For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.
The Ramban opens his letter to his son saying, “Constantly act by talking all your words softly, to every person, at all times. In this way you will be saved from anger, which is a bad attribute that causes people to sin. As Chaza”l (Nedarim 22a) say, ‘All who are angry, all sorts of Gehenom control him as it says (Koheles11:10) ‘remove anger from your heart, and take off bad from your flesh,’ and bad only refers here to Gehenom as it says (Mishley 16:4) ‘and also the wicked for the day of bad.'” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The beginning of Orchos Tzadikim, in The Gate of Anger, states: “Anger is an evil trait. Just as scurvy is a disease of the body, so anger is a disease of the soul… Our sages have said further (Nedarim 22b): ‘If one gets angry, even the Shechina is of no account to him…And he also forgets his learning and grows in stupidity… and it is known that his sins are more than his merits…’ and his punishment is very great…” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
If this is how terrible the character flaw of anger is, then why does the Rabbeinu Bachye in his introduction to this week’s Torah portion of Vayigash say that “it is well known that Yosef should not have been the one showing anger over his stolen goblet, but rather Yehuda and his brothers, who were in fact innocent of the crime since the whole thing was a setup, were the ones that should have been angry. Nevertheless, Yehuda the great wise one, powerful physically and spiritually, was able to overcome his proclivity and did not become angry. Even though it was fitting for them to be angry, Yehuda saw that it wasn’t the time or place to get angry, but rather to speak gently in order to calm down the wrath of the master, Yosef.” How can Rabbeinu Bachye say that the brothers were the ones that really should have been mad? No one deserves to be angry, because anger is such a bad character trait as we saw above! So what does Rabbeinu Bachye mean when he says the brothers were deserving of feeling angry?
It must be that anger is a very different negative character trait than most character flaws, in that it comes spontaneously onto a person, whereas other characters flaws are developed. This is why there is no prohibition of becoming angry in the Torah but there are prohibitions against other emotions, such as jealousy, “Don’t covet” (Shemos 20:14), hatred, “Don’t hate your brother in your heart” (Vayikra19:17), and haughtiness. As the Orchos Tzadikim says in the beginning of The Gate of Pride, “Pride is the coin the Great, Blessed King has invalidated and which He has extorted us about in His Torah, as it is written: ‘Take heed lest you forget Hashem your G-D’ (Devarim8:11) for the proud man forgets his Creator…” The feelings of pride, hatred, and jealousy develop inside a person and get worse over time, so the Torah prohibits one to develop those negative attributes. But anger is a spontaneous emotion, which is why it makes sense that in their circumstances the Rabbeinu Bachye says Yehuda and his brothers were the ones who should have been experiencing it, not Yosef. This is also why the Torah didn’t place a prohibition against becoming angry. However, since if you let it fester, it is so unhealthy, Hashem created a system to manage anger which the Ramban says is to always speak softly. That will diffuse the feeling of anger that might be triggered when someone is being irritating, which might naturally spark anger.
However, talking softly isn’t just a system to calm oneself down; it can also be used as a weapon or mechanism against other people who are angry at you, to calm them down and diffuse the situation. Rabbeinu Bachye, as he always does in his introduction to the Torah portion quotes a pasuk from Mishley. “A gentle reply turns away wrath, but a galling word incites anger” (15:1). “Shlomo Hamelech (the author of Mishley) is warning a person in this pasuk to raise one’s soul and habituate one’s natural tendency and speech in replying gently to others, because replying gently quiets and puts to rest anger towards an angry person. Antagonizing words which are the opposite of replying gently cause a buildup of anger and wrath.” Rabbeinu Bachye goes on to describe the power of speech in general; how it is a great power that can influence good and bad, life and death, as we see speech being related to learning Torah but also to speaking lashon hara/slander. Then he says, “And because speech is a major component for saving one’s soul and body, or G-D forbid causing its destruction, King Shlomo comes and teaches knowledge to the nation that they should strengthen themselves in this attribute of replying softly because it calms wrath, even the wrath of the king as he says, ‘the king’s wrath is like angels of death’ (Mishley 16:14). Now Yehuda ben Yaakov excelled in this attribute for he spoke to Yosef softly and in this way calmed his wrath that he was showing them, for he was angry over the incident of the goblet [found in Binyamin’s sack.]” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
We see from Rabbeinu Bachye that speaking softly doesn’t just calm oneself down but can calm others down, even an angry leader. The reason why soft speech even has an influence on others is as the Ramban writes later in his letter to his son, “Therefore I will explain to you how to act with the trait of humility, to walk in it constantly. All your words should be said gently… and if someone calls out for you don’t answer him loudly, rather gently, like one who stands before his master.” Speaking gently has a calming effect which makes others perceive that you are humbling yourself before them, and therefore they feel obliged to act in kind and treat you with some level of respect. That is why the anger resides on both sides, you are feeling ashamed or humbled by your actions of speaking gently and he feels respected.
Torah Riddles #213
Question: Why can you hold your lulav and esrog during davening, including shema and shemone esray but you can’t hold your tefillin in your hands, or a knife , plate full of stuff, or bread, neither can you hold your lulav and esrog while learning Torah, what is the difference?
Background:
A. Rashi in Sukkah 41b says you’ll be afraid the knife will fall on your foot, the plate full of stuff will spill, and if the bread falls it will become disgusting. But if the lulav and especially esrog falls it might become unkosher?
B. Love for the mitzvah not a burden
C.תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם
Answer: The taking and holding of the lulav and esrog is the mitzvah and because of the love to perform the mitzvah it is not considered a burden therefore you won’t be distracted during davening but holding tefillin or the knife, bread and plate is a burden and will be a weight and distraction during davening which will not allow him to concentrate properly. By Torah learning since he will get so involved in his learning and will get distracted from the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and they might fall out of his hands therefore he should give it to someone else to hold while learning. (See Rashis there.)
Miketz – Fooling Themselves
Yosef’s brothers confront him in this week’s Torah portion of Miketz. The obvious question is: why hadn’t they figured out who he was? Yosef unintentionally dropped so many hints that it seemed obvious he was Yosef; how were they able to turn a blind eye?
The Torah states, “Now Yosef was the ruler over the land; it was he who sold grain to the entire populace of the land, and Yosef’s brothers came and prostrated themselves to him, with their faces to the ground. And Yosef saw his brothers, and he recognized them, but he made himself a stranger to them, and he spoke to them harshly, and he said to them, ‘Where do you come from?’ And they said, ‘From the land of Canaan to purchase food.’ Now Yosef recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him” (Breishis 42:6-8).
The Radak first quotes Rashi, that the reason why the brothers did not recognize Yosef but Yosef recognized the brothers was because he left them without a beard and now he had a beard; but they all had beards when he left so he recognized them but they did not recognize him. However, the Radak continues, “that it was really possible for them to recognize Yosef even though he now had a beard, except for the fact that they saw him in a high position of leadership and it was so farfetched in their eyes that this was Yosef who they sold as a slave and now he is master over all of Egypt. They said in their hearts that even though he looks like Yosef, there are many people that look a little bit similar to each other, therefore it left their hearts that this was Yosef.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The brothers were face to face with the viceroy of Egypt and he looked exactly like Yosef. Yet they literally could not believe their eyes; in reality they didn’t want to believe their eyes. Although they knew about Yosef’s dreams that they would bow down to him, and in fact they even came to Egypt looking for Yosef, they still were unable to put two and two together, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The Radak goes on to explain the end of pasuk 7, that Yosef purposefully estranged himself from his brothers by speaking to them harshly and calling them spies. This was in order to remove the possibility that he was Yosef from their hearts and minds. But they had many hints afterwards, which should have given away, the fact that the person in front of them was actually Yosef. Just to name a few, for example, when Yosef heard the brothers talking amongst themselves expressing their regrets for what they had done to him, Yosef, pasuk 24 based on the Radak says he started crying because he saw them admitting fault, and he had to run out of the room to compose himself. Afterwards, the pasuk says Yosef threw Shimon in jail right in front of the brothers; but the Radak quotes a medrish (Breishis Rabba 91:8) that says that after they left Yosef took Shimon out of jail, fed him, washed him up, and anointed him with oils to freshen up. Wouldn’t that tip off at least to Shimon that something strange was going on and allow him to consider that he might indeed be his brother Yosef? In fact, when Shimon was reunited with hos brothers, he could have told them this viceroy might actually be Yosef, but he never thought about that! (Click here for Hebrew text.)
When the brothers came back to Egypt with Binyamin, Yosef invited them to eat with him, they still thought that he was up to no good, and that there was no way that he might actually be their brother, being nice to them. The Radak on perek 43, pasuk 18 says that the brothers were saying to each other that this viceroy of Egypt was trying to find excuses to take them as slaves by first contriving a plot to find them guilty on charges of stealing their own money that they paid with. He was being nasty to them from the start, so now by inviting them to eat with him he was setting up a trap to make them his slaves. They didn’t hear what Yosef had told his servants, to fill their bags with money as gifts to comfort them. He even told them in pasuk 23, “Peace shall be with you, you shall not be afraid, your G-D and the G-D of your fathers gave to you treasures in your bags. Your money came to me, and he brought out to them Shimon.” Even though Yosef attributed their good fortune of finding money in their bags to Hashem, still they didn’t get the hint. This wasn’t even the first time he had mentioned G-D. Before in perek 42 pasuk 18 Yosef said, “On the third day, Joseph said to them: “Do this and live I fear God.” The Radak there says Yosef is telling the brothers, I fear G-D and I would not keep all of you because there is a famine in your house, and it would be a travesty [to not allow you to feed your household], rather I would keep only one of you to interrogate. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Then, in pasuk 33, Yosef sits them at the table by age, youngest to oldest, and the pasuk says that they were of course shocked; how did he know? The Radak says the brothers were shocked that this viceroy was able to know their age order, for how was he able to recognize who was older from amongst people that were all born within 7 years of each other? This was astonishing in their eyes, yet still it wasn’t fishy enough for them to connect the dots that he must be Yosef. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
We see from here how far the bias of denial can stretch. The brothers refused to acknowledge the possibility that Yosef became second in command in Egypt and his dreams came true. Therefore even though he looked like Yosef, and there were many hints that it might actually be Yosef, they still never put two and two together until he actually revealed himself as being Yosef, their brother.
Torah Riddles #212
Question: Why can you fix an esrog by just peeling off the place a mouse bit from, though it was disgusting yet you can’t just take out the mouse even if the oil is 60 times more than the mouse that fell into it, in order to use the oil for Chanukah candles since it is disgusting?
Background:
- The Rema (549:5) says if mice made holes in the esrog one should not use even on other days beside yom tov because it is disgusting, until you remove the spots the mice punctured. The Mishna Berura (37) adds that we are lenient because an incomplete esrog is technically kosher to be used on other days, but just ideally we are stringent here because it was disgusting, therefore when the area that was disgusting is removed it is kosher again. The Sfas Emes brought in the Dirshu (footnote 64 found in the back, page 85) adds that being disgusting only applies to something which is potentially edible and therefore it is considered disgusting to be used for the mitzva but if mice would have nibbled on hadasim or aravos they could still be used.
- The Mishna Berura (573:1:3) says if one finds a mouse in the oil, it is disgusting and forbidden to be used for Chanukah light. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 104) says one must remove the mouse if found whole or in parts before eating or drinking the item it fell into like wine, or oil in this case, which means it would be kosher to eat, but only if its taste was nullified in 60 times the liquid it fell into before being taken out. Yet the Mishna Berura still says it’s disgusting and can’t be used for Chanukah oil without mentioning that if taken out it is permitted so the oil must still be forbidden to use to light for Chanukah.
Answer: The oil that the mouse was in is still there even if the mouse was nullified in 60 and then removed so that is still disgusting and cannot be used for the mitzvah. But the area where the mouse took a bite from on the esrog is now gone if shaven off so the esrog is not disgusting anymore and can be used for the mitzvah on all other days besides the first.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus chapter 9 halacha 2
| There are 5 conditions that must be met in order to be allowed to speak rechilus for a constructive purpose. 1. Can’t jump to conclusions. When you see or hear something wrong that might effect others first think about what just happened, maybe even investigate before concluding it really is bad. 2. Don’t exaggerate, if you must say something just say it how it is and nothing more. 3a. One must have proper intent to help the would be victims, not to speak up out of hatred because then it would be rechilus. However that does not exempt you from speaking up because there is a mitzvah to not just stand by and let other people get hurt physically and monetarily, לא תעמוד על דם רעך. So if you have hatred towards the perpetrator this should arouse you to remove it from your heart before speaking up but if you don’t you still must speak out and you will just get a sin of rechilus for performing the mitzvah of saving a person’s life. 3b. Even if you have the proper intentions, you aren’t exaggerating, and you got the scenario right, but if there is no way that what what you say will help in any way then you can’t say it and it is rechilus. Whether you think you won’t be listened to or whether after the fact you say I told you so, after warning him once it is still rechilus because nothing good can come out of what you say. Another example is in shidduchim. You are able to speak up before a shidduch goes through, while they are still investigating, but once there is an engagement it is rechilus to speak up now, they are planning on getting married, they want each other, it is only hurtful to say anything about either party now. It is better for them to get married, and you’ll see what will happen. Maybe what you know isn’t a factor, no red flags came up during dating so your issue might not be an issue. Worst comes to worst they will have to get divorced. Another example is if the victim that you want to help has a big mouth, and he will tell the world what you said and it might even get back to the person you were talking about, there is than mo mitzvah to tell him because it might create a big fight. It’s his problem now if he might get hurt. 4. If you are able to resolve the issue without needing to speak rechilus you have to fix the situation in that manner, even if that will be the hard way of taking care of things. 5. Even if you know there is a problem, there is no other way to fix it besides speaking up, you have the right intent, to help, and you are ready ti say precisely what you heard or saw, and you know you might very likely help the potential victim but if he might cause more harm to the would be perpetrator than what any court would do to him then you can’t tell the potential victim because he can’t be allowed to punish the perpetrator more than what he deserves. That means, for example if you are the only person telling him, he can’t do anything worse than forcing the perpetrator to swear that he did, or will do no harm, because at best a single witness can only enforce an oath in court. But even if two people let say tells the victim Who stole from him. If they know the victim will go and beat up the thief, they can’t tell the victim because the court would only monetarily punish him and the victim would be going overboard, so it would be better just to tell police or the court and let them handle it for the victims instead of the perpetrator getting unlawfully punished. |
Vayeishev -Two Dimensions
For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.
The classic debate of how to understand Hashem as all-knowing, with the ability to see what was, is, and will be, because He runs the world, while balancing it with the concept of free choice, and the question of man’s ability to make decisions or not, is discussed in a Medrish Tanchuma (4) on this week’s Torah portion of Veyeishev. The quickest way to resolve the dilemma is to say that Hashem exists on a different dimensional plane from us, can see into our dimension, in fact created it and interacts with it constantly, at every moment, and without His interaction we would cease to exist. When Chaza”l says He is everywhere, and a name for G-D is Hamakom, The Place, but also that his Shechina, Holy Presence, rests in certain places, what that means is that G-D in fact is everywhere from the viewpoint of His dimension interacting with ours, and He is The Place because He created everything, but He focuses His Holy Presence in certain places more than others into our world, and even at different strengths, depending on our time, place, and what we deserve. But from within our dimension, with our limited viewpoint of time and space, we have the ability to make choices between good and bad and everything in between. Hashem created it purposefully in this way because He is by definition good and wants us to earn the best state of spiritual bliss and closeness, basking in His glory, that we can possibly attain. This is basically how to understand and believe that there is a G-D who is all powerful and all knowing, who created the world and is in constant control of the upkeep of its existence, and yet we also have free will.
However, there is an added insight that can be gleaned from this medrish, for it states: “’And Yosef was brought down to Egypt’ This is analogous with the pasuk in Tehillim (66:5), ‘Go and see the deeds of G-D, awesome in His excuses toward mankind.’ Rebbe Yehoshua ben Karcha says, that even the awesome wonders that You bring upon us are brought through an excuse. Come and see, for when Hashem created the world, from the first day He created the Angel of Death. How do we know this? Rebbe Brechiya says because it says in the Torah, ‘and darkness upon the surface of the deep’ (Breishis 2:1). This refers to the Angel of Death who darkens the faces of creation. Man was created on the sixth, and an excuse was hung upon him that he brought death onto the world, as it says, ‘on the day you eat from it you shall surely die’ (Breishis 2:17). This is compared to one who wanted to divorce his wife. When he was planning on going back home he wrote a get (divorce bill). He entered the house with the get in his hand. He needed some excuse to give it to her. He said to her, pour me a hot drink I can drink. She poured for him. He said to her, get out of my house for you poured me a lukewarm drink instead of a hot drink. She said to him, you already knew I would pour you a lukewarm drink, for you wrote a get and brought it with you in your hand! So to Adam said to Hashem, “Master Of The World, 2000 years before you created the world, the Torah was already a nursling by you, as it’s written, “And I was then His nursling, and I was then a precious delight day, day” (Mishley 8:30) which equals 2000 years (for a day is like a thousand years for Hashem. Not that Hashem is bound by time, G-d forbid, for thousands of years is like one second by Him because He’s beyond time, rather Hashem just said this in a language that people would understand-Etz Yosef). It is written inside the Torah, ‘This is the Torah, a person who died in the tent’ (Bamidbar 19:14). If you would not have enacted death to people, would you have written that? Rather you blamed the excuse on me.” This is what it means ‘awesome is the excuse on people.’” The Etz Yosef explains this means that what Hashem decreed in His wisdom that whatever should be in this world, is not brought upon man in a forceful manner, to the point that a person’s actions are controlled, but rather it’s unfolded into reality through the actions of mankind without controlling people to do their actions. Like this woman who was not forced to pour lukewarm or cold water as her husband thought she would do, intending to divorce her. The matter of lukewarm water being poured was only an excuse, if it had not happened that way, there would have been some other reason.
The medrish goes onto to give a second example, about how Moshe was never meant to bring the Jews into Israel, but Hashem orchestrated the excuse of Moshe sinning by the hitting of the rock for that to happen.
The medrish brings a third example from this week’s parsha, “And so too we find by Yosef it says, ‘and his brothers saw that their father loved him [more] because of the scarlet stripe that he made on his striped coat. For this there were four tragedies done to him…. because of this, the coat of stripes caused all the tribes to go down to Egypt. Rebbe Yudan said Hashem wanted to fulfill the promise to Avraham that his descendants will go into exile and be redeemed with wealth, and He brought an excuse to ensure all of it comes about in that Yaakov loved Yosef and his brothers hated him, sold him to the Yishmaelites, who brought him down to Egypt, eventually Yaakov heard that Yosef was alive in Egypt and went down with the tribes there and were subjugated there. This is what ‘And Yosef went down to Egypt’ is referring to but don’t read it ‘as he went down’ but rather that ‘he brought down’ his father and family to Egypt. Rebbe Tanchuna says, what is this comparable to? To someone who wants to put a yoke onto a cow’s neck and it refuses the yoke. What does he do? He takes her calf from in back of her and drags it to the place he wants the cow to plow. The calf moos. The cow hears her calf moo and not for her own good she walks to her son. So to Hashem wanted to fulfill the promise He made to Avraham and He brought an excuse for all these events to happen so that they can go down to Egypt and He pays up his document. That is why it says ‘and Yosef went down to Egypt’ and this is the awesomeness of an excuse etc.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The medrish wanted to prove that Hashem doesn’t control us like preprogrammed robots, forcing us to do things, but rather He set into nature a chain of events that will lead to the end result of what He desires. Yet the means are through individuals being manipulated, but making choices which lead to the end, desired result.
The medrish gives 3 examples. One is that people were destined to be mortal, yet it only came to be out of the choice made by Adam and Chava to eat from the Tree Of Knowledge. Two, Moshe was never destined to enter the land of Israel, but it only came into fruition because of his decision to hit the rock. And three, the promise made to Avraham was destined to be fulfilled but only came about through the means of Yaakov choosing to favor Yosef, which had a domino effect which landed Yaakov and his family in Egypt. The first example was explained based on a parable of a man wanting to divorce his wife and manipulating events for that to happen. The second example did not have or need a parable, and the third example had the parable of manipulating the stubborn cow to get into the yoke to plow. Why were two parables needed to explain the concept, and what were they emphasizing?
The first parable showed that the wife really had a choice, and yet she chose to serve her husband lukewarm water which resulted in a divorce, because she clearly didn’t treat him nicely. He knew what was going to happen, anticipated it, and was of course right, so he was prepared with the bill of divorce; yet technically he could have and would have found another excuse to hand it to her. So too, Hashem knew Adam perfectly, and knew this was going to happen, but left it up to him to choose to do what he did, and if he hadn’t done it, there would have been some other incident that would have justified making humans into mere mortals.
The second example is along the same lines as the first; however the third example is a bit different than the first two. The first two showed that Hashem knows the way people think, so He manipulated the circumstances in order that they would choose the destined end game. The third example showed that Hashem orchestrated a chain of events to happen in order to get the destined result; not necessarily because of the way one thinks, but through multiple, multifaceted events and characters coming together through free will, to create the desired effect. That is what both parables are teaching us. We see from here that G-D runs and directs the world, but we have free choice to choose whether we will be part of the destiny of Hashem’s master plan or someone else will, or even if it will involve us, the question is how we will be involved.
One might ask: which is harder to comprehend, that there is a G-d running the world or that we have free choice? One might think I can understand we have free choice because we make decisions every day, but who says there is really a G-D? However we see from here, from the fact that the medrish had to give two parables explaining how we have free choice in these situations, without proving that G-D exists, it must be it’s obvious and easier to believe in Hashem once one has come to the realization there is an All Mighty, All Powerful Master of the Universe, but it’s still difficult to then come to grips with the fact that we are not simply puppets controlled by Him. Therefore the medrish gave to parables to explain how we still have free will.
Torah Riddles #211
Question: What’s the difference between rinsing off fruit which is forbidden on Shabbos according to the Chazon Ish and rinsing dishes on Shabbos which is permitted on Shabbos according to the Chazon Ish?
Background:
A. The Mishna Berura (319:8:28) says that one cannot soak fruits or vegetables in water to get off dirt on shabbos because it is borer (choosing bad from the good, using the water as a utensil).
B. The gemara in Shabbos 118b says you are allowed to rinse your dishes in running water or dip then in and out to clean the dishes because it’s cleaning not borer. Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach and Rav Elyashiv all have a side to say that one can also rinse fruit and vegetables for the same reason as the dishes that it’s just cleaning not borer, if you do it right before you eat it. But Rav Elyashiv says it’s better to rinse fruit and vegetables before shabbos.
C. Hint: Borer is fixing the object being chosen.
Answer: Dirshu footnote 32: Rav Nissim Karelitz explains the Chazon Ish’s view that since borer is fixing the object being chosen, but vessels, since the way of using vessels is to use them, wash them and clean them off after each usage, then rinsing the vessel from its dirt is not considered fixing the vessel. But removing the dirt from fruits and vegetables is fixing the fruit and is considered borer. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach adds that vessels last a while, so even if there is dirt or food stuck to it, it’s not a mixture and removing it isn’t considered washing or borer, however food, since it’s nature is to rot and go bad, therefore if dirt or the like is mixed in with it, then removing it is considered borer.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 halacha 1
If you see your friend wants to partner with someone, or hire someone for a job, or babysitter, etc. And you feel that person will definitely cause harm to your friend, for example you know he is a thief. Even if you are the only one who knows it and no one else, you still must tell your friend in order to save him from harm. However, when telling you you must meet the 5 prerequisites that will be discussed in the next halacha. When speaking up about someone who someone else is about to hire you have to take 3 things into account. (A) are you allowed to tell your friend so that he won’t hire him and cause himself a loss, (B) is there perhaps a mitzvah, obligation to tell him, and (C) on the other hand it might be forbidden to tell him because it’s rechilus since he could be causing the would-be worker a loss. All these factors must be taken into consideration before talking to your friend in order to know whether you should, could, and if so how to talk to him. The mitzvah that one would be fulfilling or not transgressing is “לא תעמוד על דם רעך” (ויקרא 19:16) “Do not stand on the blood of your friend.” This prohibition doesn’t only apply to saving your fellow Jew’s life if you can but also protecting his money as we see in Sanhedrin73a. This isn’t just a prohibition against standing by and not testifying to get back money that you know was unlawfully taken away from your friend which you have an obligation to go to court and testify about even if you are alone, not two witnesses, because you can at least force the suspect to swear and pay but even as an individual to go over to the potential victim and warn him about the thief or any damage lurking in his midst is a mitzvah and if not done one will transgress this prohibition. See Choshen Mishpat 426:1, Sifra Vayikra 19:16, Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos mitzva 297, Shaar Mishpat Choshen Mishpat 28:2, also see Sefer Hachinuch mitzvah 236).
| Even though it seems very clear that one must speak up and it would not be rechilus if he helps someone not get hurt physically or monetarily but one must remember that he cannot be too quick to speak up and be sure to meet all the 5 prerequisites before doing so in order not to transgress the prohibition of rechilus. |
Vayishlach – Unhinged Vs. Leaders and Police
For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.
Yaakov engages with his brother Esav in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayishlach. The Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer (chapter 37) depicts the unhinged personality of Esav: “When Yaakov went to enter the land of Canaan, Esav came to meet him from Har Seir, fuming with great rage, to kill him as it says, “The wicked man plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him” (Tehillim 37:12). Esav said, I will not kill my brother with bow and arrow, rather I will kill him with my mouth and suck out his blood, as it says “Esav ran to meet him and he hugged him and fell on his neck, and kissed him, and cried” (Breishis 33:4). Don’t read the word as וישקהו, and he kissed him, but rather וישכהו, and he bit him. However [miraculously], Yaakov’s neck turned hard as bone and blunted Esav’s teeth.
The beginning of this chapter in Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer quotes a pasuk in Amos (5:19) to explain Yaakov’s escape from Lavan but into the clutches of Esav: “As if a man flees from the lion and the bear meets him…” The lion is Lavan who ran after Yaakov to take his life. The bear is Esav who was standing on the road like an agitated bear coming to kill a mother with her children. The lion has feelings of shame, but a bear feels no shame. Yaakov got up and prayed before Hashem saying, ‘Master of the World didn’t you tell me to go back to the land of your forefathers, and where you were born, and I will be with you? But my brother Esav now comes to kill me and he is not afraid of You, and I am afraid of him.’ From here they say don’t be afraid of police or a ruler, rather from a person who does not fear Hashem and stands up against you on the road like an agitated bear to kill a mother with her children. The Beur Maspik explains that Lavan had shame before Hashem, for he said to Yaakov ‘And the G-d of your father…you shall watch yourself from talking with Yaakov good or bad’ (Breishis perek 31). Lavan was frightened from what Hashem told him in a dream. Accordingly, Chaza”l says that one who feels shame won’t be quick to sin but Esav did not have any fear of G-D before his eyes at all. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
In the Pesach Hagada we read “Come and learn what Lavan the Arami tried to do to our father Yaakov. While Pharoah decreed only against the males, Lavan desired to uproot all. For so it is written, ‘An Arami sought to destroy my father; and he went down to Egypt and dwelled there, a handful, few in number. There he became a nation, great, mighty, and numerous.” We see from here that Lavan was worse that Pharaoh in a sense because he wanted to wipe out the entire family and there would never have been a Jewish nation. But Pharaoh, despite all the terrible and torturous decrees he made, would at most only have wiped out the Jewish males. Furthermore, Lavan is referred in the Torah as a fraudster; he is unpredictable, constantly devising plots to undermine his fellow, in this case Yaakov. So wasn’t Yaakov concerned at least as much, if not more, about Lavan than about Esav? As with Esav, it can be seen pretty blatantly his wrath and intent, but Lavan could double cross him and he might not even realize it?
It would seem, though, that because Lavan had this shame, some level of moral decency, that it put him in check and was easier to deal with. But Esav, having a lack of care and decency for anything, was a totally unhinged character, unpredictable, and that is why Yaakov was afraid of him, and needed to reinforce his proper faith and trust in Hashem, which he eventually did, by praying to Hashem to save him from his brother and then setting up a strategic plan of splitting his family up into two camps and giving gifts to Esav in order to appease him.
This isn’t just about people who are G-D fearing or not G-D fearing, although that happened to have been the major difference between Lavan and Esav. Though one wouldn’t exactly call Lavan G-D fearing, he at least recognized that one doesn’t mess with Hashem if He comes to you in a dream. However, from the fact that the Ralbag extends this to any ruler or policeman, not just a Jew, it must mean that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has shame and one who is not shameful at all. From the fact that the medrish compares a ruler or policeman to one who does not fear Hashem would seem to mean that just having a sense of law and order, living by the rule of law as a policeman or a ruler does, gives them at least the potential ability to be more attuned to fear of G-D, even if they don’t outwardly express any connection to religion but when faced with the opportunity as Lavan was, they would more relate to subjugating themselves to the will of G-D. They have the moral decency and more of a chance to feel ashamed if they break the rules they live by and enforce. Whereas a person who is lawless and doesn’t care about the law at all, has no shame and is crazily unhinged, He won’t ever be ashamed and fear Hashem with his current attitude, no matter how blatant and obvious the messages are being sent his way. That is a reason to be worried and afraid of that type of person, versus the police or a ruler.
Lavan was a chieftain, a ruler of Aram, and even though he was a scam artist he at least had some moral decency and on some level even a fear of Hashem that kept him in check. So Yaakov felt he was able to deal with Lavan, whereas Esav was a totally unhinged person with no shame, and certainly no fear of Hashem, so he was totally unpredictable and that is why Yaakov was rightfully afraid of him.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 introduction
In the laws of Lashon hara chapter 10 was dedicated to cases where one is allowed to speak lashon hara about a person was acting inappropriately in matters of man and his fellow man, i.e. interpersonal relationships, and the speaker is only speaking out for the betterment of others. Now, chapter 9 of the laws of Rechilus is dedicated to when one is ideally permitted to speak rechilus, if the speaker’s intent is to remove or avoid damages. The Chofetz Chaim concludes the introduction that may Hashem not cause me to stumble in the word of Jewish law.
In the Be’er Mayim Chaim the Chofetz Chaim elaborates, and says that before we begin the chapter, he wanted to discuss something very important in these matters. From the fact that the Rambam (Hilchos Deos 7:5) says, “If one tells someone something that will cause, if the word spread, for damage to happen to the subject matter, either physically, monetarily, painfully, or fear, this is considered lashon hara.” Based on this it seems that lashon hara is different than any other monetary damage because one is normally exempt from indirect damage but liable for indirect when speaking lashon hara. The reason being is that the Torah doesn’t forbid anything that leads to monetary damage, for example one is permitted to make a fire in his backyard for a BBQ, or is allowed to have a herd of oxen, etc. but technically if they do direct damage, he is liable, therefore if indirect damage happened he is exempt. However, Lashon hara is ideally forbidden to be spoken to begin with so even indirect damage is forbidden. Therefore if one wants partner in business or wants to be hired for a job and someone else had said something bad about him and it traveled until it got to the would be partner or hire and he does not get the job, it is the person who originally spoke the lashon hara who is at fault for this guy not landing the job in the business deal, even though he wasn’t the one who told the partner or the one hiring the guy. This issue of rechilus and lashon hara is not just direct damage but even preventing someone from getting good coming to themes forbidden. There is a famous case in Kiddushin 59a of a person who grabs an ownerless cake rolling down the road which he sees a poor hungry person running after it to get it and he picks it up to keep it for himself. He is called wicked for taking away the opportunity for the poor person to acquire a piece of food even though it didn’t belong to anyone and he had equal riht as the poor man to acquire it but he didn’t need it, though he wanted. All the more so a person who bad mouths someone and causes him not to get a job or the like and he’s not viaing for the job himself, is certainly called wicked, for example he says this guy is a great electrician, but he has a very bad attitude. So now the person he told is going to look for someone else, and the electrician is out of a job and lost money even though he could have done it just fine, all because you spoke rechilus about him, for no benefit to yourself that’s why you are wicked. The Chofetz Chaim concludes that he went onto so much detail here to make clear that all the examples we are about to learn are forbidden rechilus if the parameters are met to permit one to speak out.