Showing posts with label Ki Seitzei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ki Seitzei. Show all posts
Sunday, September 4, 2011
MAKING THE MOST OF OUR STRENGTHS - KI SEITZEI -
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even their tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, to eternity. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt, and because he hired against you Bilaam Ben Beor, of Pethor, Aram Naharaim, to curse you. ”
The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!
The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.
There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.
We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.
Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.
The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.
We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.
THE POWER OF HABIT - KI SEITZEI
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem …. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt. ” The men of Ammon and Moav displayed a great failing in the mida of chesed when they refused to give the Jewish people bread and water. This is one of the reasons that they can never marry into the Jewish people. The Maylitz Yosher notes that their failure to be gracious hosts is all the more difficult to understand when we bear in mind their patriarch - Lot. Lot excelled in hachnasas orchim (hosting people) to the extent that he risked his life to look after the angels who came to Sodom. In light of this, how is it possible that in a few generations this mida completely disappeared and his descendants displayed such indifference? He answers that if a person does chesed because of an internal recognition of its importance and a genuine desire to help others, then it will become ingrained in his descendants for many generations. However, if the chesed comes from habit then it will not be internalized by future generations. Lot did indeed excel in chesed, however this was only because he was brought up in the home of Avraham Avinu. He did not attain an internal recognition of the importance of chesed, it was merely a course of habit for him. Consequently actions such as those of Lot that are not internalized into a person’s soul do not last .
There are two important lessons that can derived from the explanation of the Maylitz Yosher: Firstly, it reveals one of the reasons for the all too common occurrences of youngsters brought up in observant homes leaving the path of Torah. If their parents keep the mitzvos, but their observance comes not out of internalization of what it means to be an Eved Hashem, but out of habit, then the children will surely pick up their parents attitude to mitzvos. At best, they will keep the mitzvos out of rote (which of course is highly undesirable) but at worst, the mitzvos will provide no meaning to their lives and consequently they will turn to other sources to find happiness and meaning.
Secondly, the Maylitz Yosher emphasises that even though Lot performed chesed out of habit he nevertheless did so to the degree that he was willing to give up his life for it! Thus a person may feel that since he is willing to spend much effort, money and time into the performance of mitzvos then this is a proof that he is not doing them out of habit. However, we see from Lot that the force of habit is so powerful that it can even drive a person to risk his life for it!
The Alter of Slobodka brings out another point with regards to Lot’s chesed. In the parsha about the rescue of Lot from Sodom, the Torah says that Hashem remembered Avraham and therefore freed Lot . The Medrash explains that Lot was saved because of a particular chesed that he performed for Avraham. When Avraham and Sarah were in Mitzrayim and Avraham said that Sarah was his sister, Lot could have easily revealed the truth to the Mitzrim and probably earn a great deal of money in return. The Alter asks, Lot was saved from destruction in Sodom for not committing the terrible act of informing on his own uncle to the Mitzrim; but surely his great mesiras nefesh to do hachnasas orchim in Sodom should be the source of his merit. He answers that because Lot’s hachnasas orchim was a result of his upbringing and not something he had internalized himself, it did not reflect in any high level and therefore deserves no reward. In contrast, he had a great natural love for money and this was so great that he felt a great temptation to at least hint to the Mitzrim that Sarah was Avraham’s wife and not his sister. In this area, he did not have the benefit of habit to help him, he had to turn to his own self-control and on this occasion he succeeded through his own efforts to do the right thing. In this instance, his ability to refrain from being an informer is considered greater than his tremendous chesed in Sodom .
We learn from here an example of Rav Dessler zt”l’s principle known as ’Nekudas habechira’ (the free will point). Rav Dessler argues that each person is not judged purely according to his mitzvos and maasim tovim, but to the degree to which he improves himself through his own efforts. Consequently he is judged according to his own standard, which takes into account his upbringing, surrounding influences and natural inclinations. This explains why we can never judge our friend until we stand in his place - we can never understand the nature of the tests that our friend faces because we can never know all the factors in his life.
It is true that there is reward for every mitzvo that is performed, however the main reward is for fighting the battle with the yetser hara and using one’s free will to become a better person. Thus, a person who is brought up in an atmosphere of shemiras hamitzvos and good midos does not receive his main reward for doing what he was naturally brought up to do . As we approach Elul, this is a frightening concept; we presume that all the mitzvos that we perform will be put on the scales against our aveiros, however the power of each mitzvo is judged according to the degree of free will that was exercised in its performance. Consequently, the mitzvos of a person who performs them simply because he was brought up that way, lose a great deal of their potency.
How can we begin to counter the power of habit? Rav Dessler writes that “the Gedolei hamussar and chassidus in the recent generations revealed to us the absolute necessity of limmudim of avodas halev that bring a person to an internalization [of mitzvos]. ” These include learning mussar, studying the meaning of tefilla, and a deepening of avodas Hashem. Of course it is difficult for a person to take on too much at the same time but Elul is an apt time to focus on one area of Avodas Hashem in which habit has taken over and to try to increase the inner meaning in our performance in this area. The rewards for such avoda are great - we can ensure that our external actions will become internalized in ourselves and consequently our descendants will be far more likely to follow in the path of Torah.
There are two important lessons that can derived from the explanation of the Maylitz Yosher: Firstly, it reveals one of the reasons for the all too common occurrences of youngsters brought up in observant homes leaving the path of Torah. If their parents keep the mitzvos, but their observance comes not out of internalization of what it means to be an Eved Hashem, but out of habit, then the children will surely pick up their parents attitude to mitzvos. At best, they will keep the mitzvos out of rote (which of course is highly undesirable) but at worst, the mitzvos will provide no meaning to their lives and consequently they will turn to other sources to find happiness and meaning.
Secondly, the Maylitz Yosher emphasises that even though Lot performed chesed out of habit he nevertheless did so to the degree that he was willing to give up his life for it! Thus a person may feel that since he is willing to spend much effort, money and time into the performance of mitzvos then this is a proof that he is not doing them out of habit. However, we see from Lot that the force of habit is so powerful that it can even drive a person to risk his life for it!
The Alter of Slobodka brings out another point with regards to Lot’s chesed. In the parsha about the rescue of Lot from Sodom, the Torah says that Hashem remembered Avraham and therefore freed Lot . The Medrash explains that Lot was saved because of a particular chesed that he performed for Avraham. When Avraham and Sarah were in Mitzrayim and Avraham said that Sarah was his sister, Lot could have easily revealed the truth to the Mitzrim and probably earn a great deal of money in return. The Alter asks, Lot was saved from destruction in Sodom for not committing the terrible act of informing on his own uncle to the Mitzrim; but surely his great mesiras nefesh to do hachnasas orchim in Sodom should be the source of his merit. He answers that because Lot’s hachnasas orchim was a result of his upbringing and not something he had internalized himself, it did not reflect in any high level and therefore deserves no reward. In contrast, he had a great natural love for money and this was so great that he felt a great temptation to at least hint to the Mitzrim that Sarah was Avraham’s wife and not his sister. In this area, he did not have the benefit of habit to help him, he had to turn to his own self-control and on this occasion he succeeded through his own efforts to do the right thing. In this instance, his ability to refrain from being an informer is considered greater than his tremendous chesed in Sodom .
We learn from here an example of Rav Dessler zt”l’s principle known as ’Nekudas habechira’ (the free will point). Rav Dessler argues that each person is not judged purely according to his mitzvos and maasim tovim, but to the degree to which he improves himself through his own efforts. Consequently he is judged according to his own standard, which takes into account his upbringing, surrounding influences and natural inclinations. This explains why we can never judge our friend until we stand in his place - we can never understand the nature of the tests that our friend faces because we can never know all the factors in his life.
It is true that there is reward for every mitzvo that is performed, however the main reward is for fighting the battle with the yetser hara and using one’s free will to become a better person. Thus, a person who is brought up in an atmosphere of shemiras hamitzvos and good midos does not receive his main reward for doing what he was naturally brought up to do . As we approach Elul, this is a frightening concept; we presume that all the mitzvos that we perform will be put on the scales against our aveiros, however the power of each mitzvo is judged according to the degree of free will that was exercised in its performance. Consequently, the mitzvos of a person who performs them simply because he was brought up that way, lose a great deal of their potency.
How can we begin to counter the power of habit? Rav Dessler writes that “the Gedolei hamussar and chassidus in the recent generations revealed to us the absolute necessity of limmudim of avodas halev that bring a person to an internalization [of mitzvos]. ” These include learning mussar, studying the meaning of tefilla, and a deepening of avodas Hashem. Of course it is difficult for a person to take on too much at the same time but Elul is an apt time to focus on one area of Avodas Hashem in which habit has taken over and to try to increase the inner meaning in our performance in this area. The rewards for such avoda are great - we can ensure that our external actions will become internalized in ourselves and consequently our descendants will be far more likely to follow in the path of Torah.
YOUR BROTHER AND YOUR ENEMY - KI SEITSEI
In Parashas Ki Seitzei, there are a number of Mitzvos instructing us how to react to a fellow Jew who is in some kind of predicament. One of them is the Mitzvo to help unload one’s fellow’s animal when it is suffering under a heavy burden. The Torah tells us: “You shall not see the donkey of your brother or his ox falling on the road and hide yourself from them, you shall surely stand them up, with him.” The commentaries note that this Mitzvo was already mentioned in another place in the Torah, however with a significant difference: In Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah states: “If you see the donkey of your enemy crouching under its burden, would you refrain from helping him? – you shall repeatedly help him.” The obvious question is why, in Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah instructed us to help one’s enemy, whereas in Parashas Ki Seitzei, the Torah discussed helping his brother.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
YOUR BROTHER AND YOUR ENEMY - KI SEITZEI
In Parashas Ki Seitzei, there are a number of Mitzvos instructing us how to react to a fellow Jew who is in some kind of predicament. One of them is the Mitzvo to help unload one’s fellow’s animal when it is suffering under a heavy burden. The Torah tells us: “You shall not see the donkey of your brother or his ox falling on the road and hide yourself from them, you shall surely stand them up, with him.” The commentaries note that this Mitzvo was already mentioned in another place in the Torah, however with a significant difference: In Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah states: “If you see the donkey of your enemy crouching under its burden, would you refrain from helping him? – you shall repeatedly help him.” The obvious question is why, in Parashas Mishpatim, the Torah instructed us to help one’s enemy, whereas in Parashas Ki Seitzei, the Torah discussed helping his brother.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.
The Meshech Chachmah offers a fascinating answer. He begins by bringing the Gemara in Pesachim that says it is permissible to ‘hate’ a person whom one knows has committed a despicable action. The ‘enemy’ that the Torah refers to in Parashas Mishpatim is someone about whom one knows he has committed such an action. The Meshech Chacmah writes that the passuk in Parashas Mishpatim was written before the sin of the Golden Calf, when the people were on an incredibly high spiritual level. At that time, because of their high level, it was acceptable for one to harbor negative feelings towards people who acted incorrectly. However, after the people sinned with the Golden Calf and on many other occasions, it would no longer be valid to feel negatively towards someone who sinned. This is because after a realistic self-assessment, each person would realize that they were really no better than the person whom they saw sin. Accordingly, it would be wrong to harbor feelings of hatred towards someone who acted inappropriately. With this explanation, he continues that by the time Moshe instructed the people in Parashas Ki Seitzei, they had already long fallen from their exalted level that they attained before the Golden Calf. Therefore, in this Parashah, the Torah says to help the donkey of “your brother” because even one who acts inappropriately is no worse than anyone else.
We have now explained the difference between the two passukim that deal with helping unload a donkey. However, it is still necessary to analyze why exactly it is so wrong for a person who sins himself, to feel negatively about someone else who sins. The simple understanding would be that it is hypocritical. However, it seems that there is a deeper principle underlying this issue. There are a number of reasons why one may feel negatively towards someone else. It may come from a genuine feeling of disgust at his reprehensible behavior. However, there is also the possibility that the negativity originates from a less pure place. A person may dislike someone else because of jealousy or because that person expresses a dislike to himself. Such forms of aversion are unacceptable according to the Torah viewpoint because they are not coming from a feeling of concern for the person, rather from a personal hatred. The only acceptable type of ‘dislike’ is one that is focused on a dislike of the displeasing actions of the person. However, this should in no way take away from the feelings of love that one must feel for every fellow Jew.
Based on this understanding, it seems that the Meshech Chachmah is saying that if one acts inappropriately himself, he may not feel negatively towards his fellow man who also acts improperly. This is because the fact that he himself sins, means that he does not feel a genuine disdain for sin, for if he did, then he would not sin himself. Therefore, his feelings of negativity are inevitably stemming, not from a pure distaste for sin, but for personal motives. Dislike that comes from such motives are unacceptable.
We have seen how it is unacceptable to look down on others for their mistakes, when we commit similar mistakes ourselves. Whilst it is essential to care about the spiritual level of others, one must be careful that his concern his genuine and not coming from his own personal flaws. Moreover, as the Meshech Chachmah pointed out, if we were to make our own personal accounting, we would recognize many areas where there could be improvement. Elul, in particular, is a time that is very conducive to focus on one’s own faults as opposed to those of other people.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
MAKING THE MOST OF OUR STRENGTHS - KI SEITZEI
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even their tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, to eternity. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt, and because he hired against you Bilaam Ben Beor, of Pethor, Aram Naharaim, to curse you. ”
The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!
The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.
There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.
We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.
Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.
The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.
We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.
The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!
The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.
There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.
We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.
Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.
The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.
We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.
THE POWER OF HABIT - KI SEITSEI
KI SEITZEI - THE POWER OF HABIT
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem …. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt. ” The men of Ammon and Moav displayed a great failing in the mida of chesed when they refused to give the Jewish people bread and water. This is one of the reasons that they can never marry into the Jewish people. The Maylitz Yosher notes that their failure to be gracious hosts is all the more difficult to understand when we bear in mind their patriarch - Lot. Lot excelled in hachnasas orchim (hosting people) to the extent that he risked his life to look after the angels who came to Sodom. In light of this, how is it possible that in a few generations this mida completely disappeared and his descendants displayed such indifference? He answers that if a person does chesed because of an internal recognition of its importance and a genuine desire to help others, then it will become ingrained in his descendants for many generations. However, if the chesed comes from habit then it will not be internalized by future generations. Lot did indeed excel in chesed, however this was only because he was brought up in the home of Avraham Avinu. He did not attain an internal recognition of the importance of chesed, it was merely a course of habit for him. Consequently actions such as those of Lot that are not internalized into a person’s soul do not last .
There are two important lessons that can derived from the explanation of the Maylitz Yosher: Firstly, it reveals one of the reasons for the all too common occurrences of youngsters brought up in observant homes leaving the path of Torah. If their parents keep the mitzvos, but their observance comes not out of internalization of what it means to be an Eved Hashem, but out of habit, then the children will surely pick up their parents attitude to mitzvos. At best, they will keep the mitzvos out of rote (which of course is highly undesirable) but at worst, the mitzvos will provide no meaning to their lives and consequently they will turn to other sources to find happiness and meaning.
Secondly, the Maylitz Yosher emphasises that even though Lot performed chesed out of habit he nevertheless did so to the degree that he was willing to give up his life for it! Thus a person may feel that since he is willing to spend much effort, money and time into the performance of mitzvos then this is a proof that he is not doing them out of habit. However, we see from Lot that the force of habit is so powerful that it can even drive a person to risk his life for it!
The Alter of Slobodka brings out another point with regards to Lot’s chesed. In the parsha about the rescue of Lot from Sodom, the Torah says that Hashem remembered Avraham and therefore freed Lot . The Medrash explains that Lot was saved because of a particular chesed that he performed for Avraham. When Avraham and Sarah were in Mitzrayim and Avraham said that Sarah was his sister, Lot could have easily revealed the truth to the Mitzrim and probably earn a great deal of money in return. The Alter asks, Lot was saved from destruction in Sodom for not committing the terrible act of informing on his own uncle to the Mitzrim; but surely his great mesiras nefesh to do hachnasas orchim in Sodom should be the source of his merit. He answers that because Lot’s hachnasas orchim was a result of his upbringing and not something he had internalized himself, it did not reflect in any high level and therefore deserves no reward. In contrast, he had a great natural love for money and this was so great that he felt a great temptation to at least hint to the Mitzrim that Sarah was Avraham’s wife and not his sister. In this area, he did not have the benefit of habit to help him, he had to turn to his own self-control and on this occasion he succeeded through his own efforts to do the right thing. In this instance, his ability to refrain from being an informer is considered greater than his tremendous chesed in Sodom .
We learn from here an example of Rav Dessler zt”l’s principle known as ’Nekudas habechira’ (the free will point). Rav Dessler argues that each person is not judged purely according to his mitzvos and maasim tovim, but to the degree to which he improves himself through his own efforts. Consequently he is judged according to his own standard, which takes into account his upbringing, surrounding influences and natural inclinations. This explains why we can never judge our friend until we stand in his place - we can never understand the nature of the tests that our friend faces because we can never know all the factors in his life.
It is true that there is reward for every mitzvo that is performed, however the main reward is for fighting the battle with the yetser hara and using one’s free will to become a better person. Thus, a person who is brought up in an atmosphere of shemiras hamitzvos and good midos does not receive his main reward for doing what he was naturally brought up to do . As we approach Elul, this is a frightening concept; we presume that all the mitzvos that we perform will be put on the scales against our aveiros, however the power of each mitzvo is judged according to the degree of free will that was exercised in its performance. Consequently, the mitzvos of a person who performs them simply because he was brought up that way, lose a great deal of their potency.
How can we begin to counter the power of habit? Rav Dessler writes that “the Gedolei hamussar and chassidus in the recent generations revealed to us the absolute necessity of limmudim of avodas halev that bring a person to an internalization [of mitzvos]. ” These include learning mussar, studying the meaning of tefilla, and a deepening of avodas Hashem. Of course it is difficult for a person to take on too much at the same time but Elul is an apt time to focus on one area of Avodas Hashem in which habit has taken over and to try to increase the inner meaning in our performance in this area. The rewards for such avoda are great - we can ensure that our external actions will become internalized in ourselves and consequently our descendants will be far more likely to follow in the path of Torah.
“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem …. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt. ” The men of Ammon and Moav displayed a great failing in the mida of chesed when they refused to give the Jewish people bread and water. This is one of the reasons that they can never marry into the Jewish people. The Maylitz Yosher notes that their failure to be gracious hosts is all the more difficult to understand when we bear in mind their patriarch - Lot. Lot excelled in hachnasas orchim (hosting people) to the extent that he risked his life to look after the angels who came to Sodom. In light of this, how is it possible that in a few generations this mida completely disappeared and his descendants displayed such indifference? He answers that if a person does chesed because of an internal recognition of its importance and a genuine desire to help others, then it will become ingrained in his descendants for many generations. However, if the chesed comes from habit then it will not be internalized by future generations. Lot did indeed excel in chesed, however this was only because he was brought up in the home of Avraham Avinu. He did not attain an internal recognition of the importance of chesed, it was merely a course of habit for him. Consequently actions such as those of Lot that are not internalized into a person’s soul do not last .
There are two important lessons that can derived from the explanation of the Maylitz Yosher: Firstly, it reveals one of the reasons for the all too common occurrences of youngsters brought up in observant homes leaving the path of Torah. If their parents keep the mitzvos, but their observance comes not out of internalization of what it means to be an Eved Hashem, but out of habit, then the children will surely pick up their parents attitude to mitzvos. At best, they will keep the mitzvos out of rote (which of course is highly undesirable) but at worst, the mitzvos will provide no meaning to their lives and consequently they will turn to other sources to find happiness and meaning.
Secondly, the Maylitz Yosher emphasises that even though Lot performed chesed out of habit he nevertheless did so to the degree that he was willing to give up his life for it! Thus a person may feel that since he is willing to spend much effort, money and time into the performance of mitzvos then this is a proof that he is not doing them out of habit. However, we see from Lot that the force of habit is so powerful that it can even drive a person to risk his life for it!
The Alter of Slobodka brings out another point with regards to Lot’s chesed. In the parsha about the rescue of Lot from Sodom, the Torah says that Hashem remembered Avraham and therefore freed Lot . The Medrash explains that Lot was saved because of a particular chesed that he performed for Avraham. When Avraham and Sarah were in Mitzrayim and Avraham said that Sarah was his sister, Lot could have easily revealed the truth to the Mitzrim and probably earn a great deal of money in return. The Alter asks, Lot was saved from destruction in Sodom for not committing the terrible act of informing on his own uncle to the Mitzrim; but surely his great mesiras nefesh to do hachnasas orchim in Sodom should be the source of his merit. He answers that because Lot’s hachnasas orchim was a result of his upbringing and not something he had internalized himself, it did not reflect in any high level and therefore deserves no reward. In contrast, he had a great natural love for money and this was so great that he felt a great temptation to at least hint to the Mitzrim that Sarah was Avraham’s wife and not his sister. In this area, he did not have the benefit of habit to help him, he had to turn to his own self-control and on this occasion he succeeded through his own efforts to do the right thing. In this instance, his ability to refrain from being an informer is considered greater than his tremendous chesed in Sodom .
We learn from here an example of Rav Dessler zt”l’s principle known as ’Nekudas habechira’ (the free will point). Rav Dessler argues that each person is not judged purely according to his mitzvos and maasim tovim, but to the degree to which he improves himself through his own efforts. Consequently he is judged according to his own standard, which takes into account his upbringing, surrounding influences and natural inclinations. This explains why we can never judge our friend until we stand in his place - we can never understand the nature of the tests that our friend faces because we can never know all the factors in his life.
It is true that there is reward for every mitzvo that is performed, however the main reward is for fighting the battle with the yetser hara and using one’s free will to become a better person. Thus, a person who is brought up in an atmosphere of shemiras hamitzvos and good midos does not receive his main reward for doing what he was naturally brought up to do . As we approach Elul, this is a frightening concept; we presume that all the mitzvos that we perform will be put on the scales against our aveiros, however the power of each mitzvo is judged according to the degree of free will that was exercised in its performance. Consequently, the mitzvos of a person who performs them simply because he was brought up that way, lose a great deal of their potency.
How can we begin to counter the power of habit? Rav Dessler writes that “the Gedolei hamussar and chassidus in the recent generations revealed to us the absolute necessity of limmudim of avodas halev that bring a person to an internalization [of mitzvos]. ” These include learning mussar, studying the meaning of tefilla, and a deepening of avodas Hashem. Of course it is difficult for a person to take on too much at the same time but Elul is an apt time to focus on one area of Avodas Hashem in which habit has taken over and to try to increase the inner meaning in our performance in this area. The rewards for such avoda are great - we can ensure that our external actions will become internalized in ourselves and consequently our descendants will be far more likely to follow in the path of Torah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
