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.

ACQUIRING MEANING THROUGH YISSURIM - MEGILLAS RUTH

Every Shavuos, we read Megillas Ruth, the story of the conversion of the Moabite Ruth, and her subsequent marriage to Boaz, which led to the birth of David HaMelech and ultimately the future Mashiach. Analyzing aspects of the story can help us deepen our understanding of the lessons that we can learn from Shavuos.
One of the striking features of the Megilla is the self-sacrifice that Ruth demonstrated in her decision to join the Jewish people. The gemara in Brachos tells us that HaShem gave the Jewish people three “matanos tovos” (special gifts); and all of them are only acquired through yissurim . The three gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba. The story of the Megilla shows how Ruth acquired two of these gifts (with the exclusion of Torah ) and had to undergo the yissurim that the gemara promises.

The difficulty of acquiring Eretz Yisroel is seen at the beginning of the Megilla. The story opens with the yerida of Elimelech and his family to Moav. The process of leaving Israel is covered in one short passuk, “…a man and his family left Beit Lechem to live in the fields of Moav...” In contrast ,the return of Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah to Eretz Yisroel, is expressed in a much lengthier manner: “And she and her daughters-in-laws rose up and returned from the fields of Moav… and she left the place where she had been and her two daughters-in-law were with her, and they went on the way to return to the land of Yehuda.” It is noteworthy how many verbs are used that indicate the travelling involved in the journey back to Eretz Yisroel. The Megilla then describes at length the discussion between Naomi and her daughters-in-law about whether they would accompany her back. Finally, Naomi and Ruth, return to Israel. The stark contrast of the single passuk recounting their leaving of Israel, to the lengthy account of their return, teaches us that it is much easier to leave Eretz Yisroel than to come to it. Moreover, after Ruth and Naomi return to the land, the Megilla describes their great difficulties in supporting themselves there. In this way, Megillas Ruth demonstrates a striking example of how Eretz Yisroel is only acquired with difficulty.

In a similar vein, a key feature in the story is Ruth’s willingness to undergo a great deal of discomfort and difficulty in order to join the Jewish nation, and, consequently, merit a new portion in Olam Haba. Chazal tell us that Ruth and Orpah were daughters of the King of Moav. Accordingly, they merited to have a very high stature in Moav. In contrast, by joining Naomi, they faced a life of poverty and the prospects of a low standing in society. This was because at that time there was a great dispute as to whether the Torah prohibition to marry a Moabite convert, also applied to female Moabite converts. Indeed, later in the Megilla, we see that the closest relative of Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, refused to marry Ruth because of her Moabite origins.

In addition to these obstacles, lay the numerous obligations involved in becoming a Jew. Chazal tell us that Naomi stressed this to Ruth and Orpah; she mentioned a number of Mitzvos that would cause them to undergo great restrictions to their life. Indeed, her arguments persuaded Orpah to return to Moav. Ruth, in contrast told Naomi that she was willing to undergo all the difficulty involved in converting. Because of her willingness to undergo yissurim, Ruth merited a very unique place in Olam Haba.

It still needs to b explained why the matanos tovos of Torah, Eretz Yisroel, and Olam Haba are only acquired through yissurim. This can be explained through a principle that Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would constantly emphasize. He taught that genuinely meaningful pleasure could only be acquired through challenge. For example, when people look back at the most satisfying moments in their lives, they usually mention times when they had put great effort into achieving something, such as passing a difficult exam, or they choose a happy occasion such as marriage or having children. Anyone who has experienced such times of happiness, knows that marriage and child rearing involve a great deal of difficulty and challenge. Yet, they are causes of great joy for those who make the effort. In this vein, Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba are the most meaningful things that a person can acquire. Precisely because of their great value, they can only be acquired with great difficulty. Ruth recognized this fact, and made the decision to forego the less ‘painful’ pleasures that life had to offer, for the meaningful experience of joining the Jewish nation in Eretz Yisroel.

This lesson is highly relevant to Shavuos: Chazal tell us that HaShem offered the Torah to the nations of the world, but they refused when they saw how difficult it would be to observe its laws. The Jewish nation realized that despite the responsibilities that came with accepting the Torah, it was the greatest gift possible. Their decision to choose the more difficult and more meaningful option, is one that every Jew must strive to emulate. We must realize that keeping the Torah is the only way to achieve true life fulfillment.

RUTH – ACQUIRING MEANING THROUGH YISSURIM By Yehonasan Gefen
Every Shavuos, we read Megillas Ruth, the story of the conversion of the Moabite Ruth, and her subsequent marriage to Boaz, which led to the birth of David HaMelech and ultimately the future Mashiach. Analyzing aspects of the story can help us deepen our understanding of the lessons that we can learn from Shavuos.
One of the striking features of the Megilla is the self-sacrifice that Ruth demonstrated in her decision to join the Jewish people. The gemara in Brachos tells us that HaShem gave the Jewish people three “matanos tovos” (special gifts); and all of them are only acquired through yissurim . The three gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba. The story of the Megilla shows how Ruth acquired two of these gifts (with the exclusion of Torah ) and had to undergo the yissurim that the gemara promises.

The difficulty of acquiring Eretz Yisroel is seen at the beginning of the Megilla. The story opens with the yerida of Elimelech and his family to Moav. The process of leaving Israel is covered in one short passuk, “…a man and his family left Beit Lechem to live in the fields of Moav...” In contrast ,the return of Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah to Eretz Yisroel, is expressed in a much lengthier manner: “And she and her daughters-in-laws rose up and returned from the fields of Moav… and she left the place where she had been and her two daughters-in-law were with her, and they went on the way to return to the land of Yehuda.” It is noteworthy how many verbs are used that indicate the travelling involved in the journey back to Eretz Yisroel. The Megilla then describes at length the discussion between Naomi and her daughters-in-law about whether they would accompany her back. Finally, Naomi and Ruth, return to Israel. The stark contrast of the single passuk recounting their leaving of Israel, to the lengthy account of their return, teaches us that it is much easier to leave Eretz Yisroel than to come to it. Moreover, after Ruth and Naomi return to the land, the Megilla describes their great difficulties in supporting themselves there. In this way, Megillas Ruth demonstrates a striking example of how Eretz Yisroel is only acquired with difficulty.

In a similar vein, a key feature in the story is Ruth’s willingness to undergo a great deal of discomfort and difficulty in order to join the Jewish nation, and, consequently, merit a new portion in Olam Haba. Chazal tell us that Ruth and Orpah were daughters of the King of Moav. Accordingly, they merited to have a very high stature in Moav. In contrast, by joining Naomi, they faced a life of poverty and the prospects of a low standing in society. This was because at that time there was a great dispute as to whether the Torah prohibition to marry a Moabite convert, also applied to female Moabite converts. Indeed, later in the Megilla, we see that the closest relative of Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, refused to marry Ruth because of her Moabite origins.

In addition to these obstacles, lay the numerous obligations involved in becoming a Jew. Chazal tell us that Naomi stressed this to Ruth and Orpah; she mentioned a number of Mitzvos that would cause them to undergo great restrictions to their life. Indeed, her arguments persuaded Orpah to return to Moav. Ruth, in contrast told Naomi that she was willing to undergo all the difficulty involved in converting. Because of her willingness to undergo yissurim, Ruth merited a very unique place in Olam Haba.

It still needs to b explained why the matanos tovos of Torah, Eretz Yisroel, and Olam Haba are only acquired through yissurim. This can be explained through a principle that Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would constantly emphasize. He taught that genuinely meaningful pleasure could only be acquired through challenge. For example, when people look back at the most satisfying moments in their lives, they usually mention times when they had put great effort into achieving something, such as passing a difficult exam, or they choose a happy occasion such as marriage or having children. Anyone who has experienced such times of happiness, knows that marriage and child rearing involve a great deal of difficulty and challenge. Yet, they are causes of great joy for those who make the effort. In this vein, Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba are the most meaningful things that a person can acquire. Precisely because of their great value, they can only be acquired with great difficulty. Ruth recognized this fact, and made the decision to forego the less ‘painful’ pleasures that life had to offer, for the meaningful experience of joining the Jewish nation in Eretz Yisroel.

This lesson is highly relevant to Shavuos: Chazal tell us that HaShem offered the Torah to the nations of the world, but they refused when they saw how difficult it would be to observe its laws. The Jewish nation realized that despite the responsibilities that came with accepting the Torah, it was the greatest gift possible. Their decision to choose the more difficult and more meaningful option, is one that every Jew must strive to emulate. We must realize that keeping the Torah is the only way to achieve true life fulfillment.