Chazal say that since Churban Bayis Sheini we should really be in a permanent state of mourning. However, we could not permanently live that way so for most of the year we conduct our lives as if everything is normal and how it should be. For three weeks of the year, culminating with Tisha b’Av we face the reality of our situation and adopt the customs of aveilim. We recognize that things are not as they should be - there is no Beis Hamikdash, we are in galus and we live in a time of hester panim when Hashem’s hashgacha over us is not evident to the eye. On Tisha b’Av in particular we focus on the events in Jewish history that reflect this hester panim as a way of internalizing the terrible state of affairs.
It seems that in different eras the hester panim manifests itself in different ways. For generations its main expression was through anti-Semitism. Jews steadfastly kept to the traditions of their ancestors and often had to give up their lives for it. More recently with the Holocaust, Jews were murdered merely for being Jews. The untold suffering that we have endured is something that people rightfully focus on a great deal on Tisha B’Av - by reading about such events we feel more aware of the terrible consequences of heseter panim. Whilst this hanhaga is certainly commendable, it seems that the ikar manifestation of hester panim in the present era is not anti-Semitism. Take out five seconds and think yourself what it is……..
I imagine that most of you answered that today the main manifestation of hester panim is the desperate state of Torah observance in Klal Yisroel today. We all have a vague, intellectual awareness that things are not as they should be but how bad is it? The intermarriage rate in USA in 1950 was 6%, by 1990 it was 52% and rising. 2 million Jews of Jewish origin do not identify themselves as Jews. 2 million self-identified Jews have no Jewish connection whatsoever. For every wedding between two Jews, two intermarriages take place. 625,000 US Jews are now practicing other religions. 11% of US Jews go to shul . Every day dozens of intermarriages take place which means that in the time it took you to read this, some Jews were lost forever. These statistics make the situation a little more real to us but it is still far from our hearts. A couple of years ago I had to go to a plastic surgeon in Mevasseret on Tisha B’Av when my son got a bad cut on his mouth. I found myself in a Kanyon and was met by a scene of what chillonim do on Tisha B’Av; they go about their lives as normal. I saw Jews eating in a Macdonalds, acting as if everything was normal. What’s more, is that the exact same scene would great you on Shabbos. We all know that chillonim don’t keep Shabbos but to actually experience it! Baruch Hashem we have no idea of what it means to have no Torah, no Shabbos, no relationship with Hashem, no direction in life … but this is the lot of our brothers and sisters - and what’s the difference between us and them? Simply that we were born into a Torah-observant family and they were not - that’s it.
So back to the initial point - This is the time of year that we strip away the illusion that everything is okay - EVERYTHING IS NOT OKAY. We have to face the truth - and what’s more is that we have to accept the responsibility for the way things are, and, on Tisha B’av in particular, we must feel the pain, we can’t hide from it. Chillul Shabbos is EVERYWHERE, inter-marriage is EVERYWHERE. And the most important thing to remember is how Hashem ‘feels’ about it. Just to make that idea more real - Imagine that you had 10 children and you brought them all up to be fully Torah-observant Jews. Nine of them follow the path that you hoped they would but one is slightly lax in this observance. How would you feel? Ask any person who has experienced such a thing and he will tell you that it caused him considerable distress. What if that one child was not just slightly lax but had abandoned Torah completely? Of course that would cause the parents untold grief. Imagine if not one but two children went astray, how much additional pain that would cause. If over half the children totally abandoned Yiddishkeit and of the remaining few only one was fully observant, you would feel unbearable anguish.
All Jews are banim l’Makom - Hashem is their father, and this is the state of Hashem’s ‘family’ - let us take this one day and face the reality - this is what the galus is about today and to end the galus this is what must be dealt with. Hashem is hidden, his children don’t see him, they barely even know he exists - there is certainly plenty to mourn. May this be the last Tisha B’Av of sadness and may it be transformed into a day of rejoicing when ALL Jews know what it means to be Banim l’Makom.
Showing posts with label Tisha B'Av - Sinas Chinam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tisha B'Av - Sinas Chinam. Show all posts
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Monday, July 12, 2010
REDEFINING SINAS CHINAM - TISHA B'AV
As we approach Tishah b’Av, we strive to find ways of improving ourselves, so we can ensure that this will be the last year without the Beis HaMikdash. The famous gemara in Gittin about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches us a great deal about the cause of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and what we need to rectify in order to bring about its rebuilding.
The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. An unnamed man was a sworn enemy of Bar Kamtza but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a banquet, but the servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came to the affair, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After that offer was refused, he volunteered to pay half the cost of the whole banquet, but instead he was thrown out. There were a number of rabbis in attendance, who remained silent throughout this unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.
The Iyun Yaakov, ztz”l, asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for these events, since he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai, ztz”l, answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the banquet and witnessed how Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that if someone can protest a wrongdoing but does not, it is considered as if he himself committed it. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha, who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the destruction.
Furthermore, the rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events, because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza’s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story: Inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, the Beis HaMikdash may not have been destroyed. Their indifference to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.
This lesson, that apathy destroyed the second Beis HaMikdash, seems somewhat contradictory to the Gemara in Yoma, which states that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the destruction. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not limited to active hatred; it can also include apathy. We see this from the first time the root of the word sinah (hatred) appears in the Torah: In parashas Vayetzei, after Yaakov Avinu marries Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, “Hashem saw that Leah was senuah (literally, “hated”).” The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one he loves less is called senuah—he does not hate her, but he loves her less than his favorite. Therefore, says the Ramban, Yaakov did not hate Leah; rather, his love for her was lacking. And therefore we can understand that the word sinah does not necessarily imply an active hatred; rather, it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in Yoma need not have been a virulent hatred; it could also have included apathy and lack of concern for one’s fellow.
In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibschutz, ztz”l, writes that the sinas chinam described in the Gemara refers not to active hatred, but to disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, because people were not willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, “Do you have a greater hater than this: one who sees his friend drowning in a river [of sin] and does not protest?!” Based on this redefinition of sinah, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma involves not only active hatred; it also includes apathy toward the pain of one’s fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.
The fact that the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very prevalent today, and they apply to many areas of our lives, whether it be in the realm of sharing another’s pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or reaching out to the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious soul searching to assess our performance in these areas and strive to improve in some way.
May this be the last Tishah b’Av or mourning that we endure.
The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. An unnamed man was a sworn enemy of Bar Kamtza but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a banquet, but the servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came to the affair, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After that offer was refused, he volunteered to pay half the cost of the whole banquet, but instead he was thrown out. There were a number of rabbis in attendance, who remained silent throughout this unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.
The Iyun Yaakov, ztz”l, asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for these events, since he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai, ztz”l, answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the banquet and witnessed how Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that if someone can protest a wrongdoing but does not, it is considered as if he himself committed it. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha, who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the destruction.
Furthermore, the rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events, because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza’s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story: Inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, the Beis HaMikdash may not have been destroyed. Their indifference to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.
This lesson, that apathy destroyed the second Beis HaMikdash, seems somewhat contradictory to the Gemara in Yoma, which states that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the destruction. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not limited to active hatred; it can also include apathy. We see this from the first time the root of the word sinah (hatred) appears in the Torah: In parashas Vayetzei, after Yaakov Avinu marries Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, “Hashem saw that Leah was senuah (literally, “hated”).” The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one he loves less is called senuah—he does not hate her, but he loves her less than his favorite. Therefore, says the Ramban, Yaakov did not hate Leah; rather, his love for her was lacking. And therefore we can understand that the word sinah does not necessarily imply an active hatred; rather, it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in Yoma need not have been a virulent hatred; it could also have included apathy and lack of concern for one’s fellow.
In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibschutz, ztz”l, writes that the sinas chinam described in the Gemara refers not to active hatred, but to disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, because people were not willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, “Do you have a greater hater than this: one who sees his friend drowning in a river [of sin] and does not protest?!” Based on this redefinition of sinah, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma involves not only active hatred; it also includes apathy toward the pain of one’s fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.
The fact that the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very prevalent today, and they apply to many areas of our lives, whether it be in the realm of sharing another’s pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or reaching out to the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious soul searching to assess our performance in these areas and strive to improve in some way.
May this be the last Tishah b’Av or mourning that we endure.
Monday, July 27, 2009
REDEFINING SINAS CHINAM - TISHA B'AV
As we approach Tisha B'Av we strive to find ways of improving ourselves so that we can ensure that this is the last year without the Beis HaMikdosh. The famous Gemara in Gittin about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches us a great deal about the cause of the churban (destruction) and what we need to rectify in order to bring about its rebuilding.
The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. The gemara explains that an unnamed man was sworn enemies of Bar Kamtza, but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a seudah (meal) but he mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When he came to the seudah, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After being refused that offer, he eventually offered to pay half the costs of the whole seudah, but was instead thrown out. There were a number of Rabbis at the seudah who stayed quiet throughout his unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.
The Iyun Yaakov zt"l asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for the events that led to the churban, he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai zt"l answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the seudah and witnessed the way that Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that whoever has the ability to protest a wrongdoing and does not, it is considered as if he himself committed that wrongdoing. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, and yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the churban.
Furthermore, the Rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza' s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story - that inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any one of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, then the Beis HaMikdosh may not have been destroyed. Their attitude of apathy to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.
This lesson, that apathy was the cause of the churban Bayis sheini, seems to somewhat contradict the gemara in Yoma, that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the churban. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not restricted to active hatred, it can also be understood to include apathy. We see this from the first time that the root word 'sina' is written in the Torah: In Parshas Vayetsei, after Yaakov Avinu married Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, "and Hashem saw that Leah was snuah (literally translated as hated)." The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one that he loves less is called the 'snuah' - he does not hate her, rather his love for her is weaker than that for his favorite. Based on this, the Ramban explains that Yaakov did not hate Leah, rather his love for her was lacking. Accordingly, we can understand that the word, sina, does not necessarily imply an active hatred, rather it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in the gemara in Yoma need not necessarily be restricted to a virulent hatred, it can also include a sense of apathy and lack of concern for one's fellow.
In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibshitz zt"l writes that the sinas chinam described in the gemara does not refer to active hatred, rather it was the disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, and he argues that this was a result of the absence of people willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, "Do you have a greater hater than this; one who sees his friend drowning in the river [of sin] and does not protest?!" Based on this redefinition of sina, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma does not only involve active hatred, rather it also includes a sense of apathy at the pain of one's fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.
The fact that the Beis HaMikdosh has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very much prevalent today and they apply to many areas of our lives. Whether it be in the realm of sharing another's pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or striving to help the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious cheshbon hanefesh to assess our performance in these areas and to strive to improve in them in some way. May we all merit that this be the last Tisha B'Av or mourning that we endure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
