FINDING THE TRUTH - BEREISHIS

“And G-d said, let Us make man in Our Image and in Our likeness.”
After creating the world, HaShem proceeds to outline the creation of the being for whom this world was created – man. However, the Medrash tells us that the very creation of man was subject to a very strong disagreement amongst the Malachim .
“Rabbi Simmon said, ‘at the time that HaKadosh Baruch Hu came to create Adam HaRishon, the serving Angels went into various groups and factions; some of them said [that HaShem] should not create him… Chessed said, ‘create him’ because he will do kindness; Emes said, ‘do not create him because they [men] will be full of lies’. Tzedek said ‘create him, because he will do tzedaka’. Shalom said, ‘do not create, because he is full of disputes’. What did HaKadosh Baruch Hu do? He took Emes and threw him to the land…”
This Medrash is telling us that two of the ‘Malachim’, Chessed and Tzedek, were in favor of creating man, whilst another two, Emes and Shalom, were against it. Chessed and Tzedek argued that man would do kindness and give charity. In contrast, the claim of Emes was that creating man would lead to more falsehood, whilst Shalom argued that they would cause much argument. Viewing this dispute, HaShem, who evidently did want to create man, threw down Emes from Heaven, onto the land. Consequently, the single Malach of Shalom was now left alone, outnumbered, facing the two Malachim of Chessed and Tzedek. As a result, HaShem could now proceed to create mankind.
There are numerous difficulties with this Medrash, but we will focus on two of the most pressing questions. Firstly, it seems clear that HaShem wanted to create the world, and therefore wanted Emes and Shalom to be defeated, therefore He chose to send Emes to the land, in order to place Chessed and Tzedek in the majority. But why did He particularly throw down Emes instead of Shalom? Secondly, it would seem that HaShem did not agree with the arguments of Emes and Shalom. What was wrong with their argument and what did throwing down Emes achieve in overriding his case?
Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt”l addresses these questions. He begins by explaining the reasoning behind the claims of Emes and Shalom. Emes argued that there was only one ultimate ‘Truth’ in the world, which was the way in which HaShem viewed the world. Accordingly, any other opinion was by definition’ sheker (untrue) in that it contradicted the single Emes. By creating human beings, HaShem would create numerous beings who would inevitably espouse numerous different opinions and beliefs. Since there was only one ‘true’ belief, anything else would constitute falsehood. Therefore, the Malach of Emes argued that man would be full of falsehood and should not be created. Rav Kamenetsky elaborates further that the argument of Shalom stemmed from the same reasoning as that of Emes. Since there was only one true way, anything else would be viewed as wrong. Consequently, there could never be true peace because each person would believe that their fellow was espousing an untrue belief system and way of life. Therefore, Shalom also believed that the creation of man would only have negative consequences.
In response to these arguments, HaShem took Emes from the Heavens, and threw it to the land. Rav Kamenetsky explains the meaning of this enigmatic statement. HaShem acknowledged the arguments of Emes and Shalom. However, He knew that they were based on the fact that there was only one was truth. He changed this by removing the concept of Emes from the Heavens and place it on the Earth. This means that He now gave man the ability to define Emes according to his own reasoning. It was very conceivable that man’s conclusions may differ from those of HaShem, but, as long as they were within certain boundaries, it was now possible for man to create his understanding of Emes. Consequently, many people could formulate a variety of opinions and beliefs, and they could all fall within the category of Emes.
By throwing Emes to the ground, and creating the possibility of there being more than one truth, HaShem also allayed the argument of Shalom that creating man would cause much dispute. The reason for such dispute was that since there was only one truth, there could never be true peace because each person would believe that his fellow was espousing a false ideology. By creating the possibility of there being more than only truth, HaShem made it possible for people to have different opinions without having to believe that their fellow man’s beliefs were untrue. Rather, they represented a different, but valid way of looking at the world.
We can now answer the aforementioned questions. We asked why HaShem threw down Emes instead of Shalom. The answer is that the arguments of both Emes and Shalom stemmed from the same point – that there was only one truth. By throwing down Emes and changing that reality and creating the possibility of more than one ‘truth’, HaShem dispelled the argument of Shalom as well. We can now also answer why HaShem seemingly ignored the arguments of Emes and Shalom. The answer is that He did not ignore them at all, rather by creating the possibility of more than one Truth He responded to their arguments in such a way that would satisfy them.

There are numerous applications to the concept of there being more than one valid truth. One is that a person must be very careful before dismissing approaches to Torah that differ from his own. As long as they are within the realms of Torah thought, they constitute a valid form of Avodas HaShem (service of HaShem). Moreover, if one’s children or other family members choose a different path in their Avodas HaShem, it is important to accept that there is more than one ‘correct’ way of expressing one’s Judaism. We see this from the following story involving Rav Kamenetsky.
A family close to Rav Kamenetsky was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Rav Kamenetsky spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Rav Kamenetsky even recommended a step more radical than the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva !
Similarly, a person himself who has been brought up within one stream of Orthodox Judaism, may feel that he can enhance his Avodas HaShem by delving into other streams who emphasize different aspects of Avodas HaShem. By recognizing that there are many valid paths he may be able to revitalize his Avoda and utilize certain talents or drives that are otherwise untapped. May we all merit to find the path that enables us to fulfill our potential.

CHESED - THE KEY TO SHALOM BAYIS - CHAYEI SARAH

Avraham Avinu's loyal servant, Eliezer, arrives at Aram Naharaim in search of a wife for Yitzchak Avinu. Immediately he prays to Hashem to help him find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. He even asks Hashem to give him a sign for the identity of the prospective wife, requesting that she treat him with great chesed. The commentaries note that Eliezer deliberately wanted to ascertain that Yitzchak's wife excel in the trait of chesed in particular. Why was this mida, above all others, so important to Eliezer?

The Maharal provides us with the key to answering this question. After Eliezer decides that Rivka is the fitting wife for Yitzchak, he immediately bestows her with gifts; "And it was when the camels had finished drinking, the man took a golden nose ring, its weight a beka, and two bracelets on her arms, ten gold shekels their weight." Rashi tells us that there were deeper allusions contained in these gifts. The beka mentioned in the passuk, alludes to the future mitzvo of giving half a shekel, where the Torah instructs the Jewish people to give a "beka per head", a beka being half the weight of a shekel. The two bracelets alluded to the two Luchos (Tablets) given at Sinai, and the ten gold shekels hinted at the Ten Commandments. The Maharal explains that Eliezer was alluding to the three pillars of Torah, Avoda (service of G-d) and Gemillut chasadim, upon which the world stands. The shekalim referred to the pillar of kindness, whereby everyone gave money. The reference to the nose alludes to the smell present in every korban offered in the Beis HaMikdash. Accordingly, Eliezer was hinting at the pillar of Avoda, with this gift. Finally, the Luchos were references to Torah.

The Maharal continues that Eliezer was hinting to Rivka that since she excelled in one of the three pillars, that of chesed, she would also merit to receive the pillars of Avoda and Torah. Her connection to Avoda would be through her marriage to Yitzchak, who epitomized that trait, and her connection to Torah would be through Yaakov Avinu who represents Torah. The Maharal explains that chesed is the pillar through which all others midos derive, accordingly, Rivka merited all the pillars through her excelling in the one pillar of chesed. With this explanation we can understand why the mida of chesed was so important to Eliezer - he recognized that of all the positive traits, the most fundamental was that of chesed because it was the root of all good traits. Accordingly, this was the most important mida to be found in the prospective wife of Yitzchak.

The Maharal makes a similar point in Parshas Lech Lecha. Hashem promises Avraham that his name would be mentioned in the chasima of the first bracha in the Shemoneh Esrei. Why should his name be mentioned any more than those of Yitzchak or Yaakov? Maharal explains that Avraham's mida of chesed contains within it the midos of Yitzchak and Yaakov.

The idea that chesed is the root of all other traits is strongly supported by the famous gemara in which a prospective convert asks Hillel to teach him the Torah 'on one foot'. Hillel answers him, "that which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend, the rest is commentary, go and learn it." The commentaries understand that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew the mitzvo of 'love your neighbor as yourself', the most fundamental of all the mitzvos relating to bein adam lechaveiro. However, they ask how this encapsulated the numerous mitzvos that do not fall within the realm of bein adam lechaveiro? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew a profound lesson. A person who is self-centered will never try to step out of his own way of thinking and viewing the world. Consequently, he will never relate to the thoughts and opinions of other people. Such a person will be unable to properly keep the Torah. This is because in order to follow the Torah, and the outlook prescribed by it, a person must step out of his own way of viewing the world, and subjugate his opinions to those of Hashem. One who cannot relate to the views of those around him will surely not be able to truly accept the views of Hashem. Hillel was teaching the non-Jew that only by stepping out of one's selfish world, can he begin to come to accepting the Torah.

The Chazon Ish's explanation helps us understand how the mida of chesed lies at the root of seeing the truth of the Torah. A baal chesed is one who can step out of his own world, and appreciate the needs and thoughts of others. Therefore, he can also, more easily step out of his own biases to shift his outlook to fit with that of the Torah. We also see this idea in the Torah's focus on Avraham Avinu's midos. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita points out that Chazal characterize Avraham for his incredible desire to seek truth, as well as his great chesed. The Torah goes to great lengths to teach us about Avraham's kindness but there is no mention of his philosophical quest for the truth. It is Chazal who point out this aspect of Avraham. Rav Berkovits explains that the root of Avraham's ability to find the truth was his mida of chesed. It was his very selflessness that brought him to the truth. Since his chesed lay at the root of his greatness, the Torah stressed that aspect of his personality as opposed to the intellectual honesty that came as a result.

It is also clear that the midos of Avoda (service of G-d) and gevurah (strength) epitomized by Yitzchak also stem from chesed. Yitzchak is most praised for his total self-sacrifice. This self-sacrifice emanated from his desire to do G-d's will. Thus, his self-discipline and self-sacrifice stemmed from his desire to do chesed, (so to speak) to Hashem. Even the mido of din, (strict judgment) in fact comes from chesed. We know that the reason Hashem created a world of judgment whereby one can falter, is because of the concept of 'bread of shame'. A person feels far less satisfaction when he receives something without having worked for it. Only by earning it through his own efforts does he really feel joy at his acquisitions. In this way, even Hashem's strict judgment derives from His desire to bestow chesed on his creations.

We have seen many sources that the root trait is that of chesed. This is why Eliezer was so focused on finding this mida in Yitzchak's wife. In a similar vein, one renowned talmid chacham pointed out that when his daughters were dating, he would often be told about the brilliance of their prospective husbands. He would say that their intellect was far less important to him than how they would treat his daughters.

It is clear how important the trait of chesed is in all relationships, and in marriage in particular. By working on one's chesed, a person will immeasurably enhance his marriage. To the degree that he (or she) remains ensconced in his own world he will be unable to understand and meet his spouse's needs. This indeed seems to be the cause of many of the problems that plague bad marriages. In contrast, when a spouse strives to relate to his wife, then, in time, their bonds will grow stronger and stronger. May we all merit to marriages filled with chesed.

MARRIAGE - REMOVING THE OBSTACLES TO SHALOM BAYIS

Parshas Vayeira begins with the story of the Malachim's visit to Avraham Avinu. After Avraham has given them a sumptuous meal, the Malachim surprise him with the prediction that he and his wife, Sarah Imanu would bear a child. Sarah overhears this bold prediction and reacts with skepticism: “And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have withered shall I again have delicate skin? And my husband is old!” Hashem immediately informs Avraham of Sarah’s skepticism, but does not reveal the full content of her words. He omits the part about Avraham being old, and only mentions Sarah’s own perceived inability to have children. Rashi brings the gemara that tells us that Hashem himself changed what Sarah had said, for the sake of maintaining Shalom Bayis (family peace) between Avraham and Sarah. We learn from here a general principle that a person is allowed to change the truth in order to maintain harmony in a marriage.

There are numerous lessons to be learnt from this incident and Chazal’s explanation. One of them is the great value of Shalom Bayis, to the degree that it is preferable to alter the truth rather than cause a possible rift in a marriage. This lesson is magnified when one bears in mind the great value placed on the trait of honesty in Torah thought.

There is another, less obvious lesson that can be derived from this story. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita asks, why could Sarah’s comment about Avraham’s age have possibly caused a rift in their precious marriage. There was nothing vindictive in her observation, she was merely noting an obvious fact, that Avraham was aged. He answers, that we learn from here, that even a very innocent statement with the slightest hint of negativity can cause some kind of weakening in the relationship between man and wife. It is certain that Avraham would not have been upset with Sarah had Hashem informed him of her observation about his age. Nonetheless, the Torah teaches us that on some minute level, it demonstrated a certain lacking in Sarah’s great respect for her righteous husband. If this is true with regard to a tzaddik on the level of Avraham Avinu, how much more is it relevant to a normal person. The Torah is teaching us that even a factual observation about one’s spouse can cause harm in a marriage if it can be perceived to be negative in any way.

Of course, it is very difficult for a person to reach a level where he never says anything that could minutely imply a lack of respect of his spouse. Initially, a more realistic goal is to try to reduce more blatant types of criticism that cause so much damage in a marriage. Whilst such comments are unfortunately commonplace, it is impossible for a couple (or people in any other relationship) to develop a truly loving relationship. This is borne out by an observation of Rav Noach Weinberg on the verse that contains the mitzvo to love one’s fellow man. The passuk says: “Do not take revenge, and do not bear a grudge, and love your neighbor as yourself - I am Hashem.” It is not a coincidence when Mitzvos are placed in the same verse - there must be some kind of connection between them. What is the connection between the mitzvo of love thy neighbor with the commands not to take revenge or bear a grudge? Rav Weinberg explains that the Torah is teaching us that in order to properly love other people, one must remove the negativity that plagues inter-personal relationships. When a person is unforgiving of other people's flaws and mistakes, he will never be able to develop a genuinely positive relationship with them. This is particularly relevant in a marriage. If the spouses are constantly focusing on their partner's failings and begrudging them their mistakes, they will never be able to have a truly happy marriage. Only by removing petty negativity, can they attain the Torah's view of marriage.

The practical applications of this lesson are obvious - reduced criticism is the key to improving a marriage. How can a person reduce his criticism of his spouse? The root of criticism is focusing on the negative aspects of someone else’s behavior. In order to begin to reduce one’s critical words, he must first cut down his critical thoughts. One couple were plagued by constant criticism and bickering about minor matters. They were advised that whenever one such insignificant issue arose and they felt a need to make a comment, they should hold back and remain quiet. Initially, this exercise proved very difficult but as the couple persisted, they found that they looked at each other in a less judgmental and critical fashion. Perhaps this is one way in which the negativity in a marriage can be reduced and enable the relationship to flourish.