“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.
Showing posts with label Middos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middos. Show all posts
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
THE TWO TABLETS - VA’ESCHANAN
Parshas Va’eschanan contains a repetition of the Ten Commandments, with a few minor changes. The Mabit makes a remarkable observation about the two luchos on which the Commandments were inscribed. Chazal explain that the two luchos were focusing on different areas of the Mitzvos: The first luach consisted of Mitzvos that relate to the realm of bein adam leMakom (between man and G-d), such as belief in G-d, and observing Shabbos. The second luach consisted of Mitvos that relate to bein adam lechaveiro (between man and his fellow), such as the prohibitions not to kill, and loh sachmod (not to covet).
The Mabit points out that there were far more words on the first luach than on the second. Accordingly, there was much less space to fit all the words on the first luach than on the second. Therefore, it must be that the words in the first luach were written far smaller than those in the second. This, the Mabit argues, was done deliberately by HaShem so that the side that discussed the bein adam lechaveiro Mitzvos would be more noticeable than the side that focused on bein adam leMakom. The Mabit continues that this is because the yetser hara is strongest in the area of bein adam lechaveiro. HaShem wanted people to focus more on the Mitzvos that relate to bein adam lechaveiro, because extra effort is required to overcome the yetser hara in this area.
It would seem that a Gemara in Bava Basra provides evidence supporting the Mabit’s argument. The Gemara discusses various sins in which people stumble. It tells us that a minority of people stumble in arayos (forbidden relationships), a majority stumble in gezel , and everyone stumbles in avak lashon hara. Forbidden relationships generally fall in the area of bein adam leMakom , whereas stealing and lashon hara both clearly fall within the realm of bein adam lechaveiro. Thus, the Gemara is telling us that people are more prone to sin in certain Mitzvos that pertain to bein adam lechaveiro.
The following story also supports this point: Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l was asked to rule on the kashrus of an animal to ascertain whether it was treif. He ruled that it was indeed treif, causing the butcher involved a significant loss. The butcher accepted the ruling with equanimity. A few months later, the same butcher was involved in a monetary dispute with someone else, over a far smaller amount of money. Rav Chaim ruled against him. On this occasion, however, the butcher was furious, and insulted Rav Chaim for his ruling. Rav Simcha Zelig Reeger, zt”l asked Rav Chaim why the butcher was calm when he lost a far larger amount of money and so angry about the smaller sum. Rav Chaim explained that on this occasion, he ‘lost’ to someone else – it was the fact that another person ‘beat’ him that angered him so much.
The question remains, what is the reason (or reasons) as to why people are more prone to stumbling in bein adam lechaveiro. It is possible to suggest the following: The Vilna Gaon zt”l writes that every Mitzvo stems from a particular good character trait (midda), and every aveiro stems from a bad trait. Nonetheless, it seems that it is possible for a person to have certain bad middos and yet observe many Mitzvos. For example, a person who has a tendency to lose his temper, will not necessarily be hindered by this bad trait, in his observance of Shabbos, kashrus, and many other Mitzvos in the realm of bein adam LeMakom. However, he will be tremendously hindered in the area of bein adam lechaveiro. Every time he raises his voice in an inappropriate fashion, he will very likely transgress the prohibition of onaas devarim (hurtful words) and if he shouts at someone in front of others, he will transgress the extremely serious sin of embarrassing someone in public. Similarly, a person who has an ayin ra (he focuses on the bad in people), will still be able to pray three times a day, and learn Torah, however he will very likely stumble in lashon hara and judging others favorably.
There are obviously certain middos, which also make it very difficult to observe Mitzvos in bein adam Makom, such as laziness. However, it is important to note, that such traits will also greatly harm one’s observance of bein adam lechaveiro related Mitzvos. For example, a lazy person will not be willing to help his/her spouse in the work that needs to be done around the home, causing problems in the relationship. Even the trait of taiva (lust) can be the cause of great failings in bein adam lechaveiro. For example, a person who is overly attached to his/her food, will very likely react in an inappropriate fashion to his/her spouse if they serve food that he does not appreciate, again resulting in a transgression of onaas devarim.
The obvious lesson to derive from the Mabit is that extra effort is required in bein adam lechaveiro. Moreover based on the explanation that the root cause of the failing in this area is bad middos, it is essential to work on traits such as anger, jealousy, and ayin ra. Indeed, the Maharsha points out that when the Gemara said that everyone stumbles in avak lashon hara, it was only referring to people who do not make an effort to improve in this area. However, one who makes an effort to improve his speech by learning the laws relating to it and improving his traits, is not destined to speak avak lashon hara. This surely applies to all the Mitzvos bein adam lechaveiro; if one makes a strong and consistent effort to improve then he will overcome the yetser hara’s attempts to make his stumble.
The Mabit points out that there were far more words on the first luach than on the second. Accordingly, there was much less space to fit all the words on the first luach than on the second. Therefore, it must be that the words in the first luach were written far smaller than those in the second. This, the Mabit argues, was done deliberately by HaShem so that the side that discussed the bein adam lechaveiro Mitzvos would be more noticeable than the side that focused on bein adam leMakom. The Mabit continues that this is because the yetser hara is strongest in the area of bein adam lechaveiro. HaShem wanted people to focus more on the Mitzvos that relate to bein adam lechaveiro, because extra effort is required to overcome the yetser hara in this area.
It would seem that a Gemara in Bava Basra provides evidence supporting the Mabit’s argument. The Gemara discusses various sins in which people stumble. It tells us that a minority of people stumble in arayos (forbidden relationships), a majority stumble in gezel , and everyone stumbles in avak lashon hara. Forbidden relationships generally fall in the area of bein adam leMakom , whereas stealing and lashon hara both clearly fall within the realm of bein adam lechaveiro. Thus, the Gemara is telling us that people are more prone to sin in certain Mitzvos that pertain to bein adam lechaveiro.
The following story also supports this point: Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l was asked to rule on the kashrus of an animal to ascertain whether it was treif. He ruled that it was indeed treif, causing the butcher involved a significant loss. The butcher accepted the ruling with equanimity. A few months later, the same butcher was involved in a monetary dispute with someone else, over a far smaller amount of money. Rav Chaim ruled against him. On this occasion, however, the butcher was furious, and insulted Rav Chaim for his ruling. Rav Simcha Zelig Reeger, zt”l asked Rav Chaim why the butcher was calm when he lost a far larger amount of money and so angry about the smaller sum. Rav Chaim explained that on this occasion, he ‘lost’ to someone else – it was the fact that another person ‘beat’ him that angered him so much.
The question remains, what is the reason (or reasons) as to why people are more prone to stumbling in bein adam lechaveiro. It is possible to suggest the following: The Vilna Gaon zt”l writes that every Mitzvo stems from a particular good character trait (midda), and every aveiro stems from a bad trait. Nonetheless, it seems that it is possible for a person to have certain bad middos and yet observe many Mitzvos. For example, a person who has a tendency to lose his temper, will not necessarily be hindered by this bad trait, in his observance of Shabbos, kashrus, and many other Mitzvos in the realm of bein adam LeMakom. However, he will be tremendously hindered in the area of bein adam lechaveiro. Every time he raises his voice in an inappropriate fashion, he will very likely transgress the prohibition of onaas devarim (hurtful words) and if he shouts at someone in front of others, he will transgress the extremely serious sin of embarrassing someone in public. Similarly, a person who has an ayin ra (he focuses on the bad in people), will still be able to pray three times a day, and learn Torah, however he will very likely stumble in lashon hara and judging others favorably.
There are obviously certain middos, which also make it very difficult to observe Mitzvos in bein adam Makom, such as laziness. However, it is important to note, that such traits will also greatly harm one’s observance of bein adam lechaveiro related Mitzvos. For example, a lazy person will not be willing to help his/her spouse in the work that needs to be done around the home, causing problems in the relationship. Even the trait of taiva (lust) can be the cause of great failings in bein adam lechaveiro. For example, a person who is overly attached to his/her food, will very likely react in an inappropriate fashion to his/her spouse if they serve food that he does not appreciate, again resulting in a transgression of onaas devarim.
The obvious lesson to derive from the Mabit is that extra effort is required in bein adam lechaveiro. Moreover based on the explanation that the root cause of the failing in this area is bad middos, it is essential to work on traits such as anger, jealousy, and ayin ra. Indeed, the Maharsha points out that when the Gemara said that everyone stumbles in avak lashon hara, it was only referring to people who do not make an effort to improve in this area. However, one who makes an effort to improve his speech by learning the laws relating to it and improving his traits, is not destined to speak avak lashon hara. This surely applies to all the Mitzvos bein adam lechaveiro; if one makes a strong and consistent effort to improve then he will overcome the yetser hara’s attempts to make his stumble.
Monday, December 13, 2010
THE ROOT OF SIN - VAYECHI
“Reuven, you are my first-born, my strength and my initial vigor, foremost in rank and foremost in power. Water-like impetuosity - you cannot be foremost, because you mounted your father’s bed; then you desecrated Him who ascended my couch. ”
Sefer Bereishis ends with Yaakov Avinu’s blessings to his sons, however some of these ‘blessings’ consist of harsh rebuke. This is the case with Yaakov’s first-born, Reuven - Yaakov reproves him for his mida of impetuosity that led to his disturbing Yaakov’s bed . The commentaries explain that as the eldest son, Reuven should have received the special privileges of the Kingship, Priesthood and the double portion of the first-born. However, because of his impulsive behavior Yaakov stripped him of all three privileges. Reuven’s severe punishment seems difficult to understand; Chazal greatly praise Reuven for doing teshuva for his aveiro . Indeed, Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev notes that Reuven was not present during the actual seeling of Yosef because he was in isolation wearing sackcloth and fasting for disturbing his father’s bed - this was several years after the incident took place and Reuven was continually repenting for what he had done. Given Reuven’s sincere teshuva, why did Yaakov not accept that he regretted what he had done and that the effects of the sin were wiped away ?!
It seems that the key to answering this question is a Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva. After discussing in great depth how one must repent for his aveiros, the Rambam adds that there is another essential aspect of teshuva. He writes: “And do not say that there is only teshuva for sins that have an action such as immorality, stealing, and theft. Just as one must repent from these, so too he must search for his bad character traits and repent from them; from anger, from hatred, from jealousy… And these sins are harder than those that have an action to them, because when a person is engulfed in them it is hard for him to refrain [from them]. ”
We learn from this Rambam that in addition to repenting for one’s destructive actions, one has to do teshuva for his negative middos (character trait). Moreover, he points out that it is more difficult to repent from bad middos than bad actions. The Vilna Gaon points out that every sin comes about as a result of a bad midda , thus when a person sins, he simultaneously displays a bad character trait. Accordingly, every sin requires two levels of teshuva - one for the action, and one for the midda that was at the root of the sin. It seems that Reuven had effectively repented for the maaseh aveiro (the action of the sin) however he was unable to completely erase the negative character trait that caused him to sin. This answer is supported by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz’ explanation of Yaakov’s rebuke of Reuven. Based on Rashi’s commentary he points out that Yaakov was specifically criticizing the midda of rashness that caused Reuven to disturb Yaakov’s bed rather than the sin itself. It was this rashness that rendered Reuven unfit for the Kingship and Priesthood .
Rav Shmuelevitz gives a further example of a great person repenting for his actual sin but not the midda embodied by the action: Shaul HaMelech lost the Kingship because he failed to observe Hashem’s command to wipe out all of Amalek. Shmuel HaNavi criticized him for being influenced by the people’s entreaties to have mercy on Amalek - it showed that he possessed a misplaced humility which meant that he was not strong enough to follow his own convictions. However, after Shmuel’s lengthy rebuke of Shaul, the King did admit his mistake and repent. Why, then was he stripped of his Kingship? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that he only did teshuva for his actual sin, but he did not eradicate the midda of misplaced humility from his character. This midda prevented him from being an effective King.
The examples of Reuven and Shaul are highly relevant to our lives. It is highly praiseworthy for a person to genuinely strive to repent from his aveiros, nonetheless if he does not locate the midda that lies at the source of these aveiros then he will be unable to prevent himself from stumbling in the future. The rebuke of Reuven teaches us further that failure to improve one’s middos has another very serious consequence for his spiritual success. Reuven was destined for greatness - he was supposed to represent the Kingship and Priesthood in Klal Yisroel, however his midda of impetuosity prevented him from fulfilling his true potential in these areas. We learn from here that negative middos do not only cause us to sin, but they prevent us from attaining greatness.
Undertaking the difficult task of fixing one’s character traits requires much thought and discussion but the first phase for each person is to gain a recognition of which midda is holding him back. There may be more than one negative trait that harms him, but very often there is one ikar midda which is at the root of much of his negative behavior and is the key factor that holds him back from fulfilling his true potential. Possible ways to help locate and understand this destructive midda include speaking with one’s Rabbi or friends and learning Mussar Sefarim that discuss the various middos. Once a person develops a deeper understanding of himself he can now begin the daunting task of genuinely improving himself.
Elul is normally the time when discussion of teshuva and tikun hamiddos is most prevalent, however if one only works on himself for one month a year then he will never truly improve himself. The only way of avoiding sin and removing the obstacles that hold one back is to constantly work on improving himself in a genuine, deep way. May we all merit to be truly better people.
Sefer Bereishis ends with Yaakov Avinu’s blessings to his sons, however some of these ‘blessings’ consist of harsh rebuke. This is the case with Yaakov’s first-born, Reuven - Yaakov reproves him for his mida of impetuosity that led to his disturbing Yaakov’s bed . The commentaries explain that as the eldest son, Reuven should have received the special privileges of the Kingship, Priesthood and the double portion of the first-born. However, because of his impulsive behavior Yaakov stripped him of all three privileges. Reuven’s severe punishment seems difficult to understand; Chazal greatly praise Reuven for doing teshuva for his aveiro . Indeed, Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev notes that Reuven was not present during the actual seeling of Yosef because he was in isolation wearing sackcloth and fasting for disturbing his father’s bed - this was several years after the incident took place and Reuven was continually repenting for what he had done. Given Reuven’s sincere teshuva, why did Yaakov not accept that he regretted what he had done and that the effects of the sin were wiped away ?!
It seems that the key to answering this question is a Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva. After discussing in great depth how one must repent for his aveiros, the Rambam adds that there is another essential aspect of teshuva. He writes: “And do not say that there is only teshuva for sins that have an action such as immorality, stealing, and theft. Just as one must repent from these, so too he must search for his bad character traits and repent from them; from anger, from hatred, from jealousy… And these sins are harder than those that have an action to them, because when a person is engulfed in them it is hard for him to refrain [from them]. ”
We learn from this Rambam that in addition to repenting for one’s destructive actions, one has to do teshuva for his negative middos (character trait). Moreover, he points out that it is more difficult to repent from bad middos than bad actions. The Vilna Gaon points out that every sin comes about as a result of a bad midda , thus when a person sins, he simultaneously displays a bad character trait. Accordingly, every sin requires two levels of teshuva - one for the action, and one for the midda that was at the root of the sin. It seems that Reuven had effectively repented for the maaseh aveiro (the action of the sin) however he was unable to completely erase the negative character trait that caused him to sin. This answer is supported by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz’ explanation of Yaakov’s rebuke of Reuven. Based on Rashi’s commentary he points out that Yaakov was specifically criticizing the midda of rashness that caused Reuven to disturb Yaakov’s bed rather than the sin itself. It was this rashness that rendered Reuven unfit for the Kingship and Priesthood .
Rav Shmuelevitz gives a further example of a great person repenting for his actual sin but not the midda embodied by the action: Shaul HaMelech lost the Kingship because he failed to observe Hashem’s command to wipe out all of Amalek. Shmuel HaNavi criticized him for being influenced by the people’s entreaties to have mercy on Amalek - it showed that he possessed a misplaced humility which meant that he was not strong enough to follow his own convictions. However, after Shmuel’s lengthy rebuke of Shaul, the King did admit his mistake and repent. Why, then was he stripped of his Kingship? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that he only did teshuva for his actual sin, but he did not eradicate the midda of misplaced humility from his character. This midda prevented him from being an effective King.
The examples of Reuven and Shaul are highly relevant to our lives. It is highly praiseworthy for a person to genuinely strive to repent from his aveiros, nonetheless if he does not locate the midda that lies at the source of these aveiros then he will be unable to prevent himself from stumbling in the future. The rebuke of Reuven teaches us further that failure to improve one’s middos has another very serious consequence for his spiritual success. Reuven was destined for greatness - he was supposed to represent the Kingship and Priesthood in Klal Yisroel, however his midda of impetuosity prevented him from fulfilling his true potential in these areas. We learn from here that negative middos do not only cause us to sin, but they prevent us from attaining greatness.
Undertaking the difficult task of fixing one’s character traits requires much thought and discussion but the first phase for each person is to gain a recognition of which midda is holding him back. There may be more than one negative trait that harms him, but very often there is one ikar midda which is at the root of much of his negative behavior and is the key factor that holds him back from fulfilling his true potential. Possible ways to help locate and understand this destructive midda include speaking with one’s Rabbi or friends and learning Mussar Sefarim that discuss the various middos. Once a person develops a deeper understanding of himself he can now begin the daunting task of genuinely improving himself.
Elul is normally the time when discussion of teshuva and tikun hamiddos is most prevalent, however if one only works on himself for one month a year then he will never truly improve himself. The only way of avoiding sin and removing the obstacles that hold one back is to constantly work on improving himself in a genuine, deep way. May we all merit to be truly better people.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
THE ROOT OF SIN - VAYECHI
“Reuven, you are my first-born, my strength and my initial vigor, foremost in rank and foremost in power. Water-like impetuosity - you cannot be foremost, because you mounted your father’s bed; then you desecrated Him who ascended my couch.”
Sefer Bereishis ends with Yaakov Avinu’s blessings to his sons, however some of these ‘blessings’ consist of harsh rebuke. This is the case with Yaakov’s first-born, Reuven - Yaakov reproves him for his mida of impetuosity that led to his disturbing Yaakov’s bed. The commentaries explain that as the eldest son, Reuven should have received the special privileges of the Kingship, Priesthood and the double portion of the first-born. However, because of his impulsive behavior Yaakov stripped him of all three privileges. Reuven’s severe punishment seems difficult to understand; Chazal greatly praise Reuven for doing teshuva for his aveiro. Indeed, Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev notes that Reuven was not present during the actual seeling of Yosef because he was in isolation wearing sackcloth and fasting for disturbing his father’s bed - this was several years after the incident took place and Reuven was continually repenting for what he had done. Given Reuven’s sincere teshuva, why did Yaakov not accept that he regretted what he had done and that the effects of the sin were wiped away?!
It seems that the key to answering this question is a Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva. After discussing in great depth how one must repent for his aveiros, the Rambam adds that there is another essential aspect of teshuva. He writes: “And do not say that there is only teshuva for sins that have an action such as immorality, stealing, and theft. Just as one must repent from these, so too he must search for his bad character traits and repent from them; from anger, from hatred, from jealousy… And these sins are harder than those that have an action to them, because when a person is engulfed in them it is hard for him to refrain [from them].”
We learn from this Rambam that in addition to repenting for one’s destructive actions, one has to do teshuva for his negative middos (character trait). Moreover, he points out that it is more difficult to repent from bad middos than bad actions. The Vilna Gaon points out that every sin comes about as a result of a bad midda, thus when a person sins, he simultaneously displays a bad character trait. Accordingly, every sin requires two levels of teshuva - one for the action, and one for the midda that was at the root of the sin. It seems that Reuven had effectively repented for the maaseh aveiro (the action of the sin) however he was unable to completely erase the negative character trait that caused him to sin. This answer is supported by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz’ explanation of Yaakov’s rebuke of Reuven. Based on Rashi’s commentary he points out that Yaakov was specifically criticizing on the midda of rashness that caused Reuven to disturb Yaakov’s bed rather than the sin itself. It was this rashness that rendered Reuven unfit for the Kingship and Priesthood.
Rav Shmuelevitz gives a further example of a great person repenting for his actual sin but not the midda embodied by the action: Shaul HaMelech lost the Kingship because he failed to observe Hashem’s command to wipe out all of Amalek. Shmuel HaNavi criticized him for being influenced by the people’s entreaties to have mercy on Amalek - it showed that he possessed a misplaced humility which meant that he was not strong enough to follow his own convictions. However, after Shmuel’s lengthy rebuke of Shaul, the King did admit his mistake and repent. Why, then was he stripped of his Kingship? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that he only did teshuva for his actual sin, but he did not eradicate the midda of misplaced humility from his character. This midda prevented him from being an effective King.
The examples of Reuven and Shaul are highly relevant to our lives. It is highly praiseworthy for a person to genuinely strive to repent from his aveiros, nonetheless if he does not locate the midda that lies at the source of these aveiros then he will be unable to prevent himself from stumbling in the future. The rebuke of Reuven teaches us further that failure to improve one’s middos has another very serious consequence for his spiritual success. Reuven was destined for greatness - he was supposed to represent the Kingship and Priesthood in Klal Yisroel, however his midda of impetuosity prevented him from fulfilling his true potential in these areas. We learn from here that negative middos do not only cause us to sin, but they prevent us from attaining greatness.
Undertaking the difficult task of fixing one’s character traits requires much thought and discussion but the first phase for each person is to gain a recognition of which midda is holding him back. There may be more than one negative trait that harms him, but very often there is one ikar midda which is at the root of much of his negative behavior and is the key factor that holds him back from fulfilling his true potential. Possible ways to help locate and understand this destructive midda include speaking with one’s Rabbi or friends and learning Mussar Sefarim that discuss the various middos. Once a person develops a deeper understanding of himself he can now begin the daunting task of genuinely improving himself.
Elul is normally the time when discussion of teshuva and tikun hamiddos is most prevalent, however if one only works on himself for one month a year then he will never truly improve himself. The only way of avoiding sin and removing the obstacles that hold one back is to constantly work on improving himself in a genuine, deep way. May we all merit to be truly better people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
