadays there are many ways in which one can utilise small sedarim - there are books such as ’A Lesson a Day’ and ’Praying with Fire’ which enable people to learn small but significant amounts of highly important subjects each day.
We have seen how precious the gift of life is and the great value of every moment of life. Life is full of challenges and there are times when a person can feel despondent - but if he remembers that life itself is cause for joy then he can overcome any negative feelings: When the Alter of Novardok first started to build yeshivas, he was unsuccessful. He built yeshivas and they collapsed, he organised groups and they disintegrated. In addition, he and his approach were attacked by opponents. At that time he came to Kelm and his Rebbi, The Alter of Kelm noticed he looked sad and understood why. That Motsei Shabbos when a group had gathered to hear his shmuese, he stood at the podium and remained silent for a very, very long time. Then he banged his hand on the shtender and thundered, “It is enough for a living being that he is alive.” Over and over he repeated his words until finally he told the group to doven Maariv. “That session” said the Alter of Novardok “dispelled my gloom and cleared my thoughts. ” The Alter of Kelm taught the Alter of Novardok a priceless lesson - as long as one is alive, there is nothing to complain about. May we all be zocheh to appreciate the gift of life and use it to its fullest.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
THE BENEFIT OF RELATIONSHIPS - SHEMINI
Parshas Shemini gives the account of the tragic deaths of Aaron’s two eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu. At the climax of the inauguration of the Mishkan (Tabernacle), the two men entered the Holy of Holies and brought their own incense without having been commanded to do so. After they entered, a fire came forth and consumed them. Chazal offer several explanations as to the exact nature of their mistake: The Chasam Sofer brings a Medrash that offers three reasons as to their sin: They made a decision without consulting their teacher, Moshe Rabbeinu; they entered the Mishkan intoxicated with wine; they did not get married or have children. These three reasons seem to be totally unrelated to each other however the Chasam Sofer explains that they all emanate from the same source.
He writes that the defining sin of the three was their choice to not get married and the consequence that they had no children. He explains that there are many Mitzvos that involve the necessity to ascribe honor to certain people, and, lehavdil, to HaShem. These include the Mitzvos to honor and fear one’s parents and teachers, and the various laws with regard to one’s conduct in the Mishkan. Having one’s own children plays a key role in helping a person to develop a far greater recognition of the importance of being respected. He experiences first-hand, the unpleasantness of not being properly respected by his children. This helps him internalize how important it is for him to honor his parents, teachers, and, most importantly, HaShem.
Nadav and Avihu chose not to get married and consequently remained childless. This hindered them from developing the proper appreciation of the need to honor others. As a result, they stumbled in other areas relating to honor: They failed to consult with their teacher Moshe, indicating a lacking in giving sufficient honor to their teacher. Likewise, their entering the Mishkan whilst intoxicated with wine indicated a failing in their honor for the Divine Presence that dwelled there. Thus, according to the Chasam Sofer, the defining sin of Nadav and Avihu was their reluctance to have children – this was responsible for their failing in the area of giving kavod (honor).
It is possible to add that some of the other sins enumerated in the Rabbinical sources also originate from a lacking in the trait of kavod. In Parshas Mishpatim, we are told Moshe, Nadav and Avihu, along with the seveny Elders, witnessed a sublime prophecy. The Torah writes that Nadav and Avihu, and the Elders “gazed at G-d, yet they ate and drank”. The Medrash Tanchuma, quoted by Rashi, says that Nadav and Avihu and the elders sinned grievously by eating and drinking whilst gazing at the sacred vision. They deserved to die at that moment, but G-d did not punish them right then, in order not to mar the joy of the giving of the Torah. Rather, their punishment was deferred till a later date. Again, it is clear that the key fault here was the lack of sufficient fear and honor for the Divine Presence.
Moreover, the most explicit reason for their sin is the Torah’s words that they offered up the incense even though they were never commanded to. The commentaries explain that in their great love for HaShem, they were inspired to enter the Mishkan themselves. Despite their lofty intentions, performing a service without being instructed to do so, also seems to constitute a lack of sufficient fear and honor for HaShem.
We have seen from the explanation of the Chasam Sofer that the failure of Nadav and Avihu to have children resulted in the various sins that Chazal find them culpable of, and that the root of these sins was a failing to give proper honor. This explanation sheds light on an important principle in Torah thought with regard to inter-personal relationships. In the secular world, it is common to view relationships from the perspective of, “what can I get out of this relationship”, whether it applies to marriage, child rearing, or friendships. In this way, the goal of the relationship is essentially selfish, and it perhaps explains why the institution of marriage and the parent-child relationships have been so damaged in recent generations. If a person’s goals in a relationship are primarily selfish, then his desires and hopes will inevitably clash with those of his partner or child, who has similarly selfish desires. Moreover, if a person perceives that getting married or having children will hinder his life enjoyment then he will refrain from them in his vain quest for pleasure and comfort.
The Chasam Sofer teaches us that one of the main purposes of having children is to enable a person to grow in ways that he would otherwise be unable to. The same applies to marriage and all other relationships. The Torah outlook is that a person should approach his relationships from a selfless point of view – focusing on how he can help the other members of the relationship, and how he can grow from the relationship into a better person. As in all aspects of life, our relationships are there to help us grow closer to HaShem, therefore it is essential that we strive to develop such relationships even if they may reduce our comfort level, because we understand that they will enable us to become complete people in a way that Nadav and Avihu never merited.
He writes that the defining sin of the three was their choice to not get married and the consequence that they had no children. He explains that there are many Mitzvos that involve the necessity to ascribe honor to certain people, and, lehavdil, to HaShem. These include the Mitzvos to honor and fear one’s parents and teachers, and the various laws with regard to one’s conduct in the Mishkan. Having one’s own children plays a key role in helping a person to develop a far greater recognition of the importance of being respected. He experiences first-hand, the unpleasantness of not being properly respected by his children. This helps him internalize how important it is for him to honor his parents, teachers, and, most importantly, HaShem.
Nadav and Avihu chose not to get married and consequently remained childless. This hindered them from developing the proper appreciation of the need to honor others. As a result, they stumbled in other areas relating to honor: They failed to consult with their teacher Moshe, indicating a lacking in giving sufficient honor to their teacher. Likewise, their entering the Mishkan whilst intoxicated with wine indicated a failing in their honor for the Divine Presence that dwelled there. Thus, according to the Chasam Sofer, the defining sin of Nadav and Avihu was their reluctance to have children – this was responsible for their failing in the area of giving kavod (honor).
It is possible to add that some of the other sins enumerated in the Rabbinical sources also originate from a lacking in the trait of kavod. In Parshas Mishpatim, we are told Moshe, Nadav and Avihu, along with the seveny Elders, witnessed a sublime prophecy. The Torah writes that Nadav and Avihu, and the Elders “gazed at G-d, yet they ate and drank”. The Medrash Tanchuma, quoted by Rashi, says that Nadav and Avihu and the elders sinned grievously by eating and drinking whilst gazing at the sacred vision. They deserved to die at that moment, but G-d did not punish them right then, in order not to mar the joy of the giving of the Torah. Rather, their punishment was deferred till a later date. Again, it is clear that the key fault here was the lack of sufficient fear and honor for the Divine Presence.
Moreover, the most explicit reason for their sin is the Torah’s words that they offered up the incense even though they were never commanded to. The commentaries explain that in their great love for HaShem, they were inspired to enter the Mishkan themselves. Despite their lofty intentions, performing a service without being instructed to do so, also seems to constitute a lack of sufficient fear and honor for HaShem.
We have seen from the explanation of the Chasam Sofer that the failure of Nadav and Avihu to have children resulted in the various sins that Chazal find them culpable of, and that the root of these sins was a failing to give proper honor. This explanation sheds light on an important principle in Torah thought with regard to inter-personal relationships. In the secular world, it is common to view relationships from the perspective of, “what can I get out of this relationship”, whether it applies to marriage, child rearing, or friendships. In this way, the goal of the relationship is essentially selfish, and it perhaps explains why the institution of marriage and the parent-child relationships have been so damaged in recent generations. If a person’s goals in a relationship are primarily selfish, then his desires and hopes will inevitably clash with those of his partner or child, who has similarly selfish desires. Moreover, if a person perceives that getting married or having children will hinder his life enjoyment then he will refrain from them in his vain quest for pleasure and comfort.
The Chasam Sofer teaches us that one of the main purposes of having children is to enable a person to grow in ways that he would otherwise be unable to. The same applies to marriage and all other relationships. The Torah outlook is that a person should approach his relationships from a selfless point of view – focusing on how he can help the other members of the relationship, and how he can grow from the relationship into a better person. As in all aspects of life, our relationships are there to help us grow closer to HaShem, therefore it is essential that we strive to develop such relationships even if they may reduce our comfort level, because we understand that they will enable us to become complete people in a way that Nadav and Avihu never merited.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
THE RIGHT KIND OF JEALOUSY - VAYIKRA
During its outline of the various korbanos (sacrifices), the Torah forbids bringing offerings of leaven and honey . It then immediately tells us that, in contrast, we must include salt in all the meal-offerings. What is the difference between salt with honey and leaven, to the extent that salt is obligatory, whilst the other two substances are forbidden?! The commentaries point out that there is great symbolism in the korbanos, and that each of these three substances represent various character traits – by analyzing their symbolism we can answer this question.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
THE VALUE OF THE TABERNACLE - PEKUDEI
“These are the reckonings of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony, which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding. The labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar, son of Aaron the Kohen. Betzalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Yehudah, did everything that HaShem commanded Moshe.”
The Parsha begins with a brief description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the people who were involved in its construction and service. The Seforno writes that the Torah is teaching us a significant point with this introduction. The Mishkan and its accessories were never destroyed, captured or desecrated. In contrast, both the Temples were subject to desecration and destruction. The Seforno explains that the first two verses in the Parsha are giving four reasons behind the elevated nature of the Mishkan. The first is in the words; “‘the Tabernacle of Testimony”. This, the Seforno explains refers to the two Tablets that Moshe received on Mount Sinai. These are indicative of the incredible spirituality that dwelt in the Tabernacle. The verse continues; “which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding.” Since Moshe arranged the building of the Mishkan, it benefitted from his personal majesty. The third aspect contributing to the holiness of the Mishkan was that, “the labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar”. Issamar was also a man of great stature. And finally, the second verse informs us that Betzalel, also a great man, with great lineage, built the Mishkan.
The Seforno then contrasts this with the people involved in the building of the Temples. The first Temple was arranged by the righteous Shlomo HaMelech, however, the workers were non-Jews from Tsur. Since the Temple was not built by righteous people, it was subject to corrosion and therefore needed to be maintained, unlike the Tabernacle. Moreover, because of its lower level of holiness it did ultimately fall into the hands of our enemies and was destroyed. The second Temple was of an even lower level of holiness; the Tablets were not there, and it was arranged by Koresh (Cyrus), the Persian King. Accordingly, it too fell foul of our enemies and was destroyed.
Three verses later, the Torah tells us the total value of all the jewelry that was given for the building of the Tabernacle. The Seforno on this verse, continuing in his theme from the earlier verses, notes that the total material value of the Tabernacle was far less than that of both Temples, both of which were incredibly beautiful and expensive buildings. And yet, unlike the Temples, the humble Tabernacle continually had the Divine Presence within it. The Seforno concludes that this teaches us that the holiness of a building is not defined by its material value and beauty, rather by the spiritual level of the people who were involved it its construction. In a similar vein, the explanation of the Seforno teaches us that the Torah outlook attributes true value towards physical objects or buildings in a very different way to that of the secular outlook. In the secular world, the external beauty or material value of the item define its ‘value’. In contrast, the Torah pays little heed to the external qualities rather the internal spirituality that was invested into the item determines its true value. Thus, the Tabernacle may have been far less physically impressive than the two Temples but its true value was far greater because of the intentions of the people who made it.
This concept is demonstrated by an interesting incident with regard to the Tabernacle that is described in Parshas Terumah and Vayakhel. Hashem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan. "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ." The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He offers an answer based on the Gemara that informs us how the people attained the shoham stones. The Gemara says that a great miracle occurred and shoham stones came down along with the manna. The Nesi’im (Princes) then donated these precious stones to the Mishkan.. One may think that the supernatural manner in which the stones came down would only add to their inherent material value. However, the Ohr HaChaim writes the exact opposite; since the stones came without any effort or financial loss, they are placed at the end of the list of items donated to the Mishkan. When the people gave all the other items, they were parting with their property and willingly undergoing financial loss for the sake of doing HaShem’s will. This places those items, including such mundane material as goat hair, on a higher level than the precious shoham stones who came through a miracle. This starkly demonstrates the Torah’s value system with regard to the physical world. External factors are completely subjugated to the internal – the intentions that went into the item determine its true value.
This concept has applications in Jewish law. The authorities discuss the status of an esrog that has been bruised by over-use. The Chasam Sofer zt”l rules that if the bruises came about because many people fulfilled the Mitzvo of shaking the four species with this esrog, then it is kosher. He writes further that the fact that the bruises came about through Mitzvos actually enhances its status, and constitutes a kind of hiddur (beautification) in and of itself. This Chasam Sofer teaches us a very telling lesson. When a person would see a beautiful, clean esrog that had never been used, and compares it to a bruised esrog that had been shaken by hundreds of people, he would consider the clean esrog to be of greater value. However, the Torah focuses far more on the internal value behind the esrog, than on its external beauty. In a similar vein, a man’s hat once became very dirty on Shabbos. He asked the Chazon Ish zt”l if he could clean it on Shabbos. The Chazon Ish answered that it was forbidden. The man argued that it is not Kavod Shabbos (the honor of Shabbos) to go around with a dirty hat. The Chazon Ish answered that since the hat is left dirty in honor of the sanctity of Shabbos, in this case, keeping it dirty constitutes honoring the Shabbos itself. Again, one may think that a dirty hat cheapens Shabbos due to its unkempt appearance, however, in truth the intentions that lay behind the dirt can turn this into a way of greatly honoring Shabbos!
We have seen how the Torah’s criterion for defining the true ‘value’ of the physical world is very different from that of the secular world. The effort, kavannah (intentions) and spiritual input into that item are the true determinants of its objective value, as opposed to its superficial appearance or monetary value. There is a very natural tendency for a person brought up in the Western world or with Western influences to focus on the externalities of the physical world, including the size of a house, the appearance of a car, etc. The sources above teach us that it is incumbent on each person to adjust his value system in line with the Torah outlook. .
The Parsha begins with a brief description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the people who were involved in its construction and service. The Seforno writes that the Torah is teaching us a significant point with this introduction. The Mishkan and its accessories were never destroyed, captured or desecrated. In contrast, both the Temples were subject to desecration and destruction. The Seforno explains that the first two verses in the Parsha are giving four reasons behind the elevated nature of the Mishkan. The first is in the words; “‘the Tabernacle of Testimony”. This, the Seforno explains refers to the two Tablets that Moshe received on Mount Sinai. These are indicative of the incredible spirituality that dwelt in the Tabernacle. The verse continues; “which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding.” Since Moshe arranged the building of the Mishkan, it benefitted from his personal majesty. The third aspect contributing to the holiness of the Mishkan was that, “the labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar”. Issamar was also a man of great stature. And finally, the second verse informs us that Betzalel, also a great man, with great lineage, built the Mishkan.
The Seforno then contrasts this with the people involved in the building of the Temples. The first Temple was arranged by the righteous Shlomo HaMelech, however, the workers were non-Jews from Tsur. Since the Temple was not built by righteous people, it was subject to corrosion and therefore needed to be maintained, unlike the Tabernacle. Moreover, because of its lower level of holiness it did ultimately fall into the hands of our enemies and was destroyed. The second Temple was of an even lower level of holiness; the Tablets were not there, and it was arranged by Koresh (Cyrus), the Persian King. Accordingly, it too fell foul of our enemies and was destroyed.
Three verses later, the Torah tells us the total value of all the jewelry that was given for the building of the Tabernacle. The Seforno on this verse, continuing in his theme from the earlier verses, notes that the total material value of the Tabernacle was far less than that of both Temples, both of which were incredibly beautiful and expensive buildings. And yet, unlike the Temples, the humble Tabernacle continually had the Divine Presence within it. The Seforno concludes that this teaches us that the holiness of a building is not defined by its material value and beauty, rather by the spiritual level of the people who were involved it its construction. In a similar vein, the explanation of the Seforno teaches us that the Torah outlook attributes true value towards physical objects or buildings in a very different way to that of the secular outlook. In the secular world, the external beauty or material value of the item define its ‘value’. In contrast, the Torah pays little heed to the external qualities rather the internal spirituality that was invested into the item determines its true value. Thus, the Tabernacle may have been far less physically impressive than the two Temples but its true value was far greater because of the intentions of the people who made it.
This concept is demonstrated by an interesting incident with regard to the Tabernacle that is described in Parshas Terumah and Vayakhel. Hashem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan. "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ." The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He offers an answer based on the Gemara that informs us how the people attained the shoham stones. The Gemara says that a great miracle occurred and shoham stones came down along with the manna. The Nesi’im (Princes) then donated these precious stones to the Mishkan.. One may think that the supernatural manner in which the stones came down would only add to their inherent material value. However, the Ohr HaChaim writes the exact opposite; since the stones came without any effort or financial loss, they are placed at the end of the list of items donated to the Mishkan. When the people gave all the other items, they were parting with their property and willingly undergoing financial loss for the sake of doing HaShem’s will. This places those items, including such mundane material as goat hair, on a higher level than the precious shoham stones who came through a miracle. This starkly demonstrates the Torah’s value system with regard to the physical world. External factors are completely subjugated to the internal – the intentions that went into the item determine its true value.
This concept has applications in Jewish law. The authorities discuss the status of an esrog that has been bruised by over-use. The Chasam Sofer zt”l rules that if the bruises came about because many people fulfilled the Mitzvo of shaking the four species with this esrog, then it is kosher. He writes further that the fact that the bruises came about through Mitzvos actually enhances its status, and constitutes a kind of hiddur (beautification) in and of itself. This Chasam Sofer teaches us a very telling lesson. When a person would see a beautiful, clean esrog that had never been used, and compares it to a bruised esrog that had been shaken by hundreds of people, he would consider the clean esrog to be of greater value. However, the Torah focuses far more on the internal value behind the esrog, than on its external beauty. In a similar vein, a man’s hat once became very dirty on Shabbos. He asked the Chazon Ish zt”l if he could clean it on Shabbos. The Chazon Ish answered that it was forbidden. The man argued that it is not Kavod Shabbos (the honor of Shabbos) to go around with a dirty hat. The Chazon Ish answered that since the hat is left dirty in honor of the sanctity of Shabbos, in this case, keeping it dirty constitutes honoring the Shabbos itself. Again, one may think that a dirty hat cheapens Shabbos due to its unkempt appearance, however, in truth the intentions that lay behind the dirt can turn this into a way of greatly honoring Shabbos!
We have seen how the Torah’s criterion for defining the true ‘value’ of the physical world is very different from that of the secular world. The effort, kavannah (intentions) and spiritual input into that item are the true determinants of its objective value, as opposed to its superficial appearance or monetary value. There is a very natural tendency for a person brought up in the Western world or with Western influences to focus on the externalities of the physical world, including the size of a house, the appearance of a car, etc. The sources above teach us that it is incumbent on each person to adjust his value system in line with the Torah outlook. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
