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 Vayeira. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vayeira. 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.
REACTING TO SUCCESS AND FAILURE - AVRAHAM
There are many aspects of Avraham Avinu’s greatness that are discussed a great deal, in particular his perfection in the trait of kindness. However, on deeper examination we see other, more subtle facets of his greatness. Throughout his life, Avraham underwent numerous difficult challenges and setbacks. Some of these tests ended with great success but others did not necessarily culminate in the way that Avraham would have hoped. The way in which he reacted to these events teaches us tremendous lessons in how to respond to both success and adversity.
Surely the most difficult challenge that Avraham ever faced in his eventful life was that of the Akeida, whereby he was commanded to slaughter his only son despite having no understanding of the reason for doing so. Finally, at the end of the arduous test he is told by the Malach that he has passed the test and thereby merited the blessing that his descendants will be like the stars of the Heavens. Avraham’s measure of success is further elucidated by a Yalkut Shimoni quoted by Rav Yissochor Frand shlita. When Avraham was about to slaughter his son at the Akeida, the Malach called to him, “Avraham,Avraham” Why did the Malach say his name twice? The Yalkut explains that there are two images of each person - his worldly image and his heavenly image; his worldly image is what he makes of himself in this world, and his heavenly image represents what he could become if he fulfill his potential. Avraham, after he passed the last of his ten tests, finally reached his complete potential and consequently his two images became identical. The Malach mentioned the two ‘Avrahams’ together, the Avraham of olam hazeh and the ideal Avraham of olam haba, indicating that the two of them were now the same. Thus at this point in time Avraham had reached the pinnacle of greatness, indeed he had attained spiritual perfection.
How would a person react after such a momentous event? A little pride in his achievements would be understandable; Or at least a feeling of elation and celebration would be reasonable. Yet Avraham’s reaction was very different. The verse immediately after the Akeida tells us: “Avraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer Sheba and Avraham dwelled in Beer-Sheba.” The commentaries note the Torah’s wording that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, Eliezer and Yishmael. This wording denotes a sense of being on the same level or with the same feelings. Thus, here the Torah is telling us that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, in that just as they had not undergone any great experience at the Akeida, so too Avraham travelled as if he had not faced and passed the most difficult test that any man had ever faced. He felt no sense of pride and even no sense of celebration, rather he returned to Beer-Sheba to continue his holy work of teaching the world about the Divine Presence.
Avraham’s greatness with regard to the aftermath of the Akeida is further demonstrated by his conduct in the subsequent incident discussed by the Torah; that of his dealings with the wily Efron in his efforts to acquire the Maaras HaMachpeila as a burial place for his wife, Sarah Imanu. Rabbeinu Yonah makes a seemingly baffling point – the Mishna in Avos tells us that Avraham faced ten extremely difficult tests, and most commentators explain that the Akeida was the final test. However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes that Avraham’s difficulties in finding a burial plot for Sarah constituted his final test. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita asks how it is fathomable that after the ultimate challenge, that of the Akeida, there could be yet another challenge that Avraham needed face – surely the Akedia represented the pinnacle of human achievement and no further tests were necessary!
He answers that of course the Akeida was the most difficult test that Avraham faced, however the final test offered a different challenge. It is human nature that after a person succeeds in a difficult endeavor he may have a tendency to want to rest on his laurels, and to feel that he has a right to relax a little. After enduring the incredible challenges involved in the Akeida it would have been understandable for Avraham Avinu to hope for a little respite. Accordingly, when he was immediately faced with the tragic death of his wife and the subsequent difficulties in acquiring a burial plot for her, he could have easily become frustrated with the course of events and harbored feelings of complaints towards HaKadosh Baruch Hu. However, Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us, he succeeded in this very different kind of test, by accepting that even after he reached his full potential, he was still liable to face new challenges. This teaches us a further dimension in Avraham’s greatness in his response to success. Not only did he remain humble, but he also remained prepared to face whatever new challenges could arise.
We have thus far seen how Avraham reacted to success without letting it affect his humility or hindering his Avodas HaShem. Yet how did Avraham react on the rare occasions where he did not succeed in his endeavors? One such instance occurred when HaShem informed Avraham of His plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of their evil behavior. Avraham launched into a lengthy attempt to rescue the people of Sodom. He argued that if there were fifty righteous people then HaShem should save the whole city, and so on until it became clear that there weren’t even ten. Once this had been determined and the decree had been issued the Torah makes a seemingly superfluous comment. “HaShem departed when He had finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his place.” What is the significance of the fact that Avraham returned to his place; what lesson is it teaching us?
The Steipler Gaon zt”l addressed this question in making a vital point to Rav Elazar Shach zt”l. On one occasion the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah made a certain decision in opposition to the views of Rav Shach and the Steipler. The matter was of such importance to Rav Shach that he felt a great sense of despair and his spirits were broken. Rav Shlomo Lorincz zt”l writes that soon after this incident he visited the Steipler who asked him how Rav Shach was faring. He answered that Rav Shach was thoroughly dejected and did not know which way to turn. So great was his disappointment that he said he had no more strength to continue. The Steipler listened to this sadly and said, “I would like you to go to Rav Shach for me and tell him the following.” The Steipler proceeded to ask the aforementioned question as to the significance of the fact that “Avraham returned to his place.” He answered with the following words. “What this means is that the Torah wants to teach us – tell Rav Shach this – that when one has done everything in order to save a situation and the goal has not been achieved one must implement, ‘And Avraham returned to his place’. One has to go back and resume the activity that one is obligated to engage in, continuing as though nothing untoward has happened. Under no circumstances whatsoever does lack of success justify a person giving way and being unable to carry on his holy work. Repeat this, word for word, on my behalf. He has done everything without missing a single detail, therefore he must also fulfill, ‘And Avraham returned to his place,’ and continue leading Klal Yisroel as before.” Rav Lorincz reports that when he conveyed this message to Rav Shach, Rav Shach replied that he accepted this lesson and would return to his work on behalf of Klal Yisroel.
The Steipler’s astute observation demonstrates Avraham’s attitude to failure – he recognized that he did his utmost to achieve his goal but when he failed he did not let that failure prevent his holy work. By the fact that a man as great as Rav Shach faced great difficulty in overcoming this challenge, it is clear that this is a test that can affect everyone. Avraham’s reaction to his setback teaches us the proper way to react to failure.
We have seen yet another facet to the greatness of Avraham Avinu – he excelled in his reaction to both success and failure. Perhaps the underlying trait that enabled him to succeed in all the tests that we have mentioned was his great humility. That taught him not to become haughty or complacent in the face of success, and not to despair when, through events beyond his power, he could not fulfill his goal.
Surely the most difficult challenge that Avraham ever faced in his eventful life was that of the Akeida, whereby he was commanded to slaughter his only son despite having no understanding of the reason for doing so. Finally, at the end of the arduous test he is told by the Malach that he has passed the test and thereby merited the blessing that his descendants will be like the stars of the Heavens. Avraham’s measure of success is further elucidated by a Yalkut Shimoni quoted by Rav Yissochor Frand shlita. When Avraham was about to slaughter his son at the Akeida, the Malach called to him, “Avraham,Avraham” Why did the Malach say his name twice? The Yalkut explains that there are two images of each person - his worldly image and his heavenly image; his worldly image is what he makes of himself in this world, and his heavenly image represents what he could become if he fulfill his potential. Avraham, after he passed the last of his ten tests, finally reached his complete potential and consequently his two images became identical. The Malach mentioned the two ‘Avrahams’ together, the Avraham of olam hazeh and the ideal Avraham of olam haba, indicating that the two of them were now the same. Thus at this point in time Avraham had reached the pinnacle of greatness, indeed he had attained spiritual perfection.
How would a person react after such a momentous event? A little pride in his achievements would be understandable; Or at least a feeling of elation and celebration would be reasonable. Yet Avraham’s reaction was very different. The verse immediately after the Akeida tells us: “Avraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer Sheba and Avraham dwelled in Beer-Sheba.” The commentaries note the Torah’s wording that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, Eliezer and Yishmael. This wording denotes a sense of being on the same level or with the same feelings. Thus, here the Torah is telling us that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, in that just as they had not undergone any great experience at the Akeida, so too Avraham travelled as if he had not faced and passed the most difficult test that any man had ever faced. He felt no sense of pride and even no sense of celebration, rather he returned to Beer-Sheba to continue his holy work of teaching the world about the Divine Presence.
Avraham’s greatness with regard to the aftermath of the Akeida is further demonstrated by his conduct in the subsequent incident discussed by the Torah; that of his dealings with the wily Efron in his efforts to acquire the Maaras HaMachpeila as a burial place for his wife, Sarah Imanu. Rabbeinu Yonah makes a seemingly baffling point – the Mishna in Avos tells us that Avraham faced ten extremely difficult tests, and most commentators explain that the Akeida was the final test. However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes that Avraham’s difficulties in finding a burial plot for Sarah constituted his final test. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita asks how it is fathomable that after the ultimate challenge, that of the Akeida, there could be yet another challenge that Avraham needed face – surely the Akedia represented the pinnacle of human achievement and no further tests were necessary!
He answers that of course the Akeida was the most difficult test that Avraham faced, however the final test offered a different challenge. It is human nature that after a person succeeds in a difficult endeavor he may have a tendency to want to rest on his laurels, and to feel that he has a right to relax a little. After enduring the incredible challenges involved in the Akeida it would have been understandable for Avraham Avinu to hope for a little respite. Accordingly, when he was immediately faced with the tragic death of his wife and the subsequent difficulties in acquiring a burial plot for her, he could have easily become frustrated with the course of events and harbored feelings of complaints towards HaKadosh Baruch Hu. However, Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us, he succeeded in this very different kind of test, by accepting that even after he reached his full potential, he was still liable to face new challenges. This teaches us a further dimension in Avraham’s greatness in his response to success. Not only did he remain humble, but he also remained prepared to face whatever new challenges could arise.
We have thus far seen how Avraham reacted to success without letting it affect his humility or hindering his Avodas HaShem. Yet how did Avraham react on the rare occasions where he did not succeed in his endeavors? One such instance occurred when HaShem informed Avraham of His plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of their evil behavior. Avraham launched into a lengthy attempt to rescue the people of Sodom. He argued that if there were fifty righteous people then HaShem should save the whole city, and so on until it became clear that there weren’t even ten. Once this had been determined and the decree had been issued the Torah makes a seemingly superfluous comment. “HaShem departed when He had finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his place.” What is the significance of the fact that Avraham returned to his place; what lesson is it teaching us?
The Steipler Gaon zt”l addressed this question in making a vital point to Rav Elazar Shach zt”l. On one occasion the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah made a certain decision in opposition to the views of Rav Shach and the Steipler. The matter was of such importance to Rav Shach that he felt a great sense of despair and his spirits were broken. Rav Shlomo Lorincz zt”l writes that soon after this incident he visited the Steipler who asked him how Rav Shach was faring. He answered that Rav Shach was thoroughly dejected and did not know which way to turn. So great was his disappointment that he said he had no more strength to continue. The Steipler listened to this sadly and said, “I would like you to go to Rav Shach for me and tell him the following.” The Steipler proceeded to ask the aforementioned question as to the significance of the fact that “Avraham returned to his place.” He answered with the following words. “What this means is that the Torah wants to teach us – tell Rav Shach this – that when one has done everything in order to save a situation and the goal has not been achieved one must implement, ‘And Avraham returned to his place’. One has to go back and resume the activity that one is obligated to engage in, continuing as though nothing untoward has happened. Under no circumstances whatsoever does lack of success justify a person giving way and being unable to carry on his holy work. Repeat this, word for word, on my behalf. He has done everything without missing a single detail, therefore he must also fulfill, ‘And Avraham returned to his place,’ and continue leading Klal Yisroel as before.” Rav Lorincz reports that when he conveyed this message to Rav Shach, Rav Shach replied that he accepted this lesson and would return to his work on behalf of Klal Yisroel.
The Steipler’s astute observation demonstrates Avraham’s attitude to failure – he recognized that he did his utmost to achieve his goal but when he failed he did not let that failure prevent his holy work. By the fact that a man as great as Rav Shach faced great difficulty in overcoming this challenge, it is clear that this is a test that can affect everyone. Avraham’s reaction to his setback teaches us the proper way to react to failure.
We have seen yet another facet to the greatness of Avraham Avinu – he excelled in his reaction to both success and failure. Perhaps the underlying trait that enabled him to succeed in all the tests that we have mentioned was his great humility. That taught him not to become haughty or complacent in the face of success, and not to despair when, through events beyond his power, he could not fulfill his goal.
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
UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA
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.
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)
