Showing posts with label honor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label honor. Show all posts
Sunday, June 16, 2013
BALAK - MONEY AND HONOR
Bilaam Harasha is considered to be the archetype of a person with bad midos. The Mishna in Avos describes him as having an ‘ayin raah‘ (he looked upon people in a negative way), a ‘ruach gevoah‘ (he was arrogant), and a ‘nefesh rechava ’ (he was greedy).
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great. ” On superficial analysis we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma ?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying the even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money; One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he is satiated - this is because the goof is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. It seems that it is this kind of love for money that Chazal refer to when they say that when a person gets 100 maneh he wants 200 maneh, and when he gets 200 maneh he wants 400 maneh. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction. ” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money is a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
SHABBOS AND HONORING ONE'S PARENTS - YISRO
The highlight of Parshas Yisro is the Ten Commandments. The fourth Mitzvo is to remember the Shabbos , and the fifth is honoring one’s parents . This juxtaposition may not seem to be of great significance, however, this is not the only time in the Torah that these two seemingly unrelated Mitzvos are juxtaposed. In Parshas Kedoshim, the two Mitzvos are actually mentioned in the same verse: “Every man: Your mother and father shall you revere; and My Sabbaths shall you observe – I am HaShem, your G-d.” Chazal do indeed extrapolate lessons from this verse – they explain that even though one must honor and revere his parents, this obligation does not extend itself to the point where he should listen to his parents’ command to break Shabbos or any other Mitzvo in the Torah. The commentaries ask why the Torah chooses Shabbos in particular to teach that honoring one’s parents does not override other Mitzvos. Indeed, Shabbos is considered one of the most severe Mitzvos to transgress in terms of its punishment.
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l offers a drush explanation as to the juxtaposition of these two Mitzvos. This explanation can perhaps also be used to answer why the verse chose Shabbos in particular when informing us that honoring parents does not override Mitzvos. In his old age, Rav Kamenetsky was once on an airplane with some of his grandchildren. He was sitting next to another elderly man who was a secular Israeli professor. The professor noticed how much Rav Kamenetsky’s grandchildren were honoring and serving him. He told Rav Kamenetsky that his own grandchildren did not give him any honor or respect; he asked the Rabbi what was the difference between the two of them? The Rav answered, that the secular belief is that man originates from apes, therefore each generation is one step further from being an ape. It is logical that each generation is more advanced than its predecessors and consequently there is no reason why young people should honor old people, in fact it should be the reverse – the old should look up to the more ‘advanced’ young. That is why the professor’s grandchildren accorded him no honor.
In contrast the Torah point of view is that the further one goes back in history, the closer one gets to the Act of Creation and Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon was the most holy man, being that he was created by HaShem himself, so-to-speak. Each generation after him is one step further away from that great Act of Creation. Accordingly, each generation views the previous ones as being superior. That, Rav Kamenetsky explained, was why his grandchildren gave him so much respect.
With this elucidation, Rav Kamenetsky explained the juxtaposition of the Mitzvos of honoring one’s parents and keeping Shabbos. Shabbos represents belief in the Act of Creation in that it commemorates how HaShem created the world in six days and then rested. Observing Shabbos demonstrates a recognition that HaShem created the world. When a person has that recognition, he will automatically come to the accompanying realization that each generation is closer to that Act of Creation and therefore worthy of respect. That is the connection between the two Mitzvos – they both emanate from a belief in HaShem’s creation of the world.
Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation can also be used to explain why Chazal chose Shabbos in particular when teaching that honoring parents does not override the Mitzvos of the Torah. As the Ohr HaChaim explains, the end of the verse, “I am HaShem” shows us that honoring one’s parents does not override any Mitzvos because all Mitzvos come from the necessity to do HaShem’s will, including honoring one’s parents. Yet the Torah made a specific mention of Shabbos because the message of Shabbos is intrinsically connected to honoring one’s parents. A person who honors one’s parents recognizes Creation, and it follows that he should also observe the Shabbos which represents the ultimate commemoration of Creation.
This view of elder generations illuminates to us the Torah attitude towards the past, and its stark contrast to that of the secular world. The secular view emphasizes the value of progress whilst often deemphasizing adherence to past values. The Torah view stresses adherence to the values that were passed down since Mattan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). It approaches changes in the modern world in the context of those values. Thus, whilst there have often been valid new approaches and movements in Jewish history they always stay within the context of the values of Mattan Torah. This ides is demonstrated by the Hebrew word for progress – kadima. The root of this word is kedem which means the past. This teaches us that the Torah view is that progress is based on adherence to the values of the past. Those values are very much relevant to the present. We have seen how the Mitzvos of Shabbos and Honoring one’s parents are intrinsically connected – both emphasize the belief in the act of Creation. In turn, they teach us to rest on the seventh day and to respect our elders as being closer to the great moment of Creation. May we all internalize these lessons and keep both Mitzvos to our greatest ability which in turn will strengthen our recognition as G-d as the sole Creator.
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l offers a drush explanation as to the juxtaposition of these two Mitzvos. This explanation can perhaps also be used to answer why the verse chose Shabbos in particular when informing us that honoring parents does not override Mitzvos. In his old age, Rav Kamenetsky was once on an airplane with some of his grandchildren. He was sitting next to another elderly man who was a secular Israeli professor. The professor noticed how much Rav Kamenetsky’s grandchildren were honoring and serving him. He told Rav Kamenetsky that his own grandchildren did not give him any honor or respect; he asked the Rabbi what was the difference between the two of them? The Rav answered, that the secular belief is that man originates from apes, therefore each generation is one step further from being an ape. It is logical that each generation is more advanced than its predecessors and consequently there is no reason why young people should honor old people, in fact it should be the reverse – the old should look up to the more ‘advanced’ young. That is why the professor’s grandchildren accorded him no honor.
In contrast the Torah point of view is that the further one goes back in history, the closer one gets to the Act of Creation and Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon was the most holy man, being that he was created by HaShem himself, so-to-speak. Each generation after him is one step further away from that great Act of Creation. Accordingly, each generation views the previous ones as being superior. That, Rav Kamenetsky explained, was why his grandchildren gave him so much respect.
With this elucidation, Rav Kamenetsky explained the juxtaposition of the Mitzvos of honoring one’s parents and keeping Shabbos. Shabbos represents belief in the Act of Creation in that it commemorates how HaShem created the world in six days and then rested. Observing Shabbos demonstrates a recognition that HaShem created the world. When a person has that recognition, he will automatically come to the accompanying realization that each generation is closer to that Act of Creation and therefore worthy of respect. That is the connection between the two Mitzvos – they both emanate from a belief in HaShem’s creation of the world.
Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation can also be used to explain why Chazal chose Shabbos in particular when teaching that honoring parents does not override the Mitzvos of the Torah. As the Ohr HaChaim explains, the end of the verse, “I am HaShem” shows us that honoring one’s parents does not override any Mitzvos because all Mitzvos come from the necessity to do HaShem’s will, including honoring one’s parents. Yet the Torah made a specific mention of Shabbos because the message of Shabbos is intrinsically connected to honoring one’s parents. A person who honors one’s parents recognizes Creation, and it follows that he should also observe the Shabbos which represents the ultimate commemoration of Creation.
This view of elder generations illuminates to us the Torah attitude towards the past, and its stark contrast to that of the secular world. The secular view emphasizes the value of progress whilst often deemphasizing adherence to past values. The Torah view stresses adherence to the values that were passed down since Mattan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). It approaches changes in the modern world in the context of those values. Thus, whilst there have often been valid new approaches and movements in Jewish history they always stay within the context of the values of Mattan Torah. This ides is demonstrated by the Hebrew word for progress – kadima. The root of this word is kedem which means the past. This teaches us that the Torah view is that progress is based on adherence to the values of the past. Those values are very much relevant to the present. We have seen how the Mitzvos of Shabbos and Honoring one’s parents are intrinsically connected – both emphasize the belief in the act of Creation. In turn, they teach us to rest on the seventh day and to respect our elders as being closer to the great moment of Creation. May we all internalize these lessons and keep both Mitzvos to our greatest ability which in turn will strengthen our recognition as G-d as the sole Creator.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
MONEY AND HONOR - BALAK
Bilaam Harasha is considered to be the archetype of a person with bad midos. The Mishna in Avos describes him as having an ‘ayin raah‘ (he looked upon people in a negative way), a ‘ruach gevoah‘ (he was arrogant), and a ‘nefesh rechava ’ (he was greedy).
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great. ” Superficially it would see that we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma ?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying that even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money: One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual form of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he may be satiated - this is because the body is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction. ” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money may be a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great. ” Superficially it would see that we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma ?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying that even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money: One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual form of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he may be satiated - this is because the body is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction. ” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money may be a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
PURE INTENTIONS - TERUMAH
Parsha Terumah describes the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the various keilim (vessels) that were to serve in it, such as the Aron HaKodesh (Ark), the Menorah and the Shulchan. The Rabbis teach that there is great symbolism in each vessel in that they represent various aspects of the spiritual world. Accordingly, the commentaries closely analyze the descriptions of the Mishkan in order to derive important lessons.
In this vein, the Kli Yakar notes a difficulty with a verse in the description of the Aron HaKodesh. The Torah states: “And you shall cover it [the Aron] with pure gold from the inside; and on the outside you shall cover it…” The Kli Yakar points out that HaShem twice instructs Moshe to cover the Ark; once on the inside, and once on the outside. This teaches us that the Ark had both an inner and outer layer of gold. However, with regard to the inner layer, the Torah says that the gold must be pure, whereas when mentioning the outer layer, there is no mention that the gold need be pure. The Kli Yakar argues that it was certainly required for the outer layer of gold to also be pure, therefore he asks why the Torah davke stressed the pure nature of the gold with regard to the inner layer.
He answers that the Torah is teaching us an important lesson in Avodas HaShem. He explains that the inner gold covering alludes to performance of Mitzvos done in a private fashion where no one else sees, whilst the outer gold covering alludes to public performance of Mitzvos. With regard to private observance, it is quite conceivable that one have completely pure intentions when performing the Mitzvo seeing that that nobody else will be aware of the Mitzvo. Therefore, when describing the inner gold, the Torah can attach the description of pure. However, when a person does a Mitzvo in public, there is always a very strong possibility that his intentions are not totally pure, as there may be an element of a desire that other people witness his righteous act. Accordingly, when discussing the outer gold It cannot say that it was pure.
The Kli Yakar’s explanation illuminates us as to the great power of the yetser hara (negative inclination) involved in doing Mitzvos in public. The following story involving the Kotsker Rebbe demonstrates even further the full power of this yetser hara. The Kotsker Rebbe was on his deathbed surrounded by many people. The time came when it seemed certain that he was about to pass away. At that moment, he said Shema Yisroel with great fervor. Yet, to everyone’s surprise he did not die at that time. His students asked him what he was thinking whilst he was saying the Shema. He answered, that he was thinking that everyone would say about him that the final words he uttered were ‘Shema Yisroel’! If, at the powerful moment before death, the great Kotsker Rebbe acknowledged that he had some level of interest in what people would say about him, then all the more so, ‘ordinary’ people would be highly subject to this yetser hara throughout their lives.
Because it is so difficult to maintain completely pure motives when doing Mitzvos in public, it is often praiseworthy to strive to do Mitzvos in private. Likewise, it is commendable to hide one’s spiritual achievements from others when there is no benefit in publicizing them. The Baalei Mussar in particular went to great lengths to hide their true spiritual level. One of the leading Baalei Mussar was Rav Yitzchak Blazer zt”l; on one occasion he joined a gathering of great Torah scholars led by the Beis HaLevi, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l. The Beis HaLevi had heard that Rav Blazer was a tremendous Torah scholar as well as being a great Mussar personality, and wanted to see how Rav Blazer would contribute to a Torah discussion. The Beis HaLevi asked a very difficult question which resulted in heated debate amongst the scholars. Eventually, the Beis HaLevi offered two brilliant solutions to the problem, one of his own, and one from his renowned son, Rav Chaim zt”l. However, during the whole discussion, Rav Blazer remained quiet. Surprised at Rav Blazer’s apparent inability to answer the question, the Beis HaLevi perused Rav Blazer’s commentary on the Gemara, known as, Pri Yitzchak, to see what he wrote with regard to the topic that they had debated. The Beis HaLevi was shocked to see that not only did Rav Blazer ask the same question as the one that the Beis HaLevi posed, but also gave both answers that the Beis HaLevi had suggested! He recognized Rav Blazer’s humility in remaining quiet and hiding his Torah greatness. Of course, on many occasions it is important for one to contribute to Torah discussions, however, evidently Rav Blazer felt there would be no benefit in adding his opinion to the distinguished group. In a similar vein, the great Alter of Slobodka, Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel zt:l, was rarely seen with a Gemara, however, late at night in his room, he would learn from the gemara in a hidden fashion, and if anyone came in he would pretend to be asleep.
We learn from the above sources, that it is extremely difficult to perform Mitzvos in public without having some focus on the honor or praise that one would receive. One lesson to be derived from this is that one should strive to perform at least some Mitzvos in private, where there is no chance that the purity of his intentions is tainted by desire for recognition . This includes giving charity , learning Torah, and other Mitzvos. May we all merit to serve HaShem with the purest intentions.
In this vein, the Kli Yakar notes a difficulty with a verse in the description of the Aron HaKodesh. The Torah states: “And you shall cover it [the Aron] with pure gold from the inside; and on the outside you shall cover it…” The Kli Yakar points out that HaShem twice instructs Moshe to cover the Ark; once on the inside, and once on the outside. This teaches us that the Ark had both an inner and outer layer of gold. However, with regard to the inner layer, the Torah says that the gold must be pure, whereas when mentioning the outer layer, there is no mention that the gold need be pure. The Kli Yakar argues that it was certainly required for the outer layer of gold to also be pure, therefore he asks why the Torah davke stressed the pure nature of the gold with regard to the inner layer.
He answers that the Torah is teaching us an important lesson in Avodas HaShem. He explains that the inner gold covering alludes to performance of Mitzvos done in a private fashion where no one else sees, whilst the outer gold covering alludes to public performance of Mitzvos. With regard to private observance, it is quite conceivable that one have completely pure intentions when performing the Mitzvo seeing that that nobody else will be aware of the Mitzvo. Therefore, when describing the inner gold, the Torah can attach the description of pure. However, when a person does a Mitzvo in public, there is always a very strong possibility that his intentions are not totally pure, as there may be an element of a desire that other people witness his righteous act. Accordingly, when discussing the outer gold It cannot say that it was pure.
The Kli Yakar’s explanation illuminates us as to the great power of the yetser hara (negative inclination) involved in doing Mitzvos in public. The following story involving the Kotsker Rebbe demonstrates even further the full power of this yetser hara. The Kotsker Rebbe was on his deathbed surrounded by many people. The time came when it seemed certain that he was about to pass away. At that moment, he said Shema Yisroel with great fervor. Yet, to everyone’s surprise he did not die at that time. His students asked him what he was thinking whilst he was saying the Shema. He answered, that he was thinking that everyone would say about him that the final words he uttered were ‘Shema Yisroel’! If, at the powerful moment before death, the great Kotsker Rebbe acknowledged that he had some level of interest in what people would say about him, then all the more so, ‘ordinary’ people would be highly subject to this yetser hara throughout their lives.
Because it is so difficult to maintain completely pure motives when doing Mitzvos in public, it is often praiseworthy to strive to do Mitzvos in private. Likewise, it is commendable to hide one’s spiritual achievements from others when there is no benefit in publicizing them. The Baalei Mussar in particular went to great lengths to hide their true spiritual level. One of the leading Baalei Mussar was Rav Yitzchak Blazer zt”l; on one occasion he joined a gathering of great Torah scholars led by the Beis HaLevi, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l. The Beis HaLevi had heard that Rav Blazer was a tremendous Torah scholar as well as being a great Mussar personality, and wanted to see how Rav Blazer would contribute to a Torah discussion. The Beis HaLevi asked a very difficult question which resulted in heated debate amongst the scholars. Eventually, the Beis HaLevi offered two brilliant solutions to the problem, one of his own, and one from his renowned son, Rav Chaim zt”l. However, during the whole discussion, Rav Blazer remained quiet. Surprised at Rav Blazer’s apparent inability to answer the question, the Beis HaLevi perused Rav Blazer’s commentary on the Gemara, known as, Pri Yitzchak, to see what he wrote with regard to the topic that they had debated. The Beis HaLevi was shocked to see that not only did Rav Blazer ask the same question as the one that the Beis HaLevi posed, but also gave both answers that the Beis HaLevi had suggested! He recognized Rav Blazer’s humility in remaining quiet and hiding his Torah greatness. Of course, on many occasions it is important for one to contribute to Torah discussions, however, evidently Rav Blazer felt there would be no benefit in adding his opinion to the distinguished group. In a similar vein, the great Alter of Slobodka, Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel zt:l, was rarely seen with a Gemara, however, late at night in his room, he would learn from the gemara in a hidden fashion, and if anyone came in he would pretend to be asleep.
We learn from the above sources, that it is extremely difficult to perform Mitzvos in public without having some focus on the honor or praise that one would receive. One lesson to be derived from this is that one should strive to perform at least some Mitzvos in private, where there is no chance that the purity of his intentions is tainted by desire for recognition . This includes giving charity , learning Torah, and other Mitzvos. May we all merit to serve HaShem with the purest intentions.
Monday, June 21, 2010
MONEY AND HONOR - BALAK
Bilaam Harasha is considered to be the archetype of a person with bad midos. The Mishna in Avos describes him as having an ‘ayin raah‘ (he looked upon people in a negative way), a ‘ruach gevoah‘ (he was arrogant), and a ‘nefesh rechava[1]’ (he was greedy).
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great.[2]” On superficial analysis we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos[3] describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma[4]?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying the even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money; One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he is satiated - this is because the goof is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. It seems that it is this kind of love for money that Chazal refer to when they say that when a person gets 100 maneh he wants 200 maneh, and when he gets 200 maneh he wants 400 maneh. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction.[5]” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money is a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
[1] Avos, 5:22.
[2] Balak, 22:16-18.
[3] Avos, 6:9.
[4] Many commentaries discuss why Bilaam’s response indicated that he was greedy; these include; Mizrachi, Maskil le David, Nachalas Yaakov, Be’er b’sadeh, Emes le Yaakov, and Rav Elyashiv in Divrei Aggadah. They offer a variety of explanations but a different approach will be used here.
[5] Avos, 5;22.
‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great.[2]” On superficial analysis we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.
However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos[3] describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma[4]?
On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying the even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.
A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money; One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.
This spiritual of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he is satiated - this is because the goof is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. It seems that it is this kind of love for money that Chazal refer to when they say that when a person gets 100 maneh he wants 200 maneh, and when he gets 200 maneh he wants 400 maneh. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.
From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction.[5]” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!
This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money is a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.
[1] Avos, 5:22.
[2] Balak, 22:16-18.
[3] Avos, 6:9.
[4] Many commentaries discuss why Bilaam’s response indicated that he was greedy; these include; Mizrachi, Maskil le David, Nachalas Yaakov, Be’er b’sadeh, Emes le Yaakov, and Rav Elyashiv in Divrei Aggadah. They offer a variety of explanations but a different approach will be used here.
[5] Avos, 5;22.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
