Throughout history, many nations have tried to destroy the Jewish people. However, we are commanded to permanently remember the attack of only one of these nations; that of Amalek, when they attacked the Jewish people shortly after the splitting of the Sea.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the danger that Amalek poses to the Jewish nation, it is instructive to closely analyze the commandment to remember their heinous deed: "Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt; that he happened upon you on the way. and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G-d."
The majority of the verse focuses on Amalek's despicable actions, such as how they attacked us when we were weak and tired. However, the end of the verse points out the main negative characteristic that Amalek displayed - that they did not fear G-d. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita notes that Amalek are known to be the epitome of evil, and surely possess numerous terrible traits and beliefs. Accordingly, he asks that it is difficult to understand why the Torah focused in particular on the seemingly mild flaw of lacking in ‘yiras Shamayim’?
He explains that the Torah is teaching us that the root cause of Amalek’s evil character was his lack of yiras Shamayim. Why is this the case? One significant aspect of Yiras Shamayim is that one who fears G-d is aware of Hashem’s involvement in the world. He sees Divine Providence in everything that takes place. He then takes this awareness and uses it to understand how HaShem is communicating to him. This greater recognition brings one who fears G-d closer to fulfilling His will.
In contrast, one who lacks yiras Shamayim is blind to the events around him. He does not see G-d’s hand in the most miraculous events, rather he irrationally ascribes it to the random laws of nature. Thus, he is not moved by anything, no matter how remarkable. Such a person will never come closer to the truth because nothing effects him. Amalek epitomized this trait. They were aware of the remarkable miracles of the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the Sea, yet they paid no attention to the logical consequences of these events - that there is an All-Powerful Being who was guiding the Jewish people. They refused to recognize any sense of uniqueness about the Jewish people and flagrantly attacked them. In this way, their lack of ‘yiras Shamayim’ was the source of their evil actions.
This idea is further described by the Torah: It explains how Amalek “happened upon” the Jewish people. The hebrew word used here is ‘korcha’. Chazal teach us that the root of korcha is similar to the word for ’cold’ - ‘kor’ - Amalek cooled down the world’s fear of the Jewish people that they felt after the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. They bring an analogy of a boiling hot bath, that is so hot that no person can go inside. Then, one person jumps inside it. He burns himself but he cools it down for the other people to be able to go in it. Similarly, the non-Jewish nations were afraid to fight the Jewish people after all the miracles that they had experienced. Amalek paid no heed to these miracles and attacked. Even though they greatly damaged themselves, they also reduced the fear of the other nations towards the Jews.
Why did Amalek respond differently from the other nations, to the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. The non-Jews worshipped false G-ds but they believed in the idea of a power guiding a nation. Accordingly, they believed in the 'G-d of the Jews' and paid heed to His protection of the Jewish people. Amalek, in contrast, seem to have been atheists. They believed in no force, therefore they attributed all of the wondrous events of yetsias Mitzrayim to chance. Accordingly, they could ignore all the signs and jump into the boiling bathtub.
We have seen that the root of Amalek's evil was their belief in the randomness of events and the accompanying total rejection of a Higher Being. This caused them to react 'coldly' to everything that they witnessed, and even to cause other nations to 'cool down' their fear of the Jewish people. This attitude is something that is unique to Amalek amongst all the nations, and in a certain sense, poses more of a danger to Torah observance than the idolatrous beliefs of the other nations. It causes 'believing' Jews to lose their sense of wonder about the miracles that surround them, and to even subconsciously attribute them to chance. Moreover, it prevents a person from learning from events around him, making him immune to the lessons that Hashem sends him. in this vein, Rav Sternbuch discusses a person who merits to see the salvations of HaShem and His wonders, yet remains blind to what goes on around him, and is not aroused to fear HaShem. Rav Sternbuch writes that such a person should know that he is surrounded by impurity and is under the influence of Amalek.
When we read Parshas Zachor we should focus on the lack of yiras Hashem that characterized Amalek. Through this contemplation may we merit to remove the power of Amalek from the world.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
THE GREATNESS AND LOWLINESS OF MAN - TZAV
The Parsha begins with the mitzvo of terumas hadeshen, whereby the Kohen must remove the ashes from the previous day’s offering. Rabbeinu Bechaya writes that this mitzvo teaches the mida of humility before Hashem because the Kohen must humble himself to perform this seemingly degrading act . The Kli Yakar adds that the ashes should remind the Kohen of Avraham Avinu’s recognition that man comes from ’afar v’eifer’ .
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
There are many other maamrei Chazal that also emphasize the importance of recognizing the lowly nature of man. Two examples are found in Pirkei Avos: “..Know from where you came from and to where you are going… from where did you come? From a putrid drop, and to where are you going? To a place of dust, worms and maggots. ” “Rebbe Levyatas, man of Yavne says, ’be very, very lowly of spirit because the hopes of man are maggots. ”
However, there are also a number of maamrei Chazal that seem to focus on the greatness inherent in man. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that “whoever destroys a soul amongst Israel, the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever saves a soul amongst Israel the Torah considers it as if he saved an entire world. ” In Avos, Rebbe Akiva says, “man is precious because he was created in the Image [of G-d]. ”
On superficial analysis it could seem that there is a contradiction within Chazal as to whether man is on a very high or very low level. However, in truth there is no contradiction, rather, the differences in these maamrei Chazal’ simply reflect two different angles of approaching the status of man. One approach is to focus on man’s body, characterized by lowly bodily desires, and the other is to emphasize man‘s soul, which is of unparalleled greatness.
This explanation is proven by closer analysis of the sources quoted above: The terumas hadeshen was intended to remind the Kohen of the fleeting nature of the body, reminding him that it ends in afar v’eifer, but was not discussing man‘s soul. The Mishna in Avos that exhorts man to be very, very humble similarly focuses on man‘s body. It uses the uncommon term for man, ‘enosh’, instead of the more common, ‘adam’ or ‘ish’. This is because the word enosh represents the more lowly aspects of man such as his physical desires. The Mishna is saying that a person should not let himself become overly proud of his physical achievements because, like all finite things, they do not last. The Mishna is not saying that a man should feel that he is inherently worthless and low, rather that his success in the realm of gashmius is of no intrinsic worth. The same is true of the Mishna that tells us to remember that we come from a putrid drop and are heading for worms and maggots. It is referring to the transient nature of man’s body, but is not discussing his soul at all.
In contrast, the Gemara in Sanhedrin which stresses the inherent greatness of every individual focuses on the spiritual greatness of each person. The Mishna in Avos explicitly says that man’s dearness in Hashem’s eyes is because he was created in the Tzelem Elokim, a reference to man’s neshama. It is clear that there is no machlokes within Chazal, rather, in some places Chazal emphasize the need for man to focus on the lowliness of his body and in others, they stress the importance of recognizing the greatness of his soul.
Rav Wolbe zt”l observes that many people think there is in fact a machlokes in the Mussar world as to whether man is great or lowly. He strongly rejects this opinion, writing that both are true, and that at various times in one’s life he should focus on the lowliness of his body and at other times, he should focus more on the greatness of his soul . There does, however seem to be an element of risk about stressing the lowliness of man without giving him an appreciation of his intrinsic greatness. If a person does not have a healthy self-image, then focusing on his lowliness can have a very dangerous effect. Instead of making him realize that he should not feel arrogant about his physical accomplishments, it can make him question the value of his very essence. Only a person who is attuned to the inherent goodness of his essence can accept harsh mussar about the lowliness of his body.
A corollary of emphasis on the lowliness of man is an approach of midos hadin whereby an educator or parent focuses on the negative aspects of the talmid or child. Many contemporary educators point out that in previous generations people had healthier self-images and therefore, the midos hadin approach could be used without fear of causing undue damage. However, nowadays, overly harsh treatment can make a student or child to feel worthless, causing him great damage. Indeed this is a common reason why young people leave the Torah derech in their search for a feeling of fulfillment and self-worth.
Moreover, even if a person feels that his talmid or child can handle the stricter approach it is instructive to rembember the Gemara in Sotah that tells us, “Always, the left hand should push away and the right should bring close. ” This means that the strict approach should be used with the weaker left hand and the chesed approach should be used with the stronger right hand. The Gemara’s use of the word, ‘always’ indicates that this is an eternal principle and there are no exceptions to it. In this vein, one well-known educator believes that for every critical comment to a child, there should be at least four positive comments.
The parsha teaches us that a human being should remember the transient nature of the body. This is a very important lesson, but as we have seen, it is not the complete lesson. We must also remember that we, our children, and our talmidim, are of incredible spiritual worth. May we all merit to find the right balance.
THE TEMPTATIONS OF MONEY - TZAV
"And Hashem said to Moshe, saying; Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, to say; this is the Law of the Olah.. .
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe to command the Kohanim with regard to the Olah, a korban ('sacrifice' or 'offering'). Chazal note the use of the word, 'tzav' in the passuk; normally the Torah would say 'tell Aharon and his sons..' why here did the Torah use the stronger language of 'tzav'? The Medrash, quoted by Rashi explains that the word 'tzav' implies an extra sense of zerizus (alacrity) and that there was an extra necessity for this stronger language with regard to the Olah offering. Rebbe Shimon explains that there is an element of financial loss involved with this offering, therefore there was the concern that the Kohanim would be more hesitant in fulfilling the Mitzvo of Olah. Accordingly, it used the stronger language of 'tzav' in order to warn the Kohanim of the extra need for zerizus in bringing the Olah .
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l points out a remarkable lesson from this maamer Chazal (saying of the Rabbis). The Kohen Gadol was, in most instances, the most righteous and holy man of the generation . Moreover, the Gemara tells us that one of the prerequisites for being the Kohen Gadol is that he must be very wealthy . Based on the Kohen Gadol's great righteousness and wealth, it would have seemed unnecessary for the Torah to be concerned about a possible lack of alacrity as a result of a relatively small financial loss! Rav Levenstein explains that the Torah is teaching us that even the Kohen Gadol is subject to the yetser hara of love for money !
Chazal emphasize the power of the desire for money in a number of other places . One striking example of this is the Gemara in Bava Basra that discusses the most commonly transgressed aveiros. "Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the majority of people [stumble] in theft, a minority [stumble] in immorality ... " Rashi explains that the Gemara does not mean that the majority of people engage in blatant theft, rather they rationalize during their business dealings to withhold the money that others deserve. This Gemara teaches us how everyone is at risk of being enticed by the yetser hara for money to justify dishonest behavior that constitutes theft according to Torah law.
The greatest tzaddikim felt the power of the yetser hara for acquisition of money. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt"l once visited the home of a very wealthy man. The man had to step out of the room for a few minutes, leaving Rav Yisroel alone. When the man returned, Rav Yisroel was no longer in the room. He finally found Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that there was a large amount of uncounted money in that room and Rav Yisroel did not want to be alone with that money. He explained by bringing the aforementioned Gemara that the majority of people stumble in theft and only a minority stumble in immorality. There is a prohibition of yichud to be alone with a woman because of the concern that one may not be able to overcome his temptation for immorality. Rav Yisroel concluded that if there is an issur yichud for fear of arayos of which only a minority stumble, then all the more so there should be an issur yichud with money, an area in which a majority stumble! Accordingly, he did not want to remain in the room alone with the uncounted money .
If someone such as Rav Yisroel Salanter felt a need for extra boundaries to protect himself from the temptations of money, then surely everyone needs to be extra vigilant of this powerful yetser hara. There are a number of areas in which such vigilance is necessary. Firstly, the lesson of this Parsha is that one must be careful that fear of loss of money does not harmfully effect one's fulfillment of Mitzvos. There are numerous Mitzvos that involve significant expenses, and one should strive to maintain the same alacrity in performing such Mitzvos as in less expensive Mitzvos. Moreover, one should be aware to maintain consistency in his spending on Mitzvos in comparison to his expenses on material comforts. If one elaborately spends on his vacations, home and car, then he should show a similar desire to spend money on Mitzvos in general and giving charity in particular. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l once encouraged a wealthy man to give more charity - the man felt that he was already giving a significant amount. The Chofetz Chaim showed him that he actually spent more on his drapery alone than what he gave in charity!
Another way in which love of money can hinder one's Avodas Hashem is that in areas of potential monetary loss a person may be tempted to 'bend' the laws of the Torah. Thus, an otherwise G-d fearing person, may be inclined to avoid asking shilos (halachic questions) to Rabbanim in areas of mammonos (monetary issues). Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita once devoted a whole shiur to emphasizing that just as one would ask a shilo in areas related to kashrus and Shabbos, he should be careful to do the same in areas that are discussed in Choshen Mishpat.
It seems that the root of the desire for money is related to the 'slavery' that we try to uproot on Pesach. The sefarim discuss how freedom is not limited to being allowed to do as one pleases. The Torah conception of freedom means that one is not overly attached to the physical world. Love of money is one of the main ways in which a person can be subject to this form of 'slavery' - his desire for money hinders his ability to perform Mitzvos because he finds it difficult to part from it even when the Torah requires that he do so. On Pesach we emphasize our freedom from the physical world. This is symbolized by the Mitzvo to eat Matzo on Seder night, which is low and has no additions. So too, on Pesach we return to our pure essence, free of 'additions' such as material possessions which prevent us from serving Hashem properly. May Hashem grant us all a Pesach of true freedom from the yetser hara.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
THE RIGHT KIND OF JEALOUSY - VAYIKRA
During its outline of the various korbanos (sacrifices), the Torah forbids bringing offerings of leaven and honey . It then immediately tells us that, in contrast, we must include salt in all the meal-offerings. What is the difference between salt with honey and leaven, to the extent that salt is obligatory, whilst the other two substances are forbidden?! The commentaries point out that there is great symbolism in the korbanos, and that each of these three substances represent various character traits – by analyzing their symbolism we can answer this question.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
GIFT OFFERINGS - VAYIKRA
The Book of Vayikra focuses to a significant degree on the various korbanos that were to be given in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and later the Beis HaMikdash (Temple). A number of these korbanos are known as korbanos nedava (gift offerings). They are not obligatory, however, if a person is aroused to give such an offering, then he fulfils a Mitzo and to do so is considered highly praiseworthy. The Steipler Gaon zt"l asks a penetrating question about the nature of these korbanos nedava . Most Mitzvos are obligatory because Hashem's wisdom decreed that a Jew must fulfill them, thus they are an essential aspect of one's Avodas Hashem. Korbanos Nedava are not obligatory, implying that they are not essential to a Jew's Avoda.. However, on the other hand, offering such korbanos is considered to be a Mitzo, implying that there is some kind of benefit in their offering and that they do have a place in one's Avoda. How can we understand the nature of this kind of Mitzvo?
The Steipler answers this by first addressing another important question in Jewish thought. One of the most fundamental Mitzvos is that of Ahavas Hashem (to love Hashem). This obligates a Jew to direct his emotions in such a way that he develops a strong love of Hashem. How can theTorah can obligate one to have a particular emotion - surely that is beyond a person's control? To answer this problem, the Steipler brings the yesod (principle) of the Mesillas Yesharim (Path of the Just), with regard to the trait of zerizus (zealousness) . He writes that just as internal inspiration brings about external actions, so too, external actions can arouse one's inner feelings. Thus, acting in a certain manner can bring about desired emotions.
The Steipler writes that this yesod applies very strongly to the Mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem. We know that an internal love brings one to actions reflecting his love for Hashem and his willingness to ignore his own desires for the sake of Hashem's honor. So too, performing voluntary actions that involve placing Hashem's Ratson (will) before one's own desires, will bring a person to an increased love of Hashem.
With this yesod, the Steipler explains the nature of korbanos nedava. These korbanos provide one with a great opportunity to get close to Hashem by placing Hashem before himself: He forgoes his own needs by exerting a considerable amount of time, effort and money, in order to bring an animal or food offering to the Temple and offer it up to Hashem. Showing such selflessness on behalf of Hashem is a highly effective way of arousing one's love of Him. This explains why bringing korbanos nedava is such a praiseworthy act. However, if the Torah obligated every Jew to bring such korbanos, then their whole purpose would be lost - when one is obligated to give of himself to another, he does not develop feelings of love, rather he feels that he is paying a debt that he owes. Thus, the Torah gives each Jew the opportunity to arouse himself to fulfill an action that will surely increase his ahavas Hashem by making korbanos nedava 'optional'. Yet at the same time, offering such korbanos is considered a great Mitzvo because of its effectiveness in bringing about love of Hashem.
The Steipler writes that this yesod is not limited to korbanos; a person can choose any specific area where he desires to exert an extra amount of effort that goes beyond what is required by law. By 'willingly' giving of himself in one area he can bring himself to an increased love of Hashem. This idea is demonstrated by the following story told over by Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita: He was once given a ride by a seemingly ordinary Jew. In the course of the conversation it emerged that this Jew gave particular emphasis to the Mitzvo of prayer. He had not missed praying in a minyan for several years and even cancelled a vacation to a place when he realized that he would be unable to find a minyan there. Further, he never prayed Mincha or Maariv before or after the ideal time. This man chose one area in which to put in that extra effort and self-sacrifice and in this way he was surely able to arouse in himself an increased love for Hashem. He didn't need to feel obligated to act in this way because it is possible to find heterim (leniencies) to sometimes miss a minyan and not pray in the ideal zman. Yet he chose to express his desire to do Ratson Hashem by being extra careful in the Mitzvo of prayer.
We learn from the yesod of the Steipler, that a key method of bringing oneself closer to Hashem is by doing actions that are not considered obligatory according to the Torah but that are certainly praiseworthy. It is instructive for each person to strive to find at least one area in which he makes that extra exertion in his efforts to get closer to Hashem.
The Steipler answers this by first addressing another important question in Jewish thought. One of the most fundamental Mitzvos is that of Ahavas Hashem (to love Hashem). This obligates a Jew to direct his emotions in such a way that he develops a strong love of Hashem. How can theTorah can obligate one to have a particular emotion - surely that is beyond a person's control? To answer this problem, the Steipler brings the yesod (principle) of the Mesillas Yesharim (Path of the Just), with regard to the trait of zerizus (zealousness) . He writes that just as internal inspiration brings about external actions, so too, external actions can arouse one's inner feelings. Thus, acting in a certain manner can bring about desired emotions.
The Steipler writes that this yesod applies very strongly to the Mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem. We know that an internal love brings one to actions reflecting his love for Hashem and his willingness to ignore his own desires for the sake of Hashem's honor. So too, performing voluntary actions that involve placing Hashem's Ratson (will) before one's own desires, will bring a person to an increased love of Hashem.
With this yesod, the Steipler explains the nature of korbanos nedava. These korbanos provide one with a great opportunity to get close to Hashem by placing Hashem before himself: He forgoes his own needs by exerting a considerable amount of time, effort and money, in order to bring an animal or food offering to the Temple and offer it up to Hashem. Showing such selflessness on behalf of Hashem is a highly effective way of arousing one's love of Him. This explains why bringing korbanos nedava is such a praiseworthy act. However, if the Torah obligated every Jew to bring such korbanos, then their whole purpose would be lost - when one is obligated to give of himself to another, he does not develop feelings of love, rather he feels that he is paying a debt that he owes. Thus, the Torah gives each Jew the opportunity to arouse himself to fulfill an action that will surely increase his ahavas Hashem by making korbanos nedava 'optional'. Yet at the same time, offering such korbanos is considered a great Mitzvo because of its effectiveness in bringing about love of Hashem.
The Steipler writes that this yesod is not limited to korbanos; a person can choose any specific area where he desires to exert an extra amount of effort that goes beyond what is required by law. By 'willingly' giving of himself in one area he can bring himself to an increased love of Hashem. This idea is demonstrated by the following story told over by Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita: He was once given a ride by a seemingly ordinary Jew. In the course of the conversation it emerged that this Jew gave particular emphasis to the Mitzvo of prayer. He had not missed praying in a minyan for several years and even cancelled a vacation to a place when he realized that he would be unable to find a minyan there. Further, he never prayed Mincha or Maariv before or after the ideal time. This man chose one area in which to put in that extra effort and self-sacrifice and in this way he was surely able to arouse in himself an increased love for Hashem. He didn't need to feel obligated to act in this way because it is possible to find heterim (leniencies) to sometimes miss a minyan and not pray in the ideal zman. Yet he chose to express his desire to do Ratson Hashem by being extra careful in the Mitzvo of prayer.
We learn from the yesod of the Steipler, that a key method of bringing oneself closer to Hashem is by doing actions that are not considered obligatory according to the Torah but that are certainly praiseworthy. It is instructive for each person to strive to find at least one area in which he makes that extra exertion in his efforts to get closer to Hashem.
KORBANOS AND YIRAS HASHEM - VAYIKRA
Parshas Vayikra enumerates many korbanos, including those that must be given for inadvertent sins. Why must a person give a korban for a sin that he did not flagrantly intend to commit? The commentaries explain that the fact that he allowed himself to commit such a sin, even inadvertently, demonstrates an element of carelessness. Had he been more zahir, he would never have allowed himself to get to the point where he could sin. The Torah goes even further and requires that a person who has a doubt as to whether he committed a sin that requires a korban, is required to bring an asham talui . The Sefer HaChinuch explains that this korban does not atone for the actual sin (if it was indeed committed), rather it serves as an atonement for the carelessness that caused the safek .
It still needs to be understood what is the root cause of the carelessness that leads to inadvertent sins and why bringing korbanos helped atone for it. In order to answer this, it is instructive to compare how we conduct ourselves in the physical world with how we act with regard to spiritual matters. If a person is aware that a poisonous substance may be present in the food that he intends to eat he would be extremely careful to avoid any remote possibility of consuming the poison. This is because he is well aware of the dire consequences of eating poison. Just as there are natural consequences to our actions in the physical world, there are also natural consequences to actions in the spiritual world. Therefore, a person who is faced with the possibility of eating food that is forbidden, such as chelev, should have the same level of zehirus to avoid doing something that will cause him grave spiritual damage. When a person stumbles and sins inadvertently or puts himself in a position where he is in doubt as to whether he sinned, he demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the spiritual consequences of his actions; he is not fully cognizant of the spiritual reality that negative actions inevitably have negative results.
There seem to be two main reasons as to why it is far more difficult to attain the same awareness of cause-and-effect in the spiritual world as in the physical world: Firstly, the physical world is completely tangible to us - we can easily see the results of our actions, for example, when a person eats poison, he is visibly damaged. In contrast, the spiritual world is not tangible and we cannot see the results of our actions - for example, a person is less aware of the spiritual consequences of breaking Shabbos b’shogeg, because he has never visually seen them. If he could see what happens in the spiritual realm for turning a light on, forgetting that it is Shabbos, then he would surely never allow himself to commit that sin b’shogeg.
Giving a korban for committing such an aveiro helped a person metaken this flaw of not being real with spiritual consequences. He had to go through a lengthy and expensive process of paying for, and bringing a korban to Yerushalayim, and go through the dramatic process of offering up the korban and seeing its blood. This process surely made it very clear that there are dramatic consequences to one’s actions.
The second reason why it is difficult to live with the awareness that there are consequences to all our actions in the spiritual world, is that we are so familiar with Hashem’s ‘mida‘ of Rachamim that it is easy slip into the trap of thinking that Hashem will automatically forgive us for our sins. As a result, a person will be less fearful of the consequences of sinning. The Gemara in Chagiga observes that there is a natural yetser hara to presume that there is automatic forgiveness for sinning - it states, “If the yetser hara will tell you, ‘sin and Hashem will forgive you,’ do not listen to him. ”
The Mesillas Yesharim addresses this attitude at length and stresses that it is incorrect - Hashem is a ‘Kel Emes’ who judges every action. Hashem’s rachamim does not contradict the concept of reward and punishment: Rachamim does three things; it delays the punishment from taking place immediately giving a person a chance to do teshuva; it causes the onesh to be handed out in smaller, more manageable doses; and it gives us the opportunity to do teshuva and thereby gain complete forgiveness. There is, nonetheless, judgement for every outcome and an awareness of this should cause a person to be far more zahir from sinning . Offering a korban also helped rectify the attitude that Hashem is a vatran. By going through the arduous process of offering the korban, the person would see that he could not gain forgiveness without teshuva.
We do not have the opportunity to offer korbanos for our inadvertent sins, and as a result we do not have this essential tool to help make us aware of the reality of chet. How can we engrain this into ourselves? There are many accounts of Gedolim who saw the spiritual world as tangibly as the physical world: On one occasion, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was asked to leave the Beis Medrash in order to take an important phone call from another country, but he could not get to the phone because somebody was davenning the Shemoneh Esrei in front of the door and his ‘dalet amos’ was blocking the exit. When asked why he would not leave for such an important and costly call, he said that there was a wall blocking him and he could not walk through a wall. For Rav Moshe, ‘dalet amos’ was not some vague concept, it was a clear reality. His Gadlus in Torah was surely the cause of such a tangible sense of Yiras Shamayim - it was not just that he knew all of Torah, but that he allowed it to become so much a part of him that it became so real in his mind. A person can learn Torah in an intellectual way and not let it filter into his being - that kind of learning will probably not be so effective in increasing one’s yiras Shamayim - learning with an appreciation that it is discussing reality and trying to apply it to our lives will hopefully enable a person to be more real with the spiritual world.
A second aitsa is that of Rav Yisroel Salanter - that if a person wants to develop more of a sensitivity in a certain area of halacho, he should learn that area in depth - this will naturally bring him to a much greater awareness of his actions in that area. For example, whenever Rav Yisroel would find himself in a situation that could lead to yichud, he would learn the sugyas of yichud in great depth, in this way assuring himself that he would maintain constant awareness of any possibility of yichud. One particular area where this principle is very important is that of lashon hara: There is such a constant nisayon to speak lashon hara that without learning the laws of lashon hara it is extremely difficult to avoid the numerous pitfalls that arise. By learning the laws, as well as knowing what constitutes forbidden speech, a person will develop a far greater sensitivity in his speech.
There is one final exercise that can help increase our level of zehirus: Imagine if someone offered a Torah observant person $100 to speak lashon hara - the person would immediately refuse. What if he offered $1000, or $10,000 or $1000,000?! A person with a clear Torah hashakfa will refuse any amount of money rather than commit a sin because he is intellectually aware that the onesh for speaking lashon hara will be infinitely greater than anything finite. And yet, a person may often speak lashon hara for no money at all! The difference between the two situations is that when a person is clear that what he will do is an aveiro he has intellectual clarity that this is very bad for his neshama. However, without such clarity, b’shaas maaseh, a person rationalizes that what he is about to say is not really lashon hara and allows himself to say it regardless of the possible consequences of such a severe sin. We see from here that a person has the strength to withstand sin when he has total clarity that what he is about to do constitutes an issur. Developing a sense of clarity and intellectual honesty as to when we are committing an aveiro will enable us to tap into this koyach and give us the strength to withstand sin.
We do not have the gift of korbanos anymore, but the lessons that we learn from them can help us develop a strong sense of yiras shamayim that can prevent us from the damage of chet.
It still needs to be understood what is the root cause of the carelessness that leads to inadvertent sins and why bringing korbanos helped atone for it. In order to answer this, it is instructive to compare how we conduct ourselves in the physical world with how we act with regard to spiritual matters. If a person is aware that a poisonous substance may be present in the food that he intends to eat he would be extremely careful to avoid any remote possibility of consuming the poison. This is because he is well aware of the dire consequences of eating poison. Just as there are natural consequences to our actions in the physical world, there are also natural consequences to actions in the spiritual world. Therefore, a person who is faced with the possibility of eating food that is forbidden, such as chelev, should have the same level of zehirus to avoid doing something that will cause him grave spiritual damage. When a person stumbles and sins inadvertently or puts himself in a position where he is in doubt as to whether he sinned, he demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the spiritual consequences of his actions; he is not fully cognizant of the spiritual reality that negative actions inevitably have negative results.
There seem to be two main reasons as to why it is far more difficult to attain the same awareness of cause-and-effect in the spiritual world as in the physical world: Firstly, the physical world is completely tangible to us - we can easily see the results of our actions, for example, when a person eats poison, he is visibly damaged. In contrast, the spiritual world is not tangible and we cannot see the results of our actions - for example, a person is less aware of the spiritual consequences of breaking Shabbos b’shogeg, because he has never visually seen them. If he could see what happens in the spiritual realm for turning a light on, forgetting that it is Shabbos, then he would surely never allow himself to commit that sin b’shogeg.
Giving a korban for committing such an aveiro helped a person metaken this flaw of not being real with spiritual consequences. He had to go through a lengthy and expensive process of paying for, and bringing a korban to Yerushalayim, and go through the dramatic process of offering up the korban and seeing its blood. This process surely made it very clear that there are dramatic consequences to one’s actions.
The second reason why it is difficult to live with the awareness that there are consequences to all our actions in the spiritual world, is that we are so familiar with Hashem’s ‘mida‘ of Rachamim that it is easy slip into the trap of thinking that Hashem will automatically forgive us for our sins. As a result, a person will be less fearful of the consequences of sinning. The Gemara in Chagiga observes that there is a natural yetser hara to presume that there is automatic forgiveness for sinning - it states, “If the yetser hara will tell you, ‘sin and Hashem will forgive you,’ do not listen to him. ”
The Mesillas Yesharim addresses this attitude at length and stresses that it is incorrect - Hashem is a ‘Kel Emes’ who judges every action. Hashem’s rachamim does not contradict the concept of reward and punishment: Rachamim does three things; it delays the punishment from taking place immediately giving a person a chance to do teshuva; it causes the onesh to be handed out in smaller, more manageable doses; and it gives us the opportunity to do teshuva and thereby gain complete forgiveness. There is, nonetheless, judgement for every outcome and an awareness of this should cause a person to be far more zahir from sinning . Offering a korban also helped rectify the attitude that Hashem is a vatran. By going through the arduous process of offering the korban, the person would see that he could not gain forgiveness without teshuva.
We do not have the opportunity to offer korbanos for our inadvertent sins, and as a result we do not have this essential tool to help make us aware of the reality of chet. How can we engrain this into ourselves? There are many accounts of Gedolim who saw the spiritual world as tangibly as the physical world: On one occasion, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was asked to leave the Beis Medrash in order to take an important phone call from another country, but he could not get to the phone because somebody was davenning the Shemoneh Esrei in front of the door and his ‘dalet amos’ was blocking the exit. When asked why he would not leave for such an important and costly call, he said that there was a wall blocking him and he could not walk through a wall. For Rav Moshe, ‘dalet amos’ was not some vague concept, it was a clear reality. His Gadlus in Torah was surely the cause of such a tangible sense of Yiras Shamayim - it was not just that he knew all of Torah, but that he allowed it to become so much a part of him that it became so real in his mind. A person can learn Torah in an intellectual way and not let it filter into his being - that kind of learning will probably not be so effective in increasing one’s yiras Shamayim - learning with an appreciation that it is discussing reality and trying to apply it to our lives will hopefully enable a person to be more real with the spiritual world.
A second aitsa is that of Rav Yisroel Salanter - that if a person wants to develop more of a sensitivity in a certain area of halacho, he should learn that area in depth - this will naturally bring him to a much greater awareness of his actions in that area. For example, whenever Rav Yisroel would find himself in a situation that could lead to yichud, he would learn the sugyas of yichud in great depth, in this way assuring himself that he would maintain constant awareness of any possibility of yichud. One particular area where this principle is very important is that of lashon hara: There is such a constant nisayon to speak lashon hara that without learning the laws of lashon hara it is extremely difficult to avoid the numerous pitfalls that arise. By learning the laws, as well as knowing what constitutes forbidden speech, a person will develop a far greater sensitivity in his speech.
There is one final exercise that can help increase our level of zehirus: Imagine if someone offered a Torah observant person $100 to speak lashon hara - the person would immediately refuse. What if he offered $1000, or $10,000 or $1000,000?! A person with a clear Torah hashakfa will refuse any amount of money rather than commit a sin because he is intellectually aware that the onesh for speaking lashon hara will be infinitely greater than anything finite. And yet, a person may often speak lashon hara for no money at all! The difference between the two situations is that when a person is clear that what he will do is an aveiro he has intellectual clarity that this is very bad for his neshama. However, without such clarity, b’shaas maaseh, a person rationalizes that what he is about to say is not really lashon hara and allows himself to say it regardless of the possible consequences of such a severe sin. We see from here that a person has the strength to withstand sin when he has total clarity that what he is about to do constitutes an issur. Developing a sense of clarity and intellectual honesty as to when we are committing an aveiro will enable us to tap into this koyach and give us the strength to withstand sin.
We do not have the gift of korbanos anymore, but the lessons that we learn from them can help us develop a strong sense of yiras shamayim that can prevent us from the damage of chet.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
THE VALUE OF THE TABERNACLE - PEKUDEI
“These are the reckonings of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony, which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding. The labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar, son of Aaron the Kohen. Betzalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Yehudah, did everything that HaShem commanded Moshe.”
The Parsha begins with a brief description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the people who were involved in its construction and service. The Seforno writes that the Torah is teaching us a significant point with this introduction. The Mishkan and its accessories were never destroyed, captured or desecrated. In contrast, both the Temples were subject to desecration and destruction. The Seforno explains that the first two verses in the Parsha are giving four reasons behind the elevated nature of the Mishkan. The first is in the words; “‘the Tabernacle of Testimony”. This, the Seforno explains refers to the two Tablets that Moshe received on Mount Sinai. These are indicative of the incredible spirituality that dwelt in the Tabernacle. The verse continues; “which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding.” Since Moshe arranged the building of the Mishkan, it benefitted from his personal majesty. The third aspect contributing to the holiness of the Mishkan was that, “the labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar”. Issamar was also a man of great stature. And finally, the second verse informs us that Betzalel, also a great man, with great lineage, built the Mishkan.
The Seforno then contrasts this with the people involved in the building of the Temples. The first Temple was arranged by the righteous Shlomo HaMelech, however, the workers were non-Jews from Tsur. Since the Temple was not built by righteous people, it was subject to corrosion and therefore needed to be maintained, unlike the Tabernacle. Moreover, because of its lower level of holiness it did ultimately fall into the hands of our enemies and was destroyed. The second Temple was of an even lower level of holiness; the Tablets were not there, and it was arranged by Koresh (Cyrus), the Persian King. Accordingly, it too fell foul of our enemies and was destroyed.
Three verses later, the Torah tells us the total value of all the jewelry that was given for the building of the Tabernacle. The Seforno on this verse, continuing in his theme from the earlier verses, notes that the total material value of the Tabernacle was far less than that of both Temples, both of which were incredibly beautiful and expensive buildings. And yet, unlike the Temples, the humble Tabernacle continually had the Divine Presence within it. The Seforno concludes that this teaches us that the holiness of a building is not defined by its material value and beauty, rather by the spiritual level of the people who were involved it its construction. In a similar vein, the explanation of the Seforno teaches us that the Torah outlook attributes true value towards physical objects or buildings in a very different way to that of the secular outlook. In the secular world, the external beauty or material value of the item define its ‘value’. In contrast, the Torah pays little heed to the external qualities rather the internal spirituality that was invested into the item determines its true value. Thus, the Tabernacle may have been far less physically impressive than the two Temples but its true value was far greater because of the intentions of the people who made it.
This concept is demonstrated by an interesting incident with regard to the Tabernacle that is described in Parshas Terumah and Vayakhel. Hashem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan. "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ." The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He offers an answer based on the Gemara that informs us how the people attained the shoham stones. The Gemara says that a great miracle occurred and shoham stones came down along with the manna. The Nesi’im (Princes) then donated these precious stones to the Mishkan.. One may think that the supernatural manner in which the stones came down would only add to their inherent material value. However, the Ohr HaChaim writes the exact opposite; since the stones came without any effort or financial loss, they are placed at the end of the list of items donated to the Mishkan. When the people gave all the other items, they were parting with their property and willingly undergoing financial loss for the sake of doing HaShem’s will. This places those items, including such mundane material as goat hair, on a higher level than the precious shoham stones who came through a miracle. This starkly demonstrates the Torah’s value system with regard to the physical world. External factors are completely subjugated to the internal – the intentions that went into the item determine its true value.
This concept has applications in Jewish law. The authorities discuss the status of an esrog that has been bruised by over-use. The Chasam Sofer zt”l rules that if the bruises came about because many people fulfilled the Mitzvo of shaking the four species with this esrog, then it is kosher. He writes further that the fact that the bruises came about through Mitzvos actually enhances its status, and constitutes a kind of hiddur (beautification) in and of itself. This Chasam Sofer teaches us a very telling lesson. When a person would see a beautiful, clean esrog that had never been used, and compares it to a bruised esrog that had been shaken by hundreds of people, he would consider the clean esrog to be of greater value. However, the Torah focuses far more on the internal value behind the esrog, than on its external beauty. In a similar vein, a man’s hat once became very dirty on Shabbos. He asked the Chazon Ish zt”l if he could clean it on Shabbos. The Chazon Ish answered that it was forbidden. The man argued that it is not Kavod Shabbos (the honor of Shabbos) to go around with a dirty hat. The Chazon Ish answered that since the hat is left dirty in honor of the sanctity of Shabbos, in this case, keeping it dirty constitutes honoring the Shabbos itself. Again, one may think that a dirty hat cheapens Shabbos due to its unkempt appearance, however, in truth the intentions that lay behind the dirt can turn this into a way of greatly honoring Shabbos!
We have seen how the Torah’s criterion for defining the true ‘value’ of the physical world is very different from that of the secular world. The effort, kavannah (intentions) and spiritual input into that item are the true determinants of its objective value, as opposed to its superficial appearance or monetary value. There is a very natural tendency for a person brought up in the Western world or with Western influences to focus on the externalities of the physical world, including the size of a house, the appearance of a car, etc. The sources above teach us that it is incumbent on each person to adjust his value system in line with the Torah outlook. .
The Parsha begins with a brief description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the people who were involved in its construction and service. The Seforno writes that the Torah is teaching us a significant point with this introduction. The Mishkan and its accessories were never destroyed, captured or desecrated. In contrast, both the Temples were subject to desecration and destruction. The Seforno explains that the first two verses in the Parsha are giving four reasons behind the elevated nature of the Mishkan. The first is in the words; “‘the Tabernacle of Testimony”. This, the Seforno explains refers to the two Tablets that Moshe received on Mount Sinai. These are indicative of the incredible spirituality that dwelt in the Tabernacle. The verse continues; “which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding.” Since Moshe arranged the building of the Mishkan, it benefitted from his personal majesty. The third aspect contributing to the holiness of the Mishkan was that, “the labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar”. Issamar was also a man of great stature. And finally, the second verse informs us that Betzalel, also a great man, with great lineage, built the Mishkan.
The Seforno then contrasts this with the people involved in the building of the Temples. The first Temple was arranged by the righteous Shlomo HaMelech, however, the workers were non-Jews from Tsur. Since the Temple was not built by righteous people, it was subject to corrosion and therefore needed to be maintained, unlike the Tabernacle. Moreover, because of its lower level of holiness it did ultimately fall into the hands of our enemies and was destroyed. The second Temple was of an even lower level of holiness; the Tablets were not there, and it was arranged by Koresh (Cyrus), the Persian King. Accordingly, it too fell foul of our enemies and was destroyed.
Three verses later, the Torah tells us the total value of all the jewelry that was given for the building of the Tabernacle. The Seforno on this verse, continuing in his theme from the earlier verses, notes that the total material value of the Tabernacle was far less than that of both Temples, both of which were incredibly beautiful and expensive buildings. And yet, unlike the Temples, the humble Tabernacle continually had the Divine Presence within it. The Seforno concludes that this teaches us that the holiness of a building is not defined by its material value and beauty, rather by the spiritual level of the people who were involved it its construction. In a similar vein, the explanation of the Seforno teaches us that the Torah outlook attributes true value towards physical objects or buildings in a very different way to that of the secular outlook. In the secular world, the external beauty or material value of the item define its ‘value’. In contrast, the Torah pays little heed to the external qualities rather the internal spirituality that was invested into the item determines its true value. Thus, the Tabernacle may have been far less physically impressive than the two Temples but its true value was far greater because of the intentions of the people who made it.
This concept is demonstrated by an interesting incident with regard to the Tabernacle that is described in Parshas Terumah and Vayakhel. Hashem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan. "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ." The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He offers an answer based on the Gemara that informs us how the people attained the shoham stones. The Gemara says that a great miracle occurred and shoham stones came down along with the manna. The Nesi’im (Princes) then donated these precious stones to the Mishkan.. One may think that the supernatural manner in which the stones came down would only add to their inherent material value. However, the Ohr HaChaim writes the exact opposite; since the stones came without any effort or financial loss, they are placed at the end of the list of items donated to the Mishkan. When the people gave all the other items, they were parting with their property and willingly undergoing financial loss for the sake of doing HaShem’s will. This places those items, including such mundane material as goat hair, on a higher level than the precious shoham stones who came through a miracle. This starkly demonstrates the Torah’s value system with regard to the physical world. External factors are completely subjugated to the internal – the intentions that went into the item determine its true value.
This concept has applications in Jewish law. The authorities discuss the status of an esrog that has been bruised by over-use. The Chasam Sofer zt”l rules that if the bruises came about because many people fulfilled the Mitzvo of shaking the four species with this esrog, then it is kosher. He writes further that the fact that the bruises came about through Mitzvos actually enhances its status, and constitutes a kind of hiddur (beautification) in and of itself. This Chasam Sofer teaches us a very telling lesson. When a person would see a beautiful, clean esrog that had never been used, and compares it to a bruised esrog that had been shaken by hundreds of people, he would consider the clean esrog to be of greater value. However, the Torah focuses far more on the internal value behind the esrog, than on its external beauty. In a similar vein, a man’s hat once became very dirty on Shabbos. He asked the Chazon Ish zt”l if he could clean it on Shabbos. The Chazon Ish answered that it was forbidden. The man argued that it is not Kavod Shabbos (the honor of Shabbos) to go around with a dirty hat. The Chazon Ish answered that since the hat is left dirty in honor of the sanctity of Shabbos, in this case, keeping it dirty constitutes honoring the Shabbos itself. Again, one may think that a dirty hat cheapens Shabbos due to its unkempt appearance, however, in truth the intentions that lay behind the dirt can turn this into a way of greatly honoring Shabbos!
We have seen how the Torah’s criterion for defining the true ‘value’ of the physical world is very different from that of the secular world. The effort, kavannah (intentions) and spiritual input into that item are the true determinants of its objective value, as opposed to its superficial appearance or monetary value. There is a very natural tendency for a person brought up in the Western world or with Western influences to focus on the externalities of the physical world, including the size of a house, the appearance of a car, etc. The sources above teach us that it is incumbent on each person to adjust his value system in line with the Torah outlook. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
