Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .
To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.
Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!
With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.
This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.
These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.
Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.
Showing posts with label Sodom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sodom. Show all posts
Sunday, November 6, 2011
USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA
The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their well being.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why is this such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their well being.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why is this such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA
One of the most famous episodes in the Torah Portion is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?
Rav Yitzchak Berkovits explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that God punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that God was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so wicked that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat) and Oneg Shabbat (enjoying Shabbat) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed.
Rav Yitzchak Berkovits explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that God punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that God was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so wicked that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat) and Oneg Shabbat (enjoying Shabbat) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed.
Friday, October 22, 2010
KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA
One of the most famous episodes in the Parsha is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that HaShem punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that HaShem was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so cruel that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbos (honoring the Shabbos) and Oneg Shabbos (enjoying Shabbos) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed. May we all merit to learn these lessons and help our fellow in the most ideal way possible.
My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.
The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that HaShem punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that HaShem was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.
The nation of Sodom was so cruel that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?
It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbos (honoring the Shabbos) and Oneg Shabbos (enjoying Shabbos) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?
The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed. May we all merit to learn these lessons and help our fellow in the most ideal way possible.
Monday, October 18, 2010
USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA
VAYEIRA - USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD
The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA
The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests). The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?
Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their wellbeing.
We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why this is such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.
We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.
Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.
There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.
There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
