VA’ESCHANAN – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – USING THE YETSER TOV FOR THE GOOD

Devarim, 6:5 “You shall love HaShem, your G-d, with all our heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources.” Rashi, 6:5, sv. With all your heart: With both of your inclinations. Va’eschanan features the first paragraph of the Shema, where we are told to serve HaShem with all our hearts. The word, heart in hebrew, is leiv, and ‘your heart’ is לבך which is normally with one ‘beis. However, in the Shema it is spelt with two beisim ((לבבך. Rashi explains that the phrase, ‘with all your heart’ refers to the two inclinations: the positive and the negative. The commentaries explain that Rashi is coming to answer why the Torah used two ‘beis’ on this occasion – the ‘beis’ alludes to the heart and the two ‘beisim’ allude to the two forces that determine the heart – the positive and negative inclinations. Many commentaries discuss what it means that we should serve HaShem with our yetser ra, however, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l also notes a difficulty with the fact that the Torah exhorts us to serve HaShem with our yetser tov. He asks why it was necessary to tell us to love HaShem with our yetser tov; surely that inclination automatically directs a person to doing good deeds. He answers that in fact this is not the case; were the yetser tov left to its own devices it will not necessarily direct a person to perform ratson HaShem. Without the guidance of the Torah as the ultimate source of morality, one may come to define what is good and evil according to his own logic, and thereby develop a warped sense of right and wrong. In this way, writes Rav Feinstein, the yetser tov can cause a person to do actions that go against the Torah’s definition of right and wrong. He gives the example of charity; the yetser tov directs a person to want to give money to others, however there are occasions when he may want to give to inappropriate causes. My Rebbe Rav Berkovits shlita, expands on this example, arguing that at times it is not right to give charity to a person. For example if it will only engender more dependence on others, or if the money will be used for unhealthy purposes, then it may not be correct to give in this form. In order to accurately perform ratson HaShem in this delicate issue a person must turn to the Torah’s words for guidance. This often means asking a competent Torah authority who can be trusted to transmit daas Torah. Another example that Rav Feinstein mentions is misplaced rachmanus (mercy). This includes feeling remorse for evil people; this is a flaw that has affected great people in Jewish history. Perhaps the foremost example is the great Shaul HaMelech. On HaShem’s command he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals. The gemara offers an explanation for Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer ; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life. Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation. The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous". As a result of his failure to listen to HaShem due to his feelings of mercy, he was punished with the loss of his Kingship. What were the consequences of this mistake? Agag begot offspring and one of his descendants was Haman. Thus Shaul’s act of ‘mercy’ nearly led to the destruction of the Jewish nation. These are just two examples of how even a person’s yetser tov can direct him away from ratson HaShem. A particularly relevant application today is in present day society when many disparate groups within Orthodoxy seem to preach highly different and often opposing messages in a number of areas, such as the roles of Torah learning, working, the use of technology and so on. How can one know when his particular belief is based on the Torah’s definition of morality or merely the personal leanings of his yetser tov ? There is no simple answer to this question, but as we mentioned above, the most sure way of discerning the truth is to turn to those people most well-versed in the Torah outlook – the Gedolim and talmidei chachamim who are most able to follow their guidance and clarify application of such guidance in specific cases. Without such direction a person is at risk of failing to follow the Torah’s exhortation to use his yetser tov in the way that the Torah intended. May we all merit to use both our inclinations to perform ratson HaShem.

DEVARIM – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – SELF-SACRIFICE FOR THE TORAH

Devarim, 1:9: I (Moshe) said to you at that time, saying: ‘I cannot carry you alone’. Devarim, 1:13-14: Provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are wise, understanding and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads. And you answered me and said, ‘The thing that you have proposed to do is good’. Rashi, Devarim, 1:14: sv. And you answered me: You decided the matter according to your own pleasure. You should have answered: ‘Our teacher Moshe, from who is it pleasant to learn – from you or your students?! Is it not from you who suffered over it?!...” Parshas Devarim begins with a series of rebukes from Moshe Rabbeinu. One of them involves the incident when Yisro suggested that other people help relieve Moshe’s burden of teaching the people, and how the people willingly accepted his suggestion. Moshe chastised them that they should have demanded that they only learn from him – Rashi explains that Moshe’s maaleh (advantage) over everyone else was that he suffered (mistaer) over the Torah. The first question that must be asked is what kind of suffering does Rashi refer to? It seems there are two possible interpretations of this term; the first is discussed by Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. He asks why Rashi did not simply say that they should have wanted Moshe to teach them because he was more learned than everyone else – what is the necessity of the added point that he suffered over the Torah? He answers that sometimes a less learned person can be a more effective teacher than one more learned than himself, therefore simply being more learned would not have been a valid reason why they should have only wanted to learn from Moshe. The more significant factor is the degree to which the person exerted himself in order to attain complete clarity in his learning. Thus, Rav Feinstein understands that the suffering here means that Moshe worked incredibly hard with mesiras nefesh (self-sacrifice) to attain clarity in the Torah that he learned. Because he reached such a high level of clarity through his intense efforts, the people should have desired to have learnt only from him. Maran HaRav Shteinman shlita, explains the suffering that Moshe Rabbeinu endured in a different way. He focuses on the forty days that Moshe spent on Har Sinai being taught the Torah. In that time he did not eat or drink – Rav Shteinman writes that we learn from Rashi that even though HaShem miraculously gave him the ability to survive so long without food and water, nonetheless he did feel the hunger and discomfort that normally accompanies fasting. Thus the reason that the people should have wanted to learn directly from Moshe was that he endured suffering in the process of his Torah learning. According to Rav Shteinman, why does the fact that he endured physical discomfort explain why they should have desired to learn only from him? It seems that the answer is that the fact that Moshe was prepared to experience physical discomfort in the process of learning Torah demonstrated his great dedication to grasping the true understanding of Torah. Because he went through more mesiras nefesh than everyone else, it can likewise be presumed that he exerted himself in order to gain clarity so it was only correct to want to learn from him alone. We learn from Rav Shteinman that there is great value to Torah learnt in difficult situations. Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg zt”l placed great emphasis on the value of such effort. He would say that many students would only learn if everything was ‘just right’ – they needed comfortable rooms, good air conditioning and so on, and if everything wasn’t right then they couldn’t learn. The outstanding students were the ones who would function in all circumstances. He explained that this fulfills the Mishna in Avos; “Such is the way of Torah; bread in salt shall you eat, water in measure you shall drink, and on the earth you shall sleep.” This doesn’t mean that a person must live like this in order to learn, but that he must be able to learn even in such adverse circumstances. As Rav Scheinberg stated, only a person on that level can attain true greatness in Torah. He added that the reward for such learning was extremely great. He quoted Rav Yerucham Levovits zt”l that if a person trudges through the mud to learn, he will bring that mud with him to Gan Eden at the time of his death, and he will receive reward for the mud that dirtied his boots, as well as the aggravation it caused him. Rav Scheinberg taught this idea through his own example in addition to his teachings. When his yeshiva, Torah Ore, was in Bensonhurst, there were times in the summer when it was scorching hot and the students would struggle to continue learning (there were no fans, let alone air conditioning!). Yet they would see him with his tefillin on his head, his many layers of tzitsis, and in his kapota, and yet he was learning with tremendous energy. It would seem that this does not only apply to men and their Torah learning, but also to women in their own spiritual efforts in learning and prayer. Moreover, the mesiras nefesh that a woman endures to enable her husband and children to learn is surely included in this lesson and the harder it is, the greater their reward. May we all merit to learn from the examples and the lessons of our Gedolim and apply these lessons to our own lives.

BEHAALOSECHA – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – RECTIFYING INGRATITUDE

Bamidbar, 11:1: The people took to seeking complaints; it was evil in the ears of HaShem, and HaShem heard and His wrath flared, and a fire of HaShem burned against them, and it consumed at the edge of the camp. Rashi, 11:1: sv. Evil in the ears of HaShem: …they said, ‘woe to us, we have been burdened by this journey – for three days we haven’t rested from the difficulties of the journey.’ Sv. And His wrath flared: [HaShem said] ‘I intended for your good, that you would enter the land immediately.’ As the Jewish people left Har Sinai, HaShem sped up the journey so that they would arrive in Eretz Yisrael sooner; this was an expression of HaShem’s intense ‘eagerness’, so to speak, that the nation should attain its purpose. Sadly, a number of sins impeded their progress. One of them was that of the ‘misonenim’ (complainers) who complained about the burden of the journey. Instead of realizing that it was an act of kindness on HaShem’s part - in that it would bring them to the land sooner - they complained about how difficult it was to travel without rest. This particularly angered HaShem, because not only were they ungrateful for His act of kindness, but they actually focused on a negative aspect and complained about it. This was not the only time that the people were criticized for ingratitude. Immediately following the episode of the misonenim was the section about the asafsuf (rabble) who complained about the manna. Again, in Parshas Chukas they criticized the manna, calling it lechem hakolkel (insubstantial food). The Gemara highlights these complaints as classic examples of ingratitude of the worst kind: HaShem performed a kindness for them in giving them the elevated manna, and they not only did not thank Him, but actually complained about a perceived negative aspect of the gift! The Gemara further tells us that they inherited this trait from Adam HaRishon. When he sinned by eating the fruit, HaShem asked him what happened, providing an opportunity to admit to his mistake. He answered; “The woman whom You gave to be with me – she gave me of the tree and I ate.” The Gemara highlights Adam’s reply as a gross example of ingratitude. Rashi explains that Adam blamed the fact that he sinned on HaShem because He gave Adam the woman who caused him to eat the fruit. In truth, the creation of Chava was a great gift from HaShem to provide him with the partner that he desired. We have seen the severity of viewing HaShem’s hanhaga (interaction) with His people in a negative way. This is most obvious with regards to HaShem’s gifts such as the manna, yet, in truth, even seemingly negative occurrences are also kindnesses from HaShem, and on many occasions we merit to see how such events are for the good. The following story is a dramatic example of such a phenomenon. As a young boy, Rabbi Moshe Sherer fell ill. His illness was diagnosed as strep throat which in those days, before antibiotics, was far more dangerous than today. The infection could worsen into rheumatic fever and cause permanent heart damage and even death. The doctor prescribed a very expensive medication. His mother, Mrs Basya Sherer gathered all the money to be found in the house in order to pay for the vital medication but doubted that it was enough. She nevertheless rushed to the pharmacy; the owner was not in the store, so Mrs Sherer begged his assistant to fill the prescription. The young man agreed to do so and prepared the medicine in exchange for all the money Mrs Sherer had. Mrs Sherer gratefully took the medicine and rushed home. In her haste, she tripped over a curb and watched in horror as the bottle flew from her hand and smashed on the ground. She retrieved the paper bag in which the medicine was placed, in order to save any remnants of the precious elixir, but most of it was lost. Her money and medicine gone, she rushed back to the pharmacy still carrying the bag with the broken bottle inside. By that time, the storeowner had retuned and he listened to Mrs Sherer’s sobs as she offered to clean the store after hours if he would just refill the prescription. He agreed, and went to the back of the store to refill the prescription. He returned a moment later, ashen faced. “Angels are watching over your son,” he told her. From the smell of the medicine absorbed by the bag, he realized that the original prescription had been incorrectly filled, and instead of the needed medication she had received medication that could have been life threatening to the boy. Shaken by the near tragedy, he provided Mrs Sherer with the proper medication and even returned the money she had originally paid. She would tell over this story many times, saying, ‘When I tripped and heard the bottle breaking, I thought my life was over. Little did I know that what I saw as an incomparable disaster was really the greatest blessing from the Ribbono Shel Olam.” There are times when we will merit to see how what we thought was negative ended as positive, and there are times when we do not. Regardless of the outcome, it is incumbent on us to focus on the positive aspects and work on the vital trait of gratitude.

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.

NOACH AND AVRAHAM - PARSHAS NOACH

“These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with
G-d.” Noach was the greatest person in his time, the only one who deserved to be spared from the flood. And yet Noach is unfavorably compared to Avraham Avinu by Chazal in a number of places. What is the difference between these two great men?

Rashi brings a Medrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, Hashem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve Hashem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.

Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “Ish tzaddik (man of righteousness),” whilst Avraham is “Ish chessed (man of kindness).” Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler, “This was only tzedek - he fulfilled his obligation.” It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.

The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”

This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of Klal Yisroel, the Chosen People, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true chessed. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.

Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.

The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.

Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.

A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel .

In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.

Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.

MAKING PEACE - KORACH

Parshas Korach describes the most famous machlokes (dispute) in the Torah, in which Korach and his cohorts challenged the leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu. After Korach, Dassan and Aviram flagrantly initiated the dispute with Moshe and Aaron, Moshe attempted to make peace with them. He first tried to appease Korach, and when that failed, he turned to Dassan and Aviram. “And Moshe called for Dassan and Aviram the sons of Eliav..” Rashi, citing the Medrash Tanchuma, tells us that Moshe was attempting to appease them with divrei Shalom. The Medrash derives from here that one should never persist in a machlokes, rather he should try to make peace.
It is noteworthy that the Torah taught this lesson in the context of the machlokes between Korach’s group and Moshe Rabbeinu. This was a machlokes in which Korach’s group were clearly guilty for initiating the dispute and had conducted themselves in a deplorable manner. Nonetheless, Moshe did not hesitate in attempting to appease them. Moshe’s actions in this incident serve as a powerful lesson for all other disputes. In almost all disputes, each protagonist tends to place all the guilt on his adversary. Consequently, they both refuse to compromise on the matter in hand, insisting that the other side must give in, or apologize. They must learn from Moshe’s conduct in his machlokes - he tried to make peace even though he was genuinely free of blame. The Chasam Sofer zt”l develops the idea that one must make every effort to make peace. He points out that it was very unlikely that Dassan and Aviram would be appeased by Moshe’s words, given their history of constant antagonism towards him. There is a concept in Torah known as chazakah, whereby we presume that the past situation will continue in the same way as it has in the past. According to this principle, there was no need for Moshe to try to appease Dassan and Aviram given the minute chance of success. Nonetheless, the Chasam Sofer writes that we learn from Moshe’s attempts at conciliation, that we do not follow the principle of chazakah with regard to machlokes. This is because machlokes is so damaging that we must make any effort we can to make peace, no matter how unlikely the chances of success.

Dassan and Aviram’s response to Moshe’s attempts at appeasement demonstrates exactly how one should not conduct himself in a machlokes. “.. And they said we will not go up…even if you would put out the eyes of those men, we will not go up!” The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that these words demonstrate the extent of the stubbornness of Dassan and Aviram in their refusal to even speak to Moshe. He explains that when they told Moshe that they would not speak to him “even if you put the eyes of those men”, they were referring to their own eyes, and that they would rather have their eyes put out than make peace with Moshe. The Chofetz Chaim teaches from here that some people can become so entrenched in machlokes that they prefer to endure great suffering over ‘losing’ the machlokes. In this vein, he tells of the story of a machlokes which threatened to destroy one of the protagonist’s lives and result in his family being imprisoned. When his desperate wife implored him to give up this destructive machlokes, he replied that he was prepared for himself, his wife and his children to go to prison, as long as he would ‘win’ the machlokes!

Why is it so difficult for protagonists of disputes to attempt reconciliation? One reason is that it is very difficult for a person to recognize that he should assume at least part of the blame for the development of the machlokes. Human nature tends to push people to focus on the failings of others and their own strengths.

Accordingly, when a person is in the midst of a bitter machlokes, it is extremely difficult for him to accept any level of culpability for its escalation. The words of the Malbim on this matter, offer a penetrating insight into the erroneous nature of this attitude.

The Malbim once found himself in the midst of a bitter machlokes. His beleaguered students asked him how such a terrible dispute could take place, given the Torah’s words with regard to the machlokes between Korach and Moshe. The Torah tells us: “There will never be like Korach and his assembly.” The students understood that this means that there will never be such a bitter machlokes again in history. Accordingly, they could not understand how the Malbim could be embroiled in such a machlokes. He explained to them that the Torah’s words that there will never again be such a machlokes have a different meaning. The Torah is telling us that the machlokes of Korach against Moshe was the only one in history in which one side was totally in the wrong and one side was completely in the right. Korach and his associates were totally wrong in their arguments and were fully guilty for the development of the machlokes. Moshe, in contrast, acted in a completely correct and justified manner. When the Torah says that there will never be such a machlokes again, it is telling us that there will never be another machlokes in which one side is totally justified and the other is completely guilty. The Malbim, in his humility, was thus acknowledging that he had to assume some guilt for the machlokes he was involved in . The Malbim’s explanation teaches us that anyone involved in a machlokes is wrong to believe that he is totally in the right, because the Torah testifies that this cannot be the case.

Accordingly, it behooves everyone who finds themselves in a machlokes, to accept responsibility for his role in its escalation. When one does this, it will be easier for him to focus on his guilt in this regard, rather than that of his adversary. By doing this, he should recognize that he needs to rectify his mistakes, and ignore the failings of his ‘enemy’. This attitude will help him emulate Moshe’s actions in appeasing Dassan and Aviram.

During the course of a person’s life, it is inevitable that he will come into some form of conflict with other people. When this happens, the person has a vital choice to make: He can validate his own behavior and stubbornly refuse to admit any failing; or he can swallow his pride, be the ‘bigger’ person, and initiate reconciliation. By taking the second option, the person emulates Moshe Rabbeinu – Moshe was willing to approach Dassan and Aviram despite the fact that they were totally at fault. All the more so this should be the case in all other disputes when both sides must assume responsibility for the machlokes. Such conflicts are not limited to major machlokes, they also include common ‘disagreements’ between spouses, and small spats amongst friends, colleagues, students etc. When a person refuses to budge in such incidents, he only succeeds in prolonging and increasing the bitterness. However, by emulating Moshe, a person will ensure that the Shalom will prevail.

PREVENTATIVE ACTION - BEHAR

"If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him - the convert and the resident - so that he can live with you. " Don't let him go down and fall, and then it will be hard to stand him up, rather strengthen him from the time he stretches out his hand. To what is this similar - to a burden that is on a donkey; whilst it is on the donkey one man can support it and keep it up, but if it falls to the ground, even five men cannot raise it back up (Rashi)."

When a person begins a downward spiral towards poverty, the Torah instructs us to prevent his fall before he has nothing. As Rashi explains, it is far easier to help him whilst he still has something rather than to wait until he is penniless. It seems that we can derive from here an important life principle that is not restricted to giving charity. The Sefer, Zichron Meir writes that whilst preventative action is important in gashmius, it is essential in the realm of ruchnius. When a burden falls from a donkey, five men are required to put it back on, but when one falls spiritually, perhaps a hundred people cannot prevent the fall! He further points out that this principle applies to ones own spiritual standing. It is far easier to remove a negative aspect of behavior at its root than when it is well developed. He likens this to a sickness which is easy to cure if it is discovered early, but if it is left unattended, it may spread too far to remove it .

There seem to be two areas in which it is particularly crucial to work on at an early stage, in order to avoid insurmountable challenges later in life; Chinuch (parenting) and Shalom Bayis (peace in the home ). An easy way of addressing these areas is by studying the Torah approach towards them. A person may feel that he is able to deal with any possible challenges by using his common sense. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l demonstrates the serious error in this attitude. He notes that people routinely spend many years studying in order to pursue a particular career. They recognize the need to be suitably qualified in their chosen field. Most people (hopefully) would agree that their marriage and family life are more important than their career. Nonetheless they expect to ably navigate the numerous challenges that they will face in these areas without investing time to learn more about them. Simply observing the world around us teaches us that having a successful marriage is no easy task - the divorce rate in the secular world is very high and sadly the figures seem to be rising in the Torah world. Similarly, the countless stories of children leaving Yiddishkeit prove that being a good parent is no easy task.

A parent who decides how to bring up his (or her) child purely according to his own beliefs is at risk of making damaging mistakes that could easily be avoided by seeking Daas Torah . Rav Dov Brezak Shilta, a well-known expert in chinuch offers a striking example of this sad phenomenon. He discusses a boy who had totally rejected his parents' lifestyle and was no longer religious. He writes that; "when told that his son does not even pray, this boy's father expressed his amazement. 'I put so much into my son's praying. How do you explain the fact that, in spite of all my efforts, I did not succeed?' The father then proceeded to describe how he had 'taught' his son to pray. 'I was always careful that he should come with me to minyan and sit next to me. During the prayers I didn't even allow myself the luxury of concentrating on my own prayers, for I kept my eye constantly on my son. I made sure that he was following the place in his siddur, and if he would start daydreaming I would immediately step in to make sure that he would get right back to praying.' This very question was presented to the boy himself. His bitter response was: 'There's nothing that I hate so much as praying. I've waited years for the day when I would be old enough to be able to stop praying. Just walking into the shul building gives me a bad feeling. I think it's because my father was so hard on me about praying that it became such an unbearable burden. " One of the striking facts about this sad story is how the father was so convinced that his approach was correct. He had absolutely no idea that it was this approach itself that drove his son away from prayer and Judaism. It is quite possible that had he, at an early stage, asked Daas Torah about how to educate his son in prayer, then he could have realized the potential damage that his chosen method could cause.

Similarly, basic mistakes in marriage can be avoided by attending shiurim, reading books, and speaking to one's Rebbe or Rebbetsin about their issues. It is essential to strive to identify and address difficulties in marriage at an early stage. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a couple to finally go for counseling when their problems are too deep-rooted to be fixed. This lesson also applies to people who have been married and have had children for many years. A person who is already married can nevertheless begin to increase the time and effort he invests into his marriage. Moreover, new challenges often emerge after many years of marriage that require renewed study in order to be dealt with properly. Similarly, a person who is not married or has no children can nevertheless begin preparing himself for marriage and chinuch before he enters these stages in life. As well as studying the appropriate areas he can work on his character traits many years before, making him more able to face future challenges.

We learn from the Parsha that helping someone before they have fallen is far easier than raising them back up after they have nothing. We saw that this principle applies in all areas of life; whether in marriage, chinuch or any other area. By facing challenges at an early stage, one can avoid insurmountable difficulties later in life.