FULFILLING OUR POTENTIAL - VAYAKHEL

In the midst of its account of the building of the Mishkan that Torah states that, “Every man whose heart inspired him came.. ” The Ramban writes that this refers to those who came to do the work of weaving, sewing and building. Where did these people learn how to perform such skilled crafts? The Ramban answers that they found deep within their teva the ability to do them. These formerly hidden powers came about as a result of their deep desire to fulfill the ratson Hashem by helping to build the Mishkan. As a result of their burning desire, Hashem gave them the ability to do things that they had never been taught!

There is a well-known principle that Hashem grants us a unique set of talents with which they can fulfill their potential in life. Whilst this is certainly true it seems that it can be somewhat misapplied: As we grow up we naturally become aware of our strengths and weaknesses - there is the tendency that we can limit our activities to areas in which our strengths lie and ignore those fields in which we fell less able. For example, a person may feel that he is adept at speaking in front of small groups but that he cannot speak in front of large audiences. Thus, even when there is a necessity for someone to speak in such a setting, he will shy away from the responsibility because he has ‘pigeon-holed’ himself as being unable to speak in front of many people. We learn from the Ramban that this is an erroneous attitude - the people who stepped forward to work in the Mishkan had no awareness that they were able to perform such skilled crafts - however, as a result of their devotion to Hashem they found hitherto untapped talents that could be used to fulfill ratson Hashem. So too, in our own lives there may be times when there is a need for a certain task to be performed and we may feel that we are unable to perform it - however, the Mishna in Avos tells us that, “in a place where there are no men, be a man.” The Mishna does not qualify its exhortation by saying that you should only stand up where there is no man in an area where you feel highly capable. Rather, the only criteria that we should examine is whether there is anyone else who can perform the required task as well as we can. And if there is not, then if we dedicate ourselves to doing ratson Hashem then surely Hashem will bring out in us hidden talents.

There are many examples of people who were inspired to bring out hidden talents and consequently achieved great things; one of the most remarkable is that of the Netsiv zt”l. When he completed his commentary on the Sheiltos, he made a seuda, partly because that is the custom when one completes a sefer, but there was another, more personal reason as well. He related that when he was a boy he was not particularly serious about his Torah studies. His parents made every effort to help him change his attitude but to no avail. One day he overheard them discussing his lack of success in Torah learning - they decided that he had no prospect of becoming a Talmid Chacham and therefore he should learn to become a cobbler. They hoped that at least he would be a yirei shamayim who would go about his work with honesty and dedication. When he heard this, it greatly shocked him and he decided to take his Torah studies seriously - this incident has such an impact on him that it led to a complete change in his attitude and he became a Gadol. How did he achieve so much? Because he developed a desire to be great in learning - it was through this desire that he found in his teva hitherto undiscovered ability to learn Torah to a very high level.

One may respond to this story by arguing that not everybody can become such a great Talmid Chacham, however Jewish history shows that we need not necessarily be a Gadol to achieve great things - sometimes there are other areas of expertise which are required in order to bring about a fulfillment of ratson Hashem. Reb Dovid Dryan zt”l provides us with an excellent example of such a case. He was a pious shochet known for his adherence to shemiras halashon. However, there is one more thing that makes him stand out - he was directly responsible for the founding and running of the Gateshead Yeshiva and played a significant role in the formation of the Gateshead Kollel and Seminary. To a significant degree, his dedication is responsible for the fact that Gateshead is known as the greatest Torah center in Europe through which thousands of boys and girls have received a high level Torah education. How did Reb Dovid Dryan achieve this? When he came to live in Gateshead he found that there was no Yeshiva there. He said to himself, “how can I live in a place where there is no Yeshiva?!” This may be a question that many of us would ask in a similar situation. However, he did not suffice with just asking the question - he took action; he devoted much time and effort to achieve a seemingly impossible task in the face of considerable opposition. He took on many tasks which were not necessarily within the areas of his expertise, including fundraising and administration. He could have easily felt that he was a shochet and that was where his responsibilities to the community ended. Instead he motivated himself to do what was needed and Hashem granted him the ability to succeed .

Despite these inspiring stories one could still argue that he has in the past made an effort in certain fields and not been successful - consequently he feels that he is exempt from taking responsibility in these areas. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this claim; he points out how much effort we invest into our own interests. For example, if a business venture is not going well, a person will not simply give up, rather he will constantly think how he can improve the situation - he will seek advice from other businessmen and eventually he will often succeed. So too, he writes, “If Ratson Hashem was of equal value to a person as are his own personal affairs, he would seek advice and strategies how to build up Torah so that it does not weaken, and surely Hashem will help him find ways to succeed… however we do not do so in heavenly matters. When one sees that there is no way to improve the situation he immediately gives up and exempts himself from having to do anything. ” If we were willing to apply the same effort in Avodas Hashem as in our financial interests then we could surely rise above our accepted limits.

There is a remarkable present day example of a person who lives these words of the Chofetz Chaim. Rav Meir Shuster Shlita is naturally a shy person who is most happy in the Beis Medrash learning or davenning. However, many years ago, he recognized a need in Klal Yisroel - every day dozens of secular Jews would visit the Kotel and return back to their lives empty of Torah. He saw the necessity to approach these people and offer them accommodation in a hostel that could serve as the base with which to encourage the visitors to go to Yeshiva or Seminary. Consequently, he took it upon himself to go against his teva and walk up to these strangers and engage them in conversation. After doing this for many years, it is impossible to know how many hundreds of lives have been changed by his bold decision to do something against his teva because he felt it was Ratson Hashem. But it is clear that had he limited himself to his natural areas of strength then the world would have greatly suffered for it.

The people who raised up their hearts to fulfill Ratson Hashem found powers that they could never imagine they possessed. We too have the ability to break beyond our limits and achieve the seemingly impossible.

RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH

After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.

There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.

It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.

According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.

Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.

We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.

There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.

The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.

AVRAHAM’S SECOND TEST - LECH LECHA

“There was a famine in the land, and Abram descended to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. ”

The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Avraham Avinu to uproot his whole life, leave his nation, society, and family, and go on a journey to an unknown destination. Soon after passing this test and traveling to Eretz Yisroel, Avraham endures a terrible famine and is forced to leave for Eretz Mitzrayim. Chazal and the Rishonim write that this famine constituted one of the ten tests that Avraham had to pass in order to achieve his full potential . What was the exact nature of the test? Rashi says, “in order to test him if he would question the words of HaKadosh Baruch Hu - Hashem told him to go to the land of Canaan and now He caused him to leave! ”

According to Rashi the main aspect of the test was not the challenge of having no food, but that Avraham was unable to fulfill Hashem’s instructions of ’lech lecha’. Hashem had told him to go to the land of Eretz Yisroel and there he would be able to fulfill his spiritual potential, and yet he was immediately met with a tremendous obstacle which forced him to take a course of action which seemed to contradict the whole tachlis of his mission. He believed that his task was to be in Eretz Yisroel and yet he was forced to leave as soon as he arrived there! He could have wondered why he was forced to seemingly abandon his spiritual journey but he did not become frustrated and did not question Hashem in any way. He recognized that he did not truly understand how his journey of ‘lech lecha’ should proceed - that was in Hashem’s hands. He could only do his hishtadlus and accept that anything beyond his control was from Hashem and there was no need to be discouraged. He knew that the famine came from Hashem and that Hashem must have some reasoning behind the plan. Indeed, in hindsight, the events that took place there and the challenges that he faced, do seem to have had many benefits .

The Ramban writes that all the experiences of the Avos are a simun for his descendants. We also face the challenges that he faced and the way that he dealt with those challenges will give us the ability to withstand them in our own lives. Accordingly, the test of the famine is very relevant to all our lives. A person may embark on a spiritual journey based on his understanding of Ratson Hashem. This may involve a major life change such as moving country, or changing ones career, getting married, having children or even a smaller commitment to spiritual growth in learning or mitzvos. Regardless of the form that the ‘journey’ takes, a person will likely have his expectations of the challenges that he will face and how he needs to overcome them. However, very often, he will be met with unforeseen difficulties or obstacles that seem to contradict his whole plan. At that point, there will be a strong inclination to become frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he desires.

What is the reason that a person becomes frustrated when his efforts to grow do not work out as he planned? He feels that he knows what would be the ideal way for him to reach his potential - by taking this course of action he will become a better person. Therefore, when he is placed in a situation where his planned course of action his impossible, he feels frustrated because it prevents him from attaining his goal. The mistake he is making is that he feels he knows how he will best reach his potential. Instead he should recognize that only Hashem knows what circumstances a person should face in his life and that whatever obstacles he faces are only there for his growth. He may have thought that such an obstacle was not ideal for his growth, however, evidently Hashem knew otherwise.

My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita gives a common example of this kind of nisayon. A yeshiva bachur or Avreich hopes to begin a new ’zman’ of learning free of outside disturbances that will adversely effect his ability to learn. Talmud Torah is the ultimate way of connecting to Hashem and growing as a person and therefore he hopes he will be able to invest all his energies into the learning. However, on occasion, it may occur that unavoidable distractions do arise, such as the need to attend a family wedding abroad, or health issues. At this point, the person may feel frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he wants to - he may see these disturbances as nuisances that prevent him from connecting to Hashem. The mistake being made here is that he thinks he knows the best way for him to grow and that annoying distractions are preventing him from doing so. Instead, he should learn from Avraham Avinu and recognize that these ‘nuisances’ emanate from Hashem and evidently they offer the exact challenge that he needs at this moment. Then he can avoid the harmful attitude of frustration and focus on facing this challenge with simcha and bitachon.

Avraham Avinu’s tests teach vital lessons that apply to our everyday life. May we all be zocheh to emulate his behavior in reacting to challenges.

OUR INFLUENCE ON OTHERS - SHOFTIM

“Who is the man who is fearful and faint-hearted? Let him go and return to his house, and let him not melt the heart of his fellows to be like his heart. ” The Torah commands anyone who is afraid of going to war to leave the battlefield because of the negative influence his behavior will have on his fellow soldiers. They will be effected by his fear and consequently become more fearful themselves which will have a detrimental session . The Ramban brings the opinion of the Behag that this is one of the 613 Mitzvot . Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz says that the root of this Mitzva is that it is forbidden to act in such a way in any area of life that will negatively influence onlookers. This applies even if the action is justified but can still be interpreted in a negative way - thus he warns of the care a person studying in Yeshiva must take in not missing the study sessions, even when he has a valid reason, because everyone else may not know of this reason and will come to learn to be less strict in keeping to their own studies . Rav Shlomo-Zalman Auerbach applied this principle in Jewish law. He was asked by someone who had a choice of two Shacharis (the morning service) minyanim (quorum); one was far slower than the other, allowing for more concentration, but if he would pray in it he would have to leave before the end. Rav Auerbach answered that he should pray in the slower minyan even though he would have to leave early. However, he told the person that he should make known the reason for his early departure so as to avoid other people learning from his actions and in the incorrect way . Even though the questioner was following the law by leaving early, nevertheless he had to be aware of the possible consequences that this could have on others .

One may ask, why should a person be judged by how his actions influence others if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them - we are commanded to keep the 613 Mitzvot; if a person does that then why should he suffer from others imitating him in a negative way? Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l writes that in the Shemoneh Esrei of Rosh Hashana we say that Hashem judges the “maaseh ish upekudaso”. Maaseh ish means a person’s own actions, but what does ‘pekudaso’ refer to? He explains that each person has a sphere of influence beyond himself, which includes his family, his students, and any people that come into contact with him. The way he influences these people through his own actions is ‘pekudaso’ and he is judged in that area as well. If, by observing his behavior, they learn to improve their Avodas Hashem (Divine Service) then he will receive much reward but if the opposite occurs then he will be judged for his part in their sins just as he is judged for his own . A person’s actions do not take place in a vacuum, we are always being noticed by others, consequently we must constantly be aware of the possible effect we can have on others without even directly communicating with them.

We can benefit from this form of reward through the positive effect we can have on our fellow: One way in which to do this is by being a positive example in our own behavior and thereby inspire those around us to emulate us . Rav Aron Kotler notes that it is very difficult to rebuke someone effectively without embarrassing him. He suggests that one way to help him grow without fear of causing pain is rebuke by example; acting in such a way that inspires others to emulate his behavior . Someone who, for example consistently arrives on time for Shacharis can influence his roommates to want to do the same; a person who works all day but is careful to be learn Torah for a fixed time every day is an example to those who can’t find the time to learn regularly. Or a person who is careful not to speak lashon hara makes it difficult for those around him to do so by his mere presence. Rav Kotler adds that if a person deliberately excels in a certain area of Avodas Hashem in order to effect onlookers, then he has fulfilled the Mitzva of rebuke in this fashion. And the greater a person is, the more he can influence others in this way. A resolution to bring all of Jewry back to the Torah was found in the satchel of the righteous Rav Naftali Amsterdam. When asked how he planned to carry out this resolution, he replied, “I have resolved to keep all the laws of the Shulchan Aruch strictly. In this way I will serve as a living Shulchan Aruch and anyone who wants to keep the Torah will be able to see in me a living example of a complete Jew and learn from me how to return to the Torah .”

Rav Shmuelevitz goes so far as to argue that causing others to fulfill a Mitzva is considered greater than doing the Mitzva oneself. One of his proofs is a Gemara in Sotah : The Gemara says that Yehuda’s body did not find rest until Moses prayed for him and mentioned one of his merits; Moses said to God, “who caused Reuven to confess to his sin [of moving his father’s bed]? Yehuda [when he confessed about the incident with Tamar].” Rav Shmuelevitz points out that the only merit that Moses mentioned in his prayer is that Yehuda caused Reuven to confess. Why didn’t he mention the great merit of Yehuda’s own confession, an act of great courage that saved the lives of three souls?! We are forced to answer that benefitting our fellow in his spirituality is greater than our own deed in and of itself and therefore the effect his deed had on Reuven was greater than the deed itself !

A person can never know when his deeds can influence others, even the smallest actions can have great effect as is demonstrated in the following true stories: Expecting a large crowd in shul on Yom Kippur, Rav Elya Dushnitzer occupied himself by tearing pieces of toilet paper for public use in the large Petach Tikva shul’s bathroom. A secular Israeli stopped to watch what appeared to him as somewhat peculiar. “Why are you doing that,” he asked. “Tomorrow there is going to be a big crowd, and I don’t want anyone to be inconvenienced.” After becoming a baal teshuva, the Israeli explained what moved him to make a life change. “It was that rabbi. Every rip of paper made a tear deep in my heart. ”

Unsure of whether to attend yeshiva or not, young Moshe decided to go to a yeshiva and see what the guys were like. As he was walking through the lunchroom, someone bumped into him, causing Moshe to spill his coffee on another boy seated at a table. Without a moment’s hesitation, the boy jumped up and called out, “Hey, Shimon, quickly bring another cup of coffee for Moshe!” Moshe decided that if this is what yeshiva bachurim are like, then he’s going to stay. He went on to become Rav Moshe Shwab, the mashgiach (spiritual overseer) of Gateshead Yeshiva .

The people in these stories who were the catalyst for the great changes people made in their lives, do not merely gain reward for their single action. The Mishna in Pirkei Avot writes that a person who benefits others receives incredible benefits ; It begins by saying that ‘sin will not come to his hand,’ - many commentators explain this to mean that he will receive great Heavenly assistance to avoid sin . The Mishna then describes Moses as an example of a mezakeh d’rabim (one who benefits many) and says that he receives reward for all the Mitzvot that he caused to be done as if he fulfilled them himself. Thus, Rav Aaron Kotler notes that one who causes others to perform Mitzvot receives incredible reward for his deeds. “one can not imagine the great gain a person receives through this; he merits extra heavenly protection to not stumble in sin and also to a great number of merits, something which would have been impossible for him to achieve through his own free will . He writes further that this can help us in Heavenly Judgment; The Gemara says that the Books of Life and of Death are opened on Rosh Hashana. Tosefot explains that the dead are also judged . For what are they judged? Rav Kotler answers that even after a person’s death, the actions he committed in the world can still effect others , both positively or negatively. Thus, if a person helps others in such a way that the benefits are long-lasting, he can continue to reap the reward for this even after his own death .

GOING BEYOND THE LETTER OF THE LAW - VA’ESCHANAN

“And you will do that which is right and good in the eyes of Hashem so that He will do good to you and you will come and inherit the land which Hashem promised to give to your forefathers .”

The commentaries write that this passuk, that appears towards the end of the Parsha, is the source for the principle of ‘going beyond the letter of the law. ” This teaches us of the necessity to avoid being medakdek (exacting) in matters of law and to be mevater (forgiving) what is rightfully ours in certain situations. Examples of this are; when a person finds a lost object that halachically he is allowed to keep, but he knows the identity of the original owner - Chazal tell us that even though it is technically permitted to keep the object, he should nonetheless give it back . Another example is when a piece of property is for sale - the prospective buyers should give precedence to the person who lives next to that property because he stands to gain the most by buying this particular property . In truth, however, there are numerous instances when one should go beyond the letter of the law - the Ramban writes that the Torah did not want to explicitly state them all, rather we should learn from this passuk that we must constantly strive to treat people in an understanding fashion and avoid always treating them according to the strict letter of the law . The Gemara tells us that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because people were makpid on each other and treated them according to the strict letter of the law . This seems very difficult to understand - it would have seemed that the whole concept of going beyond the letter of the law is something of a stringency and that failing to follow it would not deserve such a strict punishment. Why were the Jewish people treated so harshly for being medakdek on each other?

It seems that failure to treat people ‘beyond the letter of the law’ reflects a deep flaw in a person’s attitude to Avodas Hashem. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains, (based on the Ramban on this passuk) that ‘v’asisa hayashar vehatov’ is the bein adam lechaveiro equivalent of ‘kedoshim tehyu’: The Ramban in Parshas Kedoshim explains that a person can keep all of the mitzvos and yet be a menuval b’reshus HaTorah.’ - this means that he is careful not to transgress any mitzvos but at the same time he has no interest in elevating himself in areas of reshus such as eating and sleeping. The underlying reason behind his lifestyle is that he believes that the Torah is true and therefore must be observed, but he does not subscribe to the true Torah outlook - he has no interest in elevating himself spiritually, rather his goals are very much ’this-worldly’, involving such aims as fulfilling his physical desires and attaining wealth. Because of his recognition of the truth of Torah, he will never deliberately commit aveiros, nevertheless he will show no interest in elevating himself in areas that he is not technically obligated to do so .

Similarly in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro, a person may recognize the necessity of following the laws of the Torah, however he has no desire to integrate into himself the hashkafos behind them. Thus he will always adhere to the strict letter of the law but whenever he has the opportunity to make a financial gain in a technically permissible fashion he will not hesitate to do so. The Torah tells this person that he is making a serious hashkafic error by instructing him to “do what is right and good”, to act ‘beyond the letter of the law’, to treat people in a merciful fashion, and not be medakdek on every case. The Torah is instructing us that we should develop a genuine sense of ahavas Yisroel and thereby treat our fellow Jew in the same way that we would want them to treat us - to be forgiving and compassionate. Thus, for example, when someone has lost a valuable object a Jew should not hesitate to return it even if he is not obligated to do so or when a poor person finds himself owing you a large amount of money, a person should act with a degree of flexibility and compassion.

This helps understand why there was such a strict punishment when the Jews treated each other in a strict fashion - they missed the lesson of ‘hayashar b’hatov’ , that it is not right to treat one’s fellow Jew in a harsh and unforgiving manner this does not adhere to the spirit of bein adam lechaverio that theTorah espouses.

The commentaries find another difficulty with the Gemara saying that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because the people were strict with each other. Other Gemaras give different reasons for the destructions, such as murder, idol worship, immorality and baseless hatred . Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin answered this question when he was witness to the following incident. Someone had slandered his fellow and now came on Erev Yom Kippur to ask for forgiveness. The victim refused to forgive him, pointing to the halacho that one does not have to forgive slander. Rav Yitzchak asked him about the aforementioned contradiction in Gemaras. He explained that the Batei HaMikdash was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in the other Gemaras. However, he pointed out that Chazal tell us that when people treat each other beyond the letter of the law and are not makpid on every nekuda, Hashem acts measure for measure and is forgiving for even the most serious sins. However, when |Hashem saw that the people were treating each other in a strict fashion, He acted accordingly and chose not to be forgiving for their other sins. So too, Rav Yitzchak said to the unforgiving person, if you treat your fellow in such a medakdek way then you should expect that Hashem will treat you in the same way. The man heard the lesson and forgave the slanderer.

May we all be zocheh to treat each other how we would like to be treated ourselves and that Hashem should react in a similar fashion.

THE THREE WEEKS - REDEFINING SINAS CHINAM

As we begin the period of the three weeks that culminates in Tisha B'Av, we strive to find ways of improving ourselves, so we can ensure that this will be the last year without the Beis HaMikdash. The famous gemara in Gittin about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches us a great deal about the cause of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and what we need to rectify in order to bring about its rebuilding.

The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. An unnamed man was a sworn enemy of Bar Kamtza but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a banquet, but the servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came to the affair, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After that offer was refused, he volunteered to pay half the cost of the whole banquet, but instead he was thrown out. There were a number of rabbis in attendance, who remained silent throughout this unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.

The Iyun Yaakov, ztz”l, asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for these events, since he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai, ztz”l, answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the banquet and witnessed how Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that if someone can protest a wrongdoing but does not, it is considered as if he himself committed it. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha, who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the destruction.

Furthermore, the rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events, because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza’s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story: Inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, the Beis HaMikdash may not have been destroyed. Their indifference to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.

This lesson, that apathy destroyed the second Beis HaMikdash, seems somewhat contradictory to the Gemara in Yoma, which states that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the destruction. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not limited to active hatred; it can also include apathy. We see this from the first time the root of the word sinah (hatred) appears in the Torah: In parashas Vayetzei, after Yaakov Avinu marries Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, “Hashem saw that Leah was senuah (literally, “hated”).” The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one he loves less is called senuah—he does not hate her, but he loves her less than his favorite. Therefore, says the Ramban, Yaakov did not hate Leah; rather, his love for her was lacking. And therefore we can understand that the word sinah does not necessarily imply an active hatred; rather, it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in Yoma need not have been a virulent hatred; it could also have included apathy and lack of concern for one’s fellow.

In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibschutz, ztz”l, writes that the sinas chinam described in the Gemara refers not to active hatred, but to disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, because people were not willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, “Do you have a greater hater than this: one who sees his friend drowning in a river [of sin] and does not protest?!” Based on this redefinition of sinah, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma involves not only active hatred; it also includes apathy toward the pain of one’s fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.

The fact that the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very prevalent today, and they apply to many areas of our lives, whether it be in the realm of sharing another’s pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or reaching out to the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious soul searching to assess our performance in these areas and strive to improve in some way.

May this be the last Tishah b’Av or mourning that we endure.

THE FREEDOM OF TORAH - NASSO AND SHAVUOS

The parsha discusses the mitzva of Nezirus, whereby a person takes a vow to abstain from wine, to avoid coming into contact with a dead body, and to let his hair grow . The author of Toras Avraham, Rav Avraham Grodzinki zt”l , discusses a number of difficulties with regard to the spiritual standing of the Nazir. He notes that at one point the Torah describes him as ’holy’ for depriving himself of physical pleasure . However, soon after, in the process of describing the sacrifices that he brings, it tells us that he must bring a sin-offering to atone for a certain aveira that he has committed. What is that aveira? Rashi brings the opinion of Rebbe Elazar Hakappa that his sin was that he caused himself pain by depriving himself of the enjoyment of drinking wine . Thus there is a blatant contradiction as to whether the Nazir is doing a great mitza or is in fact committing an aveira.

The Toras Avraham answers that the Nazir is doing the right thing - he is someone who feels an unhealthy tendency towards physical pleasure, and therefore deems it necessary to make the drastic step of taking a vow of Nezirus. However, there is an element of sin in this action that requires atonement. The Toras Avraham explains that G-d created man with a body and soul and that it is wrong for man to totally neglect his body. Man‘s job in this world is to live in the physical world but to elevate it. The Nazir feels that he cannot do this without totally abstaining from wine. He is correct for acting this way, but in doing so, he causes his body considerable discomfort because it has a certain level of shibud (attachment) to the physical world and feels pain at being deprived of the pleasures that the physical world has to offer. Consequently, he is considered ‘holy’ for undertaking such a bold process of purification, but simultaneously needs to bring a sin offering for causing pain to his body .

Having explained the duality in the act of Nezirus, the Torah Avraham then poses a new problem. He brings the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim who writes that it is not sufficient to merely observe mitzvas but live a life full of indulgence, rather the Torah requires us to ’be holy’. To fulfill this mitzva, he writes that one must abstain from physical pleasures. He even equates the holy man to the Nazir who is described as being holy for abstaining from wine. However, he makes absolutely no allusion to any sin committed by abstaining from physical pleasures even though it seems to cause pain to the ’holy’ man’s body. The Toras Avraham writes that this Ramban is discussing the level of a ‘Talmid Chacham’, a person who strives to separate himself from the luxuries of this world. This leads to the obvious question: What is the difference between the Nazir who sinned by abstaining from wine, and the Talmid Chacham who commits no sin in following a similar process?!

The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the prishus (separation) of the Nazir and that of the Talmid Chacham. The Nazir is subject to a strong physical drive for the baser pleasures such as wine. It is painful for him to withdraw from partaking of them, therefore he is considered to be sinning by causing himself pain. In contrast the Talmid Chacham feels no pain at avoiding physical self-indulgence because he is not bound to his physical drives. He has such a strong recognition of the futile and transient nature of physical pleasures that it is not difficult for him to abstain from them. Thus, whilst the Nazir needs atonement for causing himself pain, the Talmid Chacham is not considered to have committed any kind of misdemeanor.

We learn from here a fundamental principle; that the ideal way of separating from physical pleasures should not involve a painful process of self-deprivation. Rather it should emanate from a natural sense of the ultimate futility of physical gratification. This stands in stark contrast to the secular attitude to self-deprivation. This is most manifest in the widespread attempts of people to lose weight through intense diets. These largely fail and it seems that a significant reason for this is that denying oneself food is a cause of great self-affliction. The dieter does not free himself of a desire for pleasant tasting foods, rather often his craving for them actually increases. Thus he goes through a painful process of self-deprivation which invariably cannot last indefinitely. It seems that the Torah approach to food should automatically enable a person to eat healthily and even lose weight . If a person frees himself from his shibudim to physical pleasures, then abstaining from them will become a painless process. One ben Torah who was somewhat overweight and was known to eat large amounts of food, undertook to reduce his food intake through a gradual process of reducing his shibudim to food - in the process he lost about thirty pounds in a few months!

It still needs to be understood how a person can reach the level of the Talmid Chacham and be able to separate from physical pleasures without causing himself discomfort. The key seems to be that if one develops a strong appreciation for spirituality then he automatically frees himself of a shibud to physicality. A yeshiva bachur once asked Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he change this? Rav Orlowek answered him that he should deepen his appreciation for tefilla and by doing so he would automatically reduce his preference for lunch.

This dichotomy is highly relevant to our relationship with Torah that we celebrate on Shavuos. The Mishna in Avos exhorts us that the way of Torah is to eat bread and salt, drink water and sleep on the ground . This does not necessarily mean that to become a Talmid Chacham one must live in this fashion, rather the Mishna is telling us that we should develop such a deep appreciation for Torah that the baser pleasures become meaningless. Consequently, for a person to aspire to be a Talmid Chacham he must be willing and able to live in a sparse way. Thus, even if he does have access to a higher standard of living he will nevertheless be able to focus on the higher pleasure of learning Torah. However, if he feels a great pull to physical comfort then it will be impossible for him to sufficiently devote himself to Torah.

This principle of freeing oneself from physical pleasures is connected to Shavuos in another way. The Magen Avraham discusses the widespread Minhag for men to stay awake on the night of Shavuos. He suggests that the reason for this is based on a Medrash that the Jewish people slept the whole night before Mattan Torah and Hashem had to wake them up. We try to metaken (fix) this error by staying awake for the whole night . What is the underlying meaning in this Minhah? It seems that whilst the Jewish people were ready to receive the Torah, nonetheless on a certain level, they also felt a degree of apprehension at the implications of doing so. It would require a high level of self-deprivation and place great demands on them. This apprehension manifest itself through sleep which represents the ultimate escape from the challenges of life. It is very common that when a person feels troubled or depressed he turns to sleep as a way of escaping his problems. The Jewish people were excited about receiving the Torah and knew that it offered them a far deeper and more meaningful form of existence but deep down they also felt a shibud to the physical pleasures that they would now have to forsake . In order to metaken this ‘sin’, we deprive ourselves of sleep to demonstrate that the joy of receiving the Torah far outweighs the loss of physical comforts such as sleep.


We have seen how there are two ways in which a person can deprive himself of physical pleasures. The Nazir’s self-deprecation causes him considerable discomfort, whilst the Talmid Chacham feels no pain in refraining from such pleasures. Our goal is to reduce our shibudim to the physical world through a heightened sense of appreciation for spirituality. Shavuos is an apt time to work on developing this love of spirituality by recognizing that the joy of learning Torah all night far outweighs that of sleeping!

DO NOT HATE YOUR BROTHER IN YOUR HEART - KEDOSHIM

Parshas Kedoshim is replete with Mitzvos that teach about interpersonal relationships. Towards the end of this section, the Torah instructs us: “Do not hate your friend in your heart, rebuke your friend, do not bear upon him sin”. There are a number of questions on this verse: Firstly, why does the Torah stress that one may not his fellow davke in his heart, thus implying that it is only forbidden to hate someone in one’s heart, but not in any other way. Secondly, the three parts to the verse do not seem to be connected, however the fact that they are in the same verse strongly suggest that there is some kind of connection – what is it? Finally, the meaning of the last clause in the verse, “do not bear upon him sin,” is unclear.

With regard to the Torah’s specification of hatred in one’s heart, many commentaries write that indeed the Torah is focusing particularly on hatred that is kept in one’s heart to the exclusion of hatred that is expressed externally. They explain that of course it is forbidden to express one’s displeasure with someone in a hostile fashion and that doing so can involve a number of prohibitions such as taking revenge and bearing a grudge. However, one who acts in this way does not transgress the Mitzvo to not hate one’s fellow in his heart, because he did not keep it inside, rather he expressed it to the subject of his displeasure. In this Mitzvo the Torah is focusing on situations in which a person feels hurt or offended by someone else and he chooses to keep his hatred inside, without discussing it with the person who hurt him. The problem with this inaction is that it will inevitably cause the hatred to fester with very negative consequences.

The Rambam offers the example in Tanach of the incident with Amnon and Tamar. After Amnon committed his terrible deed, the Prophet tells us that Tamar’s brother, Avshalom bore a great hatred for his half-brother, Amnon, and did not speak to him about what happened at all. The Ralbag writes that had he spoken to Amnon about what happened then the hatred would have dissipated. Instead it only grew to the point that Avshalom had Amnon murdered two years later. Even though Amnon clearly committed a grave sin and Avshalom seemingly had every right to be furious with him for what happened, nonetheless he is taken to task for not speaking to Amnon and letting the hatred fester with terrible consequences.

We have now answered the first question of why the Torah particularly focuses on hatred in one’s heart. This form of hatred has its own unique problem that is not found to the same degree in hatred which is expressed; that is that it results in an unnecessary escalation of the hatred which could have been avoided with dialogue. In this vein, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that internal hatred is worse than revealed hatred, and that is why the Torah singled out this form of hatred in particular. He continues with very strong language, writing, “the root reason for this Mitzvo; because hatred in one’s heart causes great evil between people, causing permanent conflict between brothers and friends… and it is the lowest and most disgusting trait which is the most reprehensible in the eyes of people with common sense.”
We can now also understand the continuation of the verse; “rebuke your friend”. The commentaries explain that in addition to referring to the standard rebuke that is required when one sees another person sinning, this Mitzvo also includes situations in which one is hurt by his fellow. The Torah instructs us, do not hate your fellow in your heart by keeping it to yourself, rather you must speak to him about it - that is the rebuke that the Torah refers to. The Ohr HaChaim explains that there are two likely consequences of speaking to him in a reasonable manner about the pain he has caused. Either he will explain his actions showing that in fact he did not commit a sin and that there was some kind of misunderstanding. Or, he will admit that he did behave incorrectly, and now that he realizes that damage that he caused, he will apologize and vow not to do it again. The Ohr HaChaim then explains the meaning of the final clause in the verse, “do not bear upon him sin”. It means that when someone hurts you, you should not immediately assume that he sinned, rather you should judge him favorably, and assume that he perhaps didn’t sin at all, and even if he did, that he would gladly repent if he realized the damage that he caused.

We have seen the reprehensible nature of internal hatred, and the accompanying necessity of speaking to a person towards whom one bears any sense of hatred because of something he did. Experience proves that when one follows the Torah’s instructions in these areas, the result is almost always that the person does explain himself and apologizes for inadvertent pain caused. The vast majority of people are not cruel and do not intend to hurt other people. Therefore when the victim of harsh words or some other form of behavior explains to the person how they were feeling, the result is almost always positive, preventing an unnecessary escalation of hatred, and avoiding a great deal of needless pain. It is not easy to approach someone in such a way, however the fear involved in no way exempts one from the Torah obligation to try to clarify the situation. May we all merit to have open and honest relationships where disputes can be quickly resolved.

REACHING OUR POTENTIAL - VAYAKHEL

In the midst of its account of the building of the Mishkan that Torah states that, “Every man whose heart inspired him came.. ” The Ramban writes that this refers to those who came to do the work of weaving, sewing and building. Where did these people learn how to perform such skilled crafts? The Ramban answers that they found deep within their teva the ability to do them. These formerly hidden powers came about as a result of their deep desire to fulfill the ratson Hashem by helping to build the Mishkan. As a result of their burning desire, Hashem gave them the ability to do things that they had never been taught!

There is a well-known principle that Hashem grants us a unique set of talents with which they can fulfill their potential in life. Whilst this is certainly true it seems that it can be somewhat misapplied: As we grow up we naturally become aware of our strengths and weaknesses - there is the tendency that we can limit our activities to areas in which our strengths lie and ignore those fields in which we fell less able. For example, a person may feel that he is adept at speaking in front of small groups but that he cannot speak in front of large audiences. Thus, even when there is a necessity for someone to speak in such a setting, he will shy away from the responsibility because he has ‘pigeon-holed’ himself as being unable to speak in front of many people. We learn from the Ramban that this is an erroneous attitude - the people who stepped forward to work in the Mishkan had no awareness that they were able to perform such skilled crafts - however, as a result of their devotion to Hashem they found hitherto untapped talents that could be used to fulfill ratson Hashem. So too, in our own lives there may be times when there is a need for a certain task to be performed and we may feel that we are unable to perform it - however, the Mishna in Avos tells us that, “in a place where there are no men, be a man.” The Mishna does not qualify its exhortation by saying that you should only stand up where there is no man in an area where you feel highly capable. Rather, the only criteria that we should examine is whether there is anyone else who can perform the required task as well as we can. And if there is not, then if we dedicate ourselves to doing ratson Hashem then surely Hashem will bring out in us hidden talents.

There are many examples of people who were inspired to bring out hidden talents and consequently achieved great things; one of the most remarkable is that of the Netsiv zt”l. When he completed his commentary on the Sheiltos, he made a seuda, partly because that is the custom when one completes a sefer, but there was another, more personal reason as well. He related that when he was a boy he was not particularly serious about his Torah studies. His parents made every effort to help him change his attitude but to no avail. One day he overheard them discussing his lack of success in Torah learning - they decided that he had no prospect of becoming a Talmid Chacham and therefore he should learn to become a cobbler. They hoped that at least he would be a yirei shamayim who would go about his work with honesty and dedication. When he heard this, it greatly shocked him and he decided to take his Torah studies seriously - this incident has such an impact on him that it led to a complete change in his attitude and he became a Gadol. How did he achieve so much? Because he developed a desire to be great in learning - it was through this desire that he found in his teva hitherto undiscovered ability to learn Torah to a very high level.

One may respond to this story by arguing that not everybody can become such a great Talmid Chacham, however Jewish history shows that we need not necessarily be a Gadol to achieve great things - sometimes there are other areas of expertise which are required in order to bring about a fulfillment of ratson Hashem. Reb Dovid Dryan zt”l provides us with an excellent example of such a case. He was a pious shochet known for his adherence to shemiras halashon. However, there is one more thing that makes him stand out - he was directly responsible for the founding and running of the Gateshead Yeshiva and played a significant role in the formation of the Gateshead Kollel and Seminary. To a significant degree, his dedication is responsible for the fact that Gateshead is known as the greatest Torah center in Europe through which thousands of boys and girls have received a high level Torah education. How did Reb Dovid Dryan achieve this? When he came to live in Gateshead he found that there was no Yeshiva there. He said to himself, “how can I live in a place where there is no Yeshiva?!” This may be a question that many of us would ask in a similar situation. However, he did not suffice with just asking the question - he took action; he devoted much time and effort to achieve a seemingly impossible task in the face of considerable opposition. He took on many tasks which were not necessarily within the areas of his expertise, including fundraising and administration. He could have easily felt that he was a shochet and that was where his responsibilities to the community ended. Instead he motivated himself to do what was needed and Hashem granted him the ability to succeed .

Despite these inspiring stories one could still argue that he has in the past made an effort in certain fields and not been successful - consequently he feels that he is exempt from taking responsibility in these areas. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this claim; he points out how much effort we invest into our own interests. For example, if a business venture is not going well, a person will not simply give up, rather he will constantly think how he can improve the situation - he will seek advice from other businessmen and eventually he will often succeed. So too, he writes, “If Ratson Hashem was of equal value to a person as are his own personal affairs, he would seek advice and strategies how to build up Torah so that it does not weaken, and surely Hashem will help him find ways to succeed… however we do not do so in heavenly matters. When one sees that there is no way to improve the situation he immediately gives up and exempts himself from having to do anything. ” If we were willing to apply the same effort in Avodas Hashem as in our financial interests then we could surely rise above our accepted limits.

There is a remarkable present day example of a person who lives these words of the Chofetz Chaim. Rav Meir Shuster Shlita is naturally a shy person who is most happy in the Beis Medrash learning or davenning. However, many years ago, he recognized a need in Klal Yisroel - every day dozens of secular Jews would visit the Kotel and return back to their lives empty of Torah. He saw the necessity to approach these people and offer them accommodation in a hostel that could serve as the base with which to encourage the visitors to go to Yeshiva or Seminary. Consequently, he took it upon himself to go against his teva and walk up to these strangers and engage them in conversation. After doing this for many years, it is impossible to know how many hundreds of lives have been changed by his bold decision to do something against his teva because he felt it was Ratson Hashem. But it is clear that had he limited himself to his natural areas of strength then the world would have greatly suffered for it.

The people who raised up their hearts to fulfill Ratson Hashem found powers that they could never imagine they possessed. We too have the ability to break beyond our limits and achieve the seemingly impossible.

RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH

After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential person of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.

ACHIEVING OUR POTENTIAL - VAYAKHEL

In the midst of its account of the building of the Mishkan that Torah states that, “Every man whose heart inspired him came..[1]” The Ramban writes that this refers to those who came to do the work of weaving, sewing and building. Where did these people learn how to perform such skilled crafts? The Ramban answers that they found deep within their teva the ability to do them. These formerly hidden powers came about as a result of their deep desire to fulfill the ratson Hashem by helping to build the Mishkan. As a result of their burning desire, Hashem gave them the ability to do things that they had never been taught!

There is a well-known principle that Hashem grants us a unique set of talents with which they can fulfill their potential in life. Whilst this is certainly true it seems that it can be somewhat misapplied: As we grow up we naturally become aware of our strengths and weaknesses - there is the tendency that we can limit our activities to areas in which our strengths lie and ignore those fields in which we fell less able. For example, a person may feel that he is adept at speaking in front of small groups but that he cannot speak in front of large audiences. Thus, even when there is a necessity for someone to speak in such a setting, he will shy away from the responsibility because he has ‘pigeon-holed’ himself as being unable to speak in front of many people. We learn from the Ramban that this is an erroneous attitude - the people who stepped forward to work in the Mishkan had no awareness that they were able to perform such skilled crafts - however, as a result of their devotion to Hashem they found hitherto untapped talents that could be used to fulfill ratson Hashem. So too, in our own lives there may be times when there is a need for a certain task to be performed and we may feel that we are unable to perform it - however, the Mishna in Avos tells us that, “in a place where there are no men, be a man.” The Mishna does not qualify its exhortation by saying that you should only stand up where there is no man in an area where you feel highly capable. Rather, the only criteria that we should examine is whether there is anyone else who can perform the required task as well as we can. And if there is not, then if we dedicate ourselves to doing ratson Hashem then surely Hashem will bring out in us hidden talents.

There are many examples of people who were inspired to bring out hidden talents and consequently achieved great things; one of the most remarkable is that of the Netsiv zt”l. When he completed his commentary on the Sheiltos, he made a seuda, partly because that is the custom when one completes a sefer, but there was another, more personal reason as well. He related that when he was a boy he was not particularly serious about his Torah studies. His parents made every effort to help him change his attitude but to no avail. One day he overheard them discussing his lack of success in Torah learning - they decided that he had no prospect of becoming a Talmid Chacham and therefore he should learn to become a cobbler. They hoped that at least he would be a yirei shamayim who would go about his work with honesty and dedication. When he heard this, it greatly shocked him and he decided to take his Torah studies seriously - this incident has such an impact on him that it led to a complete change in his attitude and he became a Gadol. How did he achieve so much? Because he developed a desire to be great in learning - it was through this desire that he found in his teva hitherto undiscovered ability to learn Torah to a very high level.

One may respond to this story by arguing that not everybody can become such a great Talmid Chacham, however Jewish history shows that we need not necessarily be a Gadol to achieve great things - sometimes there are other areas of expertise which are required in order to bring about a fulfillment of ratson Hashem. Reb Dovid Dryan zt”l provides us with an excellent example of such a case. He was a pious shochet known for his adherence to shemiras halashon. However, there is one more thing that makes him stand out - he was directly responsible for the founding and running of the Gateshead Yeshiva and played a significant role in the formation of the Gateshead Kollel and Seminary. To a significant degree, his dedication is responsible for the fact that Gateshead is known as the greatest Torah center in Europe through which thousands of boys and girls have received a high level Torah education. How did Reb Dovid Dryan achieve this? When he came to live in Gateshead he found that there was no Yeshiva there. He said to himself, “how can I live in a place where there is no Yeshiva?!” This may be a question that many of us would ask in a similar situation. However, he did not suffice with just asking the question - he took action; he devoted much time and effort to achieve a seemingly impossible task in the face of considerable opposition. He took on many tasks which were not necessarily within the areas of his expertise, including fundraising and administration. He could have easily felt that he was a shochet and that was where his responsibilities to the community ended. Instead he motivated himself to do what was needed and Hashem granted him the ability to succeed[2].

Despite these inspiring stories one could still argue that he has in the past made an effort in certain fields and not been successful - consequently he feels that he is exempt from taking responsibility in these areas. The Chofetz Chaim addresses this claim; he points out how much effort we invest into our own interests. For example, if a business venture is not going well, a person will not simply give up, rather he will constantly think how he can improve the situation - he will seek advice from other businessmen and eventually he will often succeed. So too, he writes, “If Ratson Hashem was of equal value to a person as are his own personal affairs, he would seek advice and strategies how to build up Torah so that it does not weaken, and surely Hashem will help him find ways to succeed… however we do not do so in heavenly matters. When one sees that there is no way to improve the situation he immediately gives up and exempts himself from having to do anything.[3]” If we were willing to apply the same effort in Avodas Hashem as in our financial interests then we could surely rise above our accepted limits.

There is a remarkable present day example of a person who lives these words of the Chofetz Chaim. Rav Meir Shuster Shlita is naturally a shy person who is most happy in the Beis Medrash learning or davenning. However, many years ago, he recognized a need in Klal Yisroel - every day dozens of secular Jews would visit the Kotel and return back to their lives empty of Torah. He saw the necessity to approach these people and offer them accommodation in a hostel that could serve as the base with which to encourage the visitors to go to Yeshiva or Seminary. Consequently, he took it upon himself to go against his teva and walk up to these strangers and engage them in conversation. After doing this for many years, it is impossible to know how many hundreds of lives have been changed by his bold decision to do something against his teva because he felt it was Ratson Hashem. But it is clear that had he limited himself to his natural areas of strength then the world would have greatly suffered for it.

The people who raised up their hearts to fulfill Ratson Hashem found powers that they could never imagine they possessed. We too have the ability to break beyond our limits and achieve the seemingly impossible.
[1] Vayakhel, 35:21
[2] Heard from Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita.
[3] Chizuk Hadas, Ch.2, p.14.