- There are numerous lessons that can be gleaned from a close analysis of Megillas Esther. One of the less discussed aspects of the Megilla is the fact that it is one of the main accounts of the second Galus (exile), that of Paras and Madai. It is extremely important to understand the nature of the four exiles because they represent the basic forms of evil in the world. We see this from the Medrash's explanation of the second verse in Chumash. The Torah states: "And the earth was tohu and bohu , with darkness upon the surface of the deep; and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The Medrash reveals to us a deeper allusion of the passuk. "..'The land was tohu', this is the Kingdom of Bavel, as it says, 'I have seen the land and behold it is tohu.' And bohu, this is the kingdom of Madai, as it says, 'And they rushed (vayavheelu) to bring Haman.' ...
The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.
Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.
We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.
It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.
We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.
Showing posts with label Megilla Esther. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Megilla Esther. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS
One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?
Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.
Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!
Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).
On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.
Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.
Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!
Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).
On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
THE BEHALA OF THE PERSIANS - MEGILLA INSIGHTS
There are numerous lessons that can be gleaned from a close analysis of Megillas Esther. One of the less discussed aspects of the Megilla is the fact that it is one of the main accounts of the second Galus (exile), that of Paras and Madai. It is extremely important to understand the nature of the four exiles because they represent the basic forms of evil in the world. We see this from the Medrash's explanation of the second verse in Chumash. The Torah states: "And the earth was tohu and bohu , with darkness upon the surface of the deep; and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The Medrash reveals to us a deeper allusion of the passuk. "..'The land was tohu', this is the Kingdom of Bavel, as it says, 'I have seen the land and behold it is tohu.' And bohu, this is the kingdom of Madai, as it says, 'And they rushed (vayavheelu) to bring Haman.' ...
The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.
Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.
We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.
It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.
We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.
The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.
Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.
We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.
It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.
We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.
PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS
One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?
Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.
Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!
Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).
On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.
Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.
Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!
Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).
On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
LINK TO RAV BERKOVITS 5 MINUTE SHUR ON PURIM AND THE BEHALA OF THE PERSIANS - INSIGHTS INTO THE MEGILLA
There are numerous lessons that can be gleaned from a close analysis of Megillas Esther. One of the less discussed aspects of the Megilla is the fact that it is one of the main accounts of the second Galus (exile), that of Paras and Madai. It is extremely important to understand the nature of the four exiles because they represent the basic forms of evil in the world. We see this from the Medrash's explanation of the second verse in Chumash. The Torah states: "And the earth was tohu and bohu, with darkness upon the surface of the deep; and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The Medrash reveals to us a deeper allusion of the passuk. "..'The land was tohu', this is the Kingdom of Bavel, as it says, 'I have seen the land and behold it is tohu.' And bohu, this is the kingdom of Madai, as it says, 'And they rushed (vayavheelu) to bring Haman.'...
The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.
Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.
We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.
It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.
We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
