In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
Showing posts with label Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
SHEMOS – THE PRECISION OF DIVINE JUSTICE
The Parsha describes Moshe Rabbeinu’s actions in defending the Jews from the oppression of the Egyptians. He sees an Egyptian man beating a Jewish man and kills him: "And it was in those days that Moshe grew up and he went out to his brethren, and saw their suffering. He saw an Egyptian man strike a Hebrew from amongst his brethren. He turned this way and that way and he saw that there was no man, so he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” The simple understanding of this incident is, that after seeing the Egyptian’s actions Moshe looked around to see if there were any onlookers, and when he saw that there were none, he killed the Egyptian. Rashi explains that Moshe was looking at something much deeper; “He saw that no future man would descend from him [the Egyptian] in the future, who would convert.” Rashi further adds that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian in an orthodox fashion, rather he used the shem hamefurash (holy name) to kill him.
Two questions arise from Rashi’s explanations; Firstly, why did Moshe choose to kill the Egyptian with the shem hamefurash? Secondly, the commentaries write that Moshe made a legal ruling on what the Egyptian was doing, and he ruled that the Egyptian was punishable by death. They point out that when punishing sinners, the Beis Din (Jewish law court) does not take into account any consequences of the punishment, such as how it would affect other people, including whether the sinner would have any righteous descendants . Accordingly, why did Moshe need to assess the future descendants of this man?!
The Maharil Diskin answers that the sin the Egyptian was committing was one that was only punishable by death bidei Shamayim (in the hands of Heaven), but not bidei adam (in the hands of man) . Therefore, Moshe could not punish him by physically killing him, rather he needed to utilize a method that would require Heavenly assistance; accordingly he killed him using the shem hamefurash. There is a fundamental difference between how punishments that are bidei Shamayim are determined and how those that are bidei adam are enforced. As we said above, when Beis Din punish someone they do not take into account all the possible ramifications of the punishment, such as how it will affect the sinner’s family, friends and his future descendants. However, when HaShem sends the punishment He takes into account all the myriad effects of the retribution. Included amongst these considerations is how this punishment will affect the future descendants. For example, if one is punishable by death bidei Shamayim but righteous descendants are destined to come from him, then HaShem may alter the punishment so as not to prevent their coming into existence. Since Moshe was using this form of punishment he had to take into consideration such factors as the future offspring of the Egyptian.
This explanation brings to light the difference between Heavenly retribution and human punishment. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l discusses this concept at length. He quotes the verse in Tehillim: “The judgments of HaShem are true, they are correct together.” What does it mean that they are correct together? He explains that when human courts mete out punishments they only take into the account the sinner, but ignore his family and friends. This is unavoidable, since a human judge cannot begin to be able to take such factors into account. However, HaShem, in His Infinite wisdom knows exactly how the punishment will affect everyone involved, and passes judgment accordingly. Thus, His judgments are;”correct together” in that they take into account all the people together who stand to be effected by the punishment. In this vein, Rav Shmuelevitz discusses a number of examples in Tanach and in Chazal, where one’s wife is punished because of the sin of the husband. This does not seem fair, but he explains that the one who suffers is certainly being punished for a previous transgression. However, up to this point, HaShem spared her because her husband did not deserve to endure the pain of losing her. Yet, once he sins and is not worthy of this special treatment, then she is no longer protected from her transgression.
We have seen from the Maharil Diskin’s explanation of Moshe’s punishment of the Egyptian, and Rav Shmuelevitz’ discussion of HaShem’s justice, that it is perfectly measured for all the people connected to the person being punished. One key lesson that can be learned from this principle is that tragedies or challenges are not only for the sake of the person most directly involved: Many people understand that when some type of challenge happens to them, that HaShem is somehow communicating with them and they react by trying to improve their deeds. However, the same attitude should be applied when suffering does not inflict the person himself, rather his family or friends, or members of his community. The closer the person is to the one in pain, the more powerful the communication from HaShem. Therefore, it is essential that the person try to view his family member or friend’s suffering as HaShem communicating with him. In this vein, Rav Yissachar Frand shlita, says that when tragedies afflict a community, it is insufficient to merely recite a chapter of Tehillim but otherwise continue our life as if nothing changed. Rather, we should undergo serious contemplation of why this event took place, and how HaShem wants us to grow from it. It is often impossible to exactly know what HaShem is telling us, however, the main point is that we see this as HaShem directly communicating to us and we try to change our ways in some form.
The Parsha describes Moshe Rabbeinu’s actions in defending the Jews from the oppression of the Egyptians. He sees an Egyptian man beating a Jewish man and kills him: "And it was in those days that Moshe grew up and he went out to his brethren, and saw their suffering. He saw an Egyptian man strike a Hebrew from amongst his brethren. He turned this way and that way and he saw that there was no man, so he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” The simple understanding of this incident is, that after seeing the Egyptian’s actions Moshe looked around to see if there were any onlookers, and when he saw that there were none, he killed the Egyptian. Rashi explains that Moshe was looking at something much deeper; “He saw that no future man would descend from him [the Egyptian] in the future, who would convert.” Rashi further adds that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian in an orthodox fashion, rather he used the shem hamefurash (holy name) to kill him.
Two questions arise from Rashi’s explanations; Firstly, why did Moshe choose to kill the Egyptian with the shem hamefurash? Secondly, the commentaries write that Moshe made a legal ruling on what the Egyptian was doing, and he ruled that the Egyptian was punishable by death. They point out that when punishing sinners, the Beis Din (Jewish law court) does not take into account any consequences of the punishment, such as how it would affect other people, including whether the sinner would have any righteous descendants . Accordingly, why did Moshe need to assess the future descendants of this man?!
The Maharil Diskin answers that the sin the Egyptian was committing was one that was only punishable by death bidei Shamayim (in the hands of Heaven), but not bidei adam (in the hands of man) . Therefore, Moshe could not punish him by physically killing him, rather he needed to utilize a method that would require Heavenly assistance; accordingly he killed him using the shem hamefurash. There is a fundamental difference between how punishments that are bidei Shamayim are determined and how those that are bidei adam are enforced. As we said above, when Beis Din punish someone they do not take into account all the possible ramifications of the punishment, such as how it will affect the sinner’s family, friends and his future descendants. However, when HaShem sends the punishment He takes into account all the myriad effects of the retribution. Included amongst these considerations is how this punishment will affect the future descendants. For example, if one is punishable by death bidei Shamayim but righteous descendants are destined to come from him, then HaShem may alter the punishment so as not to prevent their coming into existence. Since Moshe was using this form of punishment he had to take into consideration such factors as the future offspring of the Egyptian.
This explanation brings to light the difference between Heavenly retribution and human punishment. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l discusses this concept at length. He quotes the verse in Tehillim: “The judgments of HaShem are true, they are correct together.” What does it mean that they are correct together? He explains that when human courts mete out punishments they only take into the account the sinner, but ignore his family and friends. This is unavoidable, since a human judge cannot begin to be able to take such factors into account. However, HaShem, in His Infinite wisdom knows exactly how the punishment will affect everyone involved, and passes judgment accordingly. Thus, His judgments are;”correct together” in that they take into account all the people together who stand to be effected by the punishment. In this vein, Rav Shmuelevitz discusses a number of examples in Tanach and in Chazal, where one’s wife is punished because of the sin of the husband. This does not seem fair, but he explains that the one who suffers is certainly being punished for a previous transgression. However, up to this point, HaShem spared her because her husband did not deserve to endure the pain of losing her. Yet, once he sins and is not worthy of this special treatment, then she is no longer protected from her transgression.
We have seen from the Maharil Diskin’s explanation of Moshe’s punishment of the Egyptian, and Rav Shmuelevitz’ discussion of HaShem’s justice, that it is perfectly measured for all the people connected to the person being punished. One key lesson that can be learned from this principle is that tragedies or challenges are not only for the sake of the person most directly involved: Many people understand that when some type of challenge happens to them, that HaShem is somehow communicating with them and they react by trying to improve their deeds. However, the same attitude should be applied when suffering does not inflict the person himself, rather his family or friends, or members of his community. The closer the person is to the one in pain, the more powerful the communication from HaShem. Therefore, it is essential that the person try to view his family member or friend’s suffering as HaShem communicating with him. In this vein, Rav Yissachar Frand shlita, says that when tragedies afflict a community, it is insufficient to merely recite a chapter of Tehillim but otherwise continue our life as if nothing changed. Rather, we should undergo serious contemplation of why this event took place, and how HaShem wants us to grow from it. It is often impossible to exactly know what HaShem is telling us, however, the main point is that we see this as HaShem directly communicating to us and we try to change our ways in some form.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
THE FESTIVAL OF HIDUR - CHANUKAH
The gemara in Shabbos tells us that the reason the festival of Chanukah was fixed as a permanent festival was because of the miracle of the single flask of oil lasting 8 days. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l points out that the miracles that enabled the Hasmoneans to overcome the mighty Greek army seem to have been of far more importance than the miracle of the oil. The military victory facilitated the removal of Greek hegemony and the freedom to observe the Torah. The miracle of the oil played no part in this victory, rather it enabled the Menorah to be lit for an extra seven days. Rav Shmuelevitz asks that it would have seemed more understandable to establish the festival of Chanukah because of the military victory rather than that of the oil.
He explains that there are two reasons why Hashem may perform a miracle. One is when there is an absolute necessity for the miracle to take place. For example, the miracle of the manna in the desert was of the utmost necessity in enabling the people to eat whilst living in the desert. However, there are other miracles that are not particularly essential, rather their main function is to show Hashem's particular love for the recipient of the miracle. He proceeds to give a number of examples of such miracles in Tanach.
He cites the incident in which David Hamelech slew Goliath. The Prophet tells us that when Goliath was struck by the stone, he should have fallen backwards, but he unnaturally fell forward. Rashi, quoting a Medrash, explains that Hashem caused a 'miracle' that Goliath would fall forward so as to save David having to walk an extra few meters to cut off Goliath's head. This is clearly a miracle that was not of the utmost necessity, however Hashem performed it to show His love for David.
The Ohr HaChaim points out another, remarkable example of a miracle of 'love'. In Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem instructs Avraham: "Please raise your eyes and see from the place where you are standing, north, south, east and west." Hashem was showing Avraham the land of Israel and promising him that his descendants would own this land for eternity. The Ohr HaChaim notes the seemingly superfluous words, "from where you are standing" - what is this ostensibly obvious phrase coming to add? He explains that Hashem made a tremendous miracle whereby Avraham could see the whole of the land of Israel from all directions from the exact place that he was standing, without even having to turn his body!
Rav Shmuelevitz observes that both of these miracles were of minor importance. Their main significance was as expressions of Hashem's infinite love for those who served Him with such dedication. Indeed, the lesser the necessity of the miracle, the greater the show of love it expressed. He gives an analogy to help further understand this idea. A family loses a very expensive diamond, which was an inheritance from many generations earlier. All the family feels great pain at this loss and search extensively to find the diamond. Eventually, one of the children finds the diamond. In his great joy, his father kisses his son on his head. All the family feel great at finding the diamond, but the boy has the extra joy of the kiss from his father.
In this vein, we can now understand the significance of the miracle of the oil. Of course the miracles of the military victory were essential and the miracle of the oil was of far lesser necessity. However, because of this, it represented a far greater show of love from Hashem. It was an extra show of affection that demonstrated Hashem's love for the Hasmoneans, Hashem's 'kiss on the head'.
The question remains, of why, at this particular instance, did Hashem choose to alter nature for the miracle of the oil? It is clear from the above examples that Hashem only performs 'unnecessary' miracles for people of great righteousness such as Avraham Avinu and David HaMelech. Why did the Hasmoneans merit to experience such a miracle?
It seems that Hashem performed this 'extra' act of love, measure for measure for the actions of the Hasmonean when they returned to the Beis HaMikdosh and found only one flask of pure oil. The commentaries explain that it was technically permissible to have used the impure oil in this situation. Yet they chose to be mehader and perform the mitzvo in the most optimal fashion as a sign of their great love for Hashem. Because they were willing to go beyond the letter of the law, in reward, Hashem also went 'beyond the letter of the law' so-to-speak, and performed a non-vital miracle as a sign of His love for them. This also explains the unique feature of the mitzvo of lighting the Menorah - the concepts of Mehadrin and Mehadrin Min haMehadrin. It is a universal custom that everyone strives to perform the mitzvo to its most optimal fashion, despite the fact that the basic mitzvo is only one candle per person per day. We perform the mitzvo with the maximum hidur both as a remembrance of the Hasmonean's hidurim, and of Hashem's hidur of performing the miracle of the oil.
We have learnt that the uniqueness of the miracle of the oil is the mutual show of love between Hashem and the Jewish people. We learn two vital lessons from here. Firstly, we should remember the great love that Hashem showed for His people, and realize that He has the same love for every Jew. Secondly, we learn that we should strive to emulate the Hasmonean's willingness to perform mitzvos in the optimum fashion as a manifestation of our love for Hashem. May we all merit to apply the lessons of Chanakah to our lives.
He explains that there are two reasons why Hashem may perform a miracle. One is when there is an absolute necessity for the miracle to take place. For example, the miracle of the manna in the desert was of the utmost necessity in enabling the people to eat whilst living in the desert. However, there are other miracles that are not particularly essential, rather their main function is to show Hashem's particular love for the recipient of the miracle. He proceeds to give a number of examples of such miracles in Tanach.
He cites the incident in which David Hamelech slew Goliath. The Prophet tells us that when Goliath was struck by the stone, he should have fallen backwards, but he unnaturally fell forward. Rashi, quoting a Medrash, explains that Hashem caused a 'miracle' that Goliath would fall forward so as to save David having to walk an extra few meters to cut off Goliath's head. This is clearly a miracle that was not of the utmost necessity, however Hashem performed it to show His love for David.
The Ohr HaChaim points out another, remarkable example of a miracle of 'love'. In Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem instructs Avraham: "Please raise your eyes and see from the place where you are standing, north, south, east and west." Hashem was showing Avraham the land of Israel and promising him that his descendants would own this land for eternity. The Ohr HaChaim notes the seemingly superfluous words, "from where you are standing" - what is this ostensibly obvious phrase coming to add? He explains that Hashem made a tremendous miracle whereby Avraham could see the whole of the land of Israel from all directions from the exact place that he was standing, without even having to turn his body!
Rav Shmuelevitz observes that both of these miracles were of minor importance. Their main significance was as expressions of Hashem's infinite love for those who served Him with such dedication. Indeed, the lesser the necessity of the miracle, the greater the show of love it expressed. He gives an analogy to help further understand this idea. A family loses a very expensive diamond, which was an inheritance from many generations earlier. All the family feels great pain at this loss and search extensively to find the diamond. Eventually, one of the children finds the diamond. In his great joy, his father kisses his son on his head. All the family feel great at finding the diamond, but the boy has the extra joy of the kiss from his father.
In this vein, we can now understand the significance of the miracle of the oil. Of course the miracles of the military victory were essential and the miracle of the oil was of far lesser necessity. However, because of this, it represented a far greater show of love from Hashem. It was an extra show of affection that demonstrated Hashem's love for the Hasmoneans, Hashem's 'kiss on the head'.
The question remains, of why, at this particular instance, did Hashem choose to alter nature for the miracle of the oil? It is clear from the above examples that Hashem only performs 'unnecessary' miracles for people of great righteousness such as Avraham Avinu and David HaMelech. Why did the Hasmoneans merit to experience such a miracle?
It seems that Hashem performed this 'extra' act of love, measure for measure for the actions of the Hasmonean when they returned to the Beis HaMikdosh and found only one flask of pure oil. The commentaries explain that it was technically permissible to have used the impure oil in this situation. Yet they chose to be mehader and perform the mitzvo in the most optimal fashion as a sign of their great love for Hashem. Because they were willing to go beyond the letter of the law, in reward, Hashem also went 'beyond the letter of the law' so-to-speak, and performed a non-vital miracle as a sign of His love for them. This also explains the unique feature of the mitzvo of lighting the Menorah - the concepts of Mehadrin and Mehadrin Min haMehadrin. It is a universal custom that everyone strives to perform the mitzvo to its most optimal fashion, despite the fact that the basic mitzvo is only one candle per person per day. We perform the mitzvo with the maximum hidur both as a remembrance of the Hasmonean's hidurim, and of Hashem's hidur of performing the miracle of the oil.
We have learnt that the uniqueness of the miracle of the oil is the mutual show of love between Hashem and the Jewish people. We learn two vital lessons from here. Firstly, we should remember the great love that Hashem showed for His people, and realize that He has the same love for every Jew. Secondly, we learn that we should strive to emulate the Hasmonean's willingness to perform mitzvos in the optimum fashion as a manifestation of our love for Hashem. May we all merit to apply the lessons of Chanakah to our lives.
Monday, August 1, 2011
GIVING REBUKE - DEVARIM
Parshas Devarim consists largely of Moshe Rabbeinu’s tochacha to the Jewish people. The Parsha begins with Moshe mentioning a number of place names that do not appear anywhere else in the Torah . Chazal tell us that these names were in fact allusions to places where the Jews had sinned; Moshe did not explicitly state that the Jews had sinned here, rather he chose to hint to their transgressions. Rashi explains that he did so “because of the honor of Israel ” - even though the Jewish people needed to be rebuked, to explicitly mention their sins would have been too much of a pgam on their kavod. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l derives a vital lesson about tochacha from Rashi’s explanation he writes, “we learn from here how incumbent it is upon the rebuker to worry about and be fearful for, the honor of the person being rebuked. ”
This teaches us that the key factor that determines whether a rebuke will have a positive or negative effect is one’s motivation for rebuking. Moshe maintained his love and concern for the Jewish people in the midst of speaking to them very harshly. Indeed, it seems clear that this love was the very reason that he was rebuking them - it was purely an act of kindness. In doing so he was able to maintain a sensitivity to their honor whilst simultaneously criticizing them.
The Gemara tells us that it is exceedingly difficult to rebuke someone in an effective way . Nonetheless, this does not mean that we are exempt from the mitzvo, and there are times when one can do a great kindness by clarifying the correct hanhago to someone who is likely to listen. We learn from Moshe that the rebuker must care about the other person, and empathize with him, trying to understand where he is coming from and how is the best way to influence him for the good. Conversely, rebuke can be extremely damaging when it emanates from anger and a lack of concern for the spiritual well being of the other person. In such instances the rebuker will make no effort to try to understand why the other person is acting in such a way and may therefore have unreasonable expectations of him.
The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, demonstrates his point: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbis but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbis, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach zt“l. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim. ” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do it and how much good can be achieved with caring words. How did the girl who spoke harshly to Devora come to commit such a serious sin when she surely meant to defend shemiras hamitzvos? The answer is that she made no effort to understand Devora’s background and level. Consequently, her rebuke did not only fail to change Devora for the good but it very nearly alienated this girl from chareidi Jewry and prevented her from becoming more observant.
In contrast, tochacha that is motivated out of concern for one’s fellow will lead us to measure our words carefully before correcting someone else’s behavior. Rav Yehonasan Eibeschitz zt”l says that the greatest way of fulfilling the mitzvo of ‘love thy neighbor’ is by caring about the spiritual well being of one‘s fellow Jew - this attitude manifests itself in the right form of tochacha . This lesson is very pertinent to Tisha B’Av; Chazal tell us that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinas chinam (baseless hatred). Rav Eibetschitz continues that the sinas chinam was the fact that the people refrained from rebuking each other. As a consequence, the numerous groups of apikorsim were allowed to grow and adversely influence the Jewish people. According to this explanation, hatred is not limited to active adversity, it also includes apathy . Such apathy indicated a severe lacking in the bein adam lechaveiro of the people at the time of the Second Beis HaMedrash.
Chazal tell us that any generation in which the Beis HaMikdash is not rebuilt, is considered as if they destroyed it. This means that the present generation is still effected by sinas chinam, defined by Rav Eibetschitz as not caring enough about one’s fellow to want to help him improve his Avodas Hashem. Whilst we have seen that rebuke can be very damaging when done in the wrong way, nonetheless, if it emanates from a true feeling of ahava then it can surely be used to greatly help our fellow Jew.
This teaches us that the key factor that determines whether a rebuke will have a positive or negative effect is one’s motivation for rebuking. Moshe maintained his love and concern for the Jewish people in the midst of speaking to them very harshly. Indeed, it seems clear that this love was the very reason that he was rebuking them - it was purely an act of kindness. In doing so he was able to maintain a sensitivity to their honor whilst simultaneously criticizing them.
The Gemara tells us that it is exceedingly difficult to rebuke someone in an effective way . Nonetheless, this does not mean that we are exempt from the mitzvo, and there are times when one can do a great kindness by clarifying the correct hanhago to someone who is likely to listen. We learn from Moshe that the rebuker must care about the other person, and empathize with him, trying to understand where he is coming from and how is the best way to influence him for the good. Conversely, rebuke can be extremely damaging when it emanates from anger and a lack of concern for the spiritual well being of the other person. In such instances the rebuker will make no effort to try to understand why the other person is acting in such a way and may therefore have unreasonable expectations of him.
The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, demonstrates his point: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbis but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbis, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach zt“l. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim. ” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do it and how much good can be achieved with caring words. How did the girl who spoke harshly to Devora come to commit such a serious sin when she surely meant to defend shemiras hamitzvos? The answer is that she made no effort to understand Devora’s background and level. Consequently, her rebuke did not only fail to change Devora for the good but it very nearly alienated this girl from chareidi Jewry and prevented her from becoming more observant.
In contrast, tochacha that is motivated out of concern for one’s fellow will lead us to measure our words carefully before correcting someone else’s behavior. Rav Yehonasan Eibeschitz zt”l says that the greatest way of fulfilling the mitzvo of ‘love thy neighbor’ is by caring about the spiritual well being of one‘s fellow Jew - this attitude manifests itself in the right form of tochacha . This lesson is very pertinent to Tisha B’Av; Chazal tell us that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinas chinam (baseless hatred). Rav Eibetschitz continues that the sinas chinam was the fact that the people refrained from rebuking each other. As a consequence, the numerous groups of apikorsim were allowed to grow and adversely influence the Jewish people. According to this explanation, hatred is not limited to active adversity, it also includes apathy . Such apathy indicated a severe lacking in the bein adam lechaveiro of the people at the time of the Second Beis HaMedrash.
Chazal tell us that any generation in which the Beis HaMikdash is not rebuilt, is considered as if they destroyed it. This means that the present generation is still effected by sinas chinam, defined by Rav Eibetschitz as not caring enough about one’s fellow to want to help him improve his Avodas Hashem. Whilst we have seen that rebuke can be very damaging when done in the wrong way, nonetheless, if it emanates from a true feeling of ahava then it can surely be used to greatly help our fellow Jew.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
TAAMEI HAMITZVOS - CHUKAS
The Parsha begins “this is the chok of the Torah” and proceeds to discuss the laws of Parah Adumah (the red heifer), a mitzvo which is impossible to understand according to human logic. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh asks why this mitzvo is called the ‘chok of the Torah’, it would have been more appropriate to say ‘this is the chok of tahara’. He answers that the Torah is alluding to us that if we fulfil this mitzvo even though it has no reason to it, then the Passuk considers it as if we have fulfilled the whole Torah, because fulfilling a mitzva without reason shows that we are unconditionally willing to follow Hashem’s Ratson.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that when a person fulfils a mitzvo that has an obvious reason to it, it is still not clear that he is prepared to fulfil the Torah purely because Hashem commanded it. It could be that he is doing it because it makes sense to him. However, once he performs a mitzvo that is without logic that proves that he keeps all the mitzvos, not because they make sense to him, but because Hashem commanded them.
This is a fundamental principle of the Torah - we accept that we must follow Hashem’s will without making any cheshbonos according to our own logic. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that this was Korach’s mistake in his theological attacks against Moshe Rabbeinu. He attempted to expose the fallacy of the mitzvos of tsitsit and mezuza by showing their illogical nature. He argued that the reason for wearing a thread of techeiles on each corner is because it resembles the sea, which resembles the sky, which resembles the Throne of Glory. Based on this reasoning Korach argued that one who wears a garment of techeiles should not need a thread of it on its corner because there is ample reminder of the sea, sky and the throne of glory in the actual garment. In reality, however, the mitzvo applies in all cases, even where the given reason has no apparent application because ultimately all mitzvos must be observed and should be viewed as a gezeira that cannot be questioned.
In light of this principle, a difficulty arises: Many of the greatest Torah scholars such as the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and, more recently, Rav Hirsch zt”l went to great lengths to explain the taamey hamitzvos - the reasons behind the mitzvos. Yet it is clear from Parah Adumah that the ultimate reason behind each mitzvo is beyond human understanding; Shlomo Hamelech had thought that he understood the deepest reason for every mitzvo until he came to Parah Aduma which he could not fathom. He then realised that he did not truly understand the definitive reason for any of the mitzvos. In light of this, how can anyone claim to understand a taam for any given mitzvo if Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest man, could not?!
My Rebbe answers by explaining that the commentaries are not claiming to understand the ultimate reason behind the mitzvo - we can have no concept of the genuine reason for any mitzvo - that is something that belongs in the highest olamos. However, this does not mean that the ‘taamey hamitzvos’ have no truth to them. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom ‘arranged’ it so that each mitzvo can make sense on many different levels of existence. For example they can help a person develop desirable character traits and can enhance relationships.
We see this in many mitzvos: The laws of tumah and tahara are among the most difficult to fathom. However, the most relevant of these laws today, taharas mishpacha, has obvious benefits. The Gemara explains that it is very beneficial for husband and wife to separate for a certain time every month so that they can avoid the problem of lack of excitement in the relationship . Based on this Gemara, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that this advantage is one of the taamey hamitzvos of taharas mishpacha . This does not mean that the reason we keep taharas mishpacha is because it helps one’s relationship, however, it is no co-incidence that it does so, Hashem clearly ‘intended’ it to be that way.
Another example of this is the mitzvo of shechita. The Ramban writes that it does not effect Hashem whether we kill an animal by shechita, by nichor or by strangling. However, Hashem instructed us to kill the animal in the least cruel way in order to teach us the mida of rachmanus even at the time of killing . Again this does not mean that we slaughter animals the way we do because it will help us be more merciful, we do it that way purely because Hashem commanded us to. Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that Hashem also intended for us to develop favourable midos through observing the mitzvos.
Thus, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot fathom the ultimate reason for the mitzvos, we can nonetheless understand taamim to the mitzvos that are emes on a certain level. With this understanding we can now appreciate why the commentaries held it was so important to teach us taamey hamitzvos. It is true that we keep the mitzvos solely because Hashem instructed us to, however, it is not sufficient that we merely do the mitzvo robotically, without any thought as to what we are doing. Mitzvos are intended to change us into better people, and the way that they do this is through the taamey hamitzvos. The Sefer Hachinuch tells us the shoresh to every mitzvo - why? So that we can have an idea of what we are supposed to gain from performing this mitzvo and we can work towards achieveing that benefit.
The issur of lashon hara demonstrates this idea. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the taam of this issur with a maaseh. A chacham was walking with his talmidim when they came across the corpse of a dead dog. One of the talmidim commented on how disgusting this corpse was. The chacham replied that it had very nice, white teeth . He was teaching his talmid the mida of focussing on the good. This, Rabbeinu Yonah writes, is the taam of shemiras halashon. There is no actual issur of lashon hara for focussing on the unpleasant aspects of a dead dog, however one who sees things in a negative fashion misses the point of the issur of lashon hara. It is not enough merely to not speak badly about others, the root of the mitzvo is to focus on the good in people. In refraining from speaking badly about others, one should strive to transform himself into a person with a positive outlook on life.
Learning from the taamey hamitzvos is not merely a profitable exercise, it is essential to one’s relationship with Hashem. The Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo explains why there are so many mitzvos that relate to Yetsias Mitzrayim. He says that their purpose is to instill in us a deep sense of emuna in Hashem and His hashgacha . It is not sufficient merely to put a mezuza on the doorposts of one’s home and kiss it now and again. We are supposed to see the mezuza and be reminded of the message inside it, that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim and is continually guiding us in our lives.
The Ramban goes even further and says that, in reality the tachlis of all the mitzvos is to bring us close to Hashem and acknowledge that He is our creator. “This is the purpose of creation, for there is no other reason for our creation, and the only thing that Hashem wants from us is that we know and acknowledge Him. ” This process, whereby a person is brought closer to Hashem through observance of the Mitzvos is not automatic. If a person commits mitzvos out of habit then, although he may have technically fulfilled them, he has not utilised them to achieve their purpose; closeness to Hashem. Some mitzvos do this by directly arousing a person to awareness of Hashem and some do it by encouraging development of certain midos. But the common denominator of all of them is developing our emuna.
We have seen how parah aduma teaches us that we are obligated to fulfil mitzvos without questioning their logic, and yet at the same time, we are also obligated to understand the taamim of the mitzvos so that we can grow from them in the intended way.
A recommended way to achieve this is to spend some time analysing the taamey hamitzvos; there are many sources, one can look to the earlier sources such as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Sefer Hachinuch or turn to later commentaries such as Rav Hirsch or Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt”l. By doing this we can remind ourselves that each mitzvo has taamim that we are supposed to be aware of and use to grow from.
This is not an easy task because there is a strong yetser hara that allows us to do mitzvos as long as we miss their intended tachlis. The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honoured guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of his guest. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalised the message of this minhag. All the mitzvos have internal messages - it is up to us to learn them and use them in their intended way.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that when a person fulfils a mitzvo that has an obvious reason to it, it is still not clear that he is prepared to fulfil the Torah purely because Hashem commanded it. It could be that he is doing it because it makes sense to him. However, once he performs a mitzvo that is without logic that proves that he keeps all the mitzvos, not because they make sense to him, but because Hashem commanded them.
This is a fundamental principle of the Torah - we accept that we must follow Hashem’s will without making any cheshbonos according to our own logic. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that this was Korach’s mistake in his theological attacks against Moshe Rabbeinu. He attempted to expose the fallacy of the mitzvos of tsitsit and mezuza by showing their illogical nature. He argued that the reason for wearing a thread of techeiles on each corner is because it resembles the sea, which resembles the sky, which resembles the Throne of Glory. Based on this reasoning Korach argued that one who wears a garment of techeiles should not need a thread of it on its corner because there is ample reminder of the sea, sky and the throne of glory in the actual garment. In reality, however, the mitzvo applies in all cases, even where the given reason has no apparent application because ultimately all mitzvos must be observed and should be viewed as a gezeira that cannot be questioned.
In light of this principle, a difficulty arises: Many of the greatest Torah scholars such as the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and, more recently, Rav Hirsch zt”l went to great lengths to explain the taamey hamitzvos - the reasons behind the mitzvos. Yet it is clear from Parah Adumah that the ultimate reason behind each mitzvo is beyond human understanding; Shlomo Hamelech had thought that he understood the deepest reason for every mitzvo until he came to Parah Aduma which he could not fathom. He then realised that he did not truly understand the definitive reason for any of the mitzvos. In light of this, how can anyone claim to understand a taam for any given mitzvo if Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest man, could not?!
My Rebbe answers by explaining that the commentaries are not claiming to understand the ultimate reason behind the mitzvo - we can have no concept of the genuine reason for any mitzvo - that is something that belongs in the highest olamos. However, this does not mean that the ‘taamey hamitzvos’ have no truth to them. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom ‘arranged’ it so that each mitzvo can make sense on many different levels of existence. For example they can help a person develop desirable character traits and can enhance relationships.
We see this in many mitzvos: The laws of tumah and tahara are among the most difficult to fathom. However, the most relevant of these laws today, taharas mishpacha, has obvious benefits. The Gemara explains that it is very beneficial for husband and wife to separate for a certain time every month so that they can avoid the problem of lack of excitement in the relationship . Based on this Gemara, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that this advantage is one of the taamey hamitzvos of taharas mishpacha . This does not mean that the reason we keep taharas mishpacha is because it helps one’s relationship, however, it is no co-incidence that it does so, Hashem clearly ‘intended’ it to be that way.
Another example of this is the mitzvo of shechita. The Ramban writes that it does not effect Hashem whether we kill an animal by shechita, by nichor or by strangling. However, Hashem instructed us to kill the animal in the least cruel way in order to teach us the mida of rachmanus even at the time of killing . Again this does not mean that we slaughter animals the way we do because it will help us be more merciful, we do it that way purely because Hashem commanded us to. Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that Hashem also intended for us to develop favourable midos through observing the mitzvos.
Thus, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot fathom the ultimate reason for the mitzvos, we can nonetheless understand taamim to the mitzvos that are emes on a certain level. With this understanding we can now appreciate why the commentaries held it was so important to teach us taamey hamitzvos. It is true that we keep the mitzvos solely because Hashem instructed us to, however, it is not sufficient that we merely do the mitzvo robotically, without any thought as to what we are doing. Mitzvos are intended to change us into better people, and the way that they do this is through the taamey hamitzvos. The Sefer Hachinuch tells us the shoresh to every mitzvo - why? So that we can have an idea of what we are supposed to gain from performing this mitzvo and we can work towards achieveing that benefit.
The issur of lashon hara demonstrates this idea. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the taam of this issur with a maaseh. A chacham was walking with his talmidim when they came across the corpse of a dead dog. One of the talmidim commented on how disgusting this corpse was. The chacham replied that it had very nice, white teeth . He was teaching his talmid the mida of focussing on the good. This, Rabbeinu Yonah writes, is the taam of shemiras halashon. There is no actual issur of lashon hara for focussing on the unpleasant aspects of a dead dog, however one who sees things in a negative fashion misses the point of the issur of lashon hara. It is not enough merely to not speak badly about others, the root of the mitzvo is to focus on the good in people. In refraining from speaking badly about others, one should strive to transform himself into a person with a positive outlook on life.
Learning from the taamey hamitzvos is not merely a profitable exercise, it is essential to one’s relationship with Hashem. The Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo explains why there are so many mitzvos that relate to Yetsias Mitzrayim. He says that their purpose is to instill in us a deep sense of emuna in Hashem and His hashgacha . It is not sufficient merely to put a mezuza on the doorposts of one’s home and kiss it now and again. We are supposed to see the mezuza and be reminded of the message inside it, that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim and is continually guiding us in our lives.
The Ramban goes even further and says that, in reality the tachlis of all the mitzvos is to bring us close to Hashem and acknowledge that He is our creator. “This is the purpose of creation, for there is no other reason for our creation, and the only thing that Hashem wants from us is that we know and acknowledge Him. ” This process, whereby a person is brought closer to Hashem through observance of the Mitzvos is not automatic. If a person commits mitzvos out of habit then, although he may have technically fulfilled them, he has not utilised them to achieve their purpose; closeness to Hashem. Some mitzvos do this by directly arousing a person to awareness of Hashem and some do it by encouraging development of certain midos. But the common denominator of all of them is developing our emuna.
We have seen how parah aduma teaches us that we are obligated to fulfil mitzvos without questioning their logic, and yet at the same time, we are also obligated to understand the taamim of the mitzvos so that we can grow from them in the intended way.
A recommended way to achieve this is to spend some time analysing the taamey hamitzvos; there are many sources, one can look to the earlier sources such as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Sefer Hachinuch or turn to later commentaries such as Rav Hirsch or Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt”l. By doing this we can remind ourselves that each mitzvo has taamim that we are supposed to be aware of and use to grow from.
This is not an easy task because there is a strong yetser hara that allows us to do mitzvos as long as we miss their intended tachlis. The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honoured guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of his guest. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalised the message of this minhag. All the mitzvos have internal messages - it is up to us to learn them and use them in their intended way.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A NEW START - METSORA
Parshas Metsora outlines the purification process for a person struck by tzoraas. One of the essential stages of this process is tevila in a mikva. The Sefer HaChinuch suggests a reason for the significance of tevila as a key part in the teshuva process which the metsora is undergoing. He explains that the world was full of water before man was created and therefore symbolizes a return to the beginning of creation. Dipping into water is a gesture of leaving behind past aveiros and starting afresh .
When a person sins and then recognizes his failure, there is a natural tendency to feel guilt-ridden and low. This can be directed in a positive way, motivating him to avoid such sin in the future, however, often it has a very undesirable effect, causing the person to fall into a downward spiral of spiritual failing. When a person feels low about what he has done, he may become disconcerted and lose the strength to continue in his Avodas Hashem as before. In this way the ’fall-out’ from a sin can actually be far more damaging than the sin itself. Toivelling in a mikva after a sin symbolizes that the person is saying that he will not be bound by his past errors and will not let them bring him down further.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l notes many examples in Tanach where a person sinned or failed in one area and as a result, suffered a great yerida that destroyed their spiritual standing. A striking case is that of Orpah, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. When Naomi was returning to Eretz Yisroel, both Ruth and Orpah were determined to stay with her and convert to Judaism. At this point, Orpah was on the same lofty level as the great Ruth., equally willing to leave her homeland to join the Jewish people. However, after Naomi’s supplications for them to return, she could not withstand the test and gave in and went back to Moav. It would seem logical that after this single lapse Orpah would still stand on a high spiritual level, just a little lower than that of Ruth. However, Chazal tell us that on the very night when she left Naomi, she sunk to the lowest levels of depravity . How could it be that she fell in such a dramatic way in one night? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that when she saw that she failed in the great nisayon to join the Jewish people, she could not leave her sin behind and start afresh. She was greatly effected by her inability to stand up to challenges, and consequently lost all sense of balance and fell to the powers of the yester hara .
Rav Shmuelevitz cites another maaseh in Tanach in which a great man failed a nisayon and recognized the danger he was in of falling into the trap of being completely ensnared by the yetser hara. Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul HaMelech to destroy all of Amalek, however Shaul left some animals and the Amalekite King Agag alive. Shmuel confronted him and told him that he had forfeited his right to the kingdom with this aveiro. After failing to exonerate himself Shaul admitted his guilt but then made a very strange request of Shmuel. “Please now honor me in front of the Sages of my people and the people of Israel... ” What was the purpose of this request, it was surely not merely an attempt by Shaul to feel better about himself. Moreover, Shmuel acceded to the request, indicating its validity. Rav Shmuelevitz explains that Shaul did not merely want honor, rather he knew that he was in danger of suffering a great fall and he realized that he needed to strengthen himself immediately so that he would not be adversely effected by his sin. Therefore, amidst this great fall in madreigo he asked Shmuel to honor him and thereby help him maintain his sense of equilibrium and start afresh . It seems that Shmuel, despite his displeasure with Shaul, consented to his request because he recognized its importance.
We also learn from the actions of Shaul an aitso of how to prevent failure having a disastrous effect. When a person fails, he is likely to feel bad about himself and lose his sense of self-respect. When a person feels that he is a failure he may give up and let himself fall badly. In order to avoid this he must maintain his self-image after failure and recognize that even though he made a mistake he can do teshuva and start again.
Shlomo HaMelech makes this very point in Mishlei when he writes: “A tzadik falls seven times but he gets up. ” The Malbim and Metsudos David explain that despite a tzaddik’s setbacks he rises up again. Indeed, a big part of what makes a person a tzaddik is his ability to recover from failure or mistakes. The tevila of the metsora teaches us the same lesson - even though he sinned he need not be doomed to perpetual downfall. If he can put his past behind him he can make a fresh start.
When a person sins and then recognizes his failure, there is a natural tendency to feel guilt-ridden and low. This can be directed in a positive way, motivating him to avoid such sin in the future, however, often it has a very undesirable effect, causing the person to fall into a downward spiral of spiritual failing. When a person feels low about what he has done, he may become disconcerted and lose the strength to continue in his Avodas Hashem as before. In this way the ’fall-out’ from a sin can actually be far more damaging than the sin itself. Toivelling in a mikva after a sin symbolizes that the person is saying that he will not be bound by his past errors and will not let them bring him down further.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l notes many examples in Tanach where a person sinned or failed in one area and as a result, suffered a great yerida that destroyed their spiritual standing. A striking case is that of Orpah, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. When Naomi was returning to Eretz Yisroel, both Ruth and Orpah were determined to stay with her and convert to Judaism. At this point, Orpah was on the same lofty level as the great Ruth., equally willing to leave her homeland to join the Jewish people. However, after Naomi’s supplications for them to return, she could not withstand the test and gave in and went back to Moav. It would seem logical that after this single lapse Orpah would still stand on a high spiritual level, just a little lower than that of Ruth. However, Chazal tell us that on the very night when she left Naomi, she sunk to the lowest levels of depravity . How could it be that she fell in such a dramatic way in one night? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that when she saw that she failed in the great nisayon to join the Jewish people, she could not leave her sin behind and start afresh. She was greatly effected by her inability to stand up to challenges, and consequently lost all sense of balance and fell to the powers of the yester hara .
Rav Shmuelevitz cites another maaseh in Tanach in which a great man failed a nisayon and recognized the danger he was in of falling into the trap of being completely ensnared by the yetser hara. Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul HaMelech to destroy all of Amalek, however Shaul left some animals and the Amalekite King Agag alive. Shmuel confronted him and told him that he had forfeited his right to the kingdom with this aveiro. After failing to exonerate himself Shaul admitted his guilt but then made a very strange request of Shmuel. “Please now honor me in front of the Sages of my people and the people of Israel... ” What was the purpose of this request, it was surely not merely an attempt by Shaul to feel better about himself. Moreover, Shmuel acceded to the request, indicating its validity. Rav Shmuelevitz explains that Shaul did not merely want honor, rather he knew that he was in danger of suffering a great fall and he realized that he needed to strengthen himself immediately so that he would not be adversely effected by his sin. Therefore, amidst this great fall in madreigo he asked Shmuel to honor him and thereby help him maintain his sense of equilibrium and start afresh . It seems that Shmuel, despite his displeasure with Shaul, consented to his request because he recognized its importance.
We also learn from the actions of Shaul an aitso of how to prevent failure having a disastrous effect. When a person fails, he is likely to feel bad about himself and lose his sense of self-respect. When a person feels that he is a failure he may give up and let himself fall badly. In order to avoid this he must maintain his self-image after failure and recognize that even though he made a mistake he can do teshuva and start again.
Shlomo HaMelech makes this very point in Mishlei when he writes: “A tzadik falls seven times but he gets up. ” The Malbim and Metsudos David explain that despite a tzaddik’s setbacks he rises up again. Indeed, a big part of what makes a person a tzaddik is his ability to recover from failure or mistakes. The tevila of the metsora teaches us the same lesson - even though he sinned he need not be doomed to perpetual downfall. If he can put his past behind him he can make a fresh start.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
COMPLETE KINDNESS - MISHPATIM
In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
