This Week in Learning

Sometimes the world seems to go our way, and sometimes it doesn’t. We hit the stoplights perfectly and make it to our appointment just in-time. Or we get a flat tire at what seems like the worst possible time (is there ever a good time?). What is the Torah’s approach to interpreting these experiences?

Because this issue touches on many foundational principles of the Torah, this will not be an exhaustive or comprehensive treatment of the subject. Rather, I aim to focus on the practical way man is prompted to interpret his personal experiences in light of the Torah’s principles.

ויקרא יט

(ח) לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:

Vayikra 19

(8) You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

ספר החינוך – מצוה רמב

משרשי המצוה. שידע האדם ויתן אל לבו כי כל אשר יקרהו מטוב עד רע, הוא סבה שתבוא עליו מאת השם ברוך הוא. ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו לא יהיה דבר בלתי רצון השם ברוך הוא, על כן כשיצערהו או יכאיבהו אדם ידע בנפשו כי עונותיו גרמו, והשם יתברך גזר עליו בכך, ולא ישית מחשבותיו לנקם ממנו, כי הוא אינו סבת רעתו, כי העון הוא המסבב, וכמו שאמר דוד עליו השלום (שמואל ב טז יא) הניחו לו ויקלל כי אמר לו יי. תלה הענין בחטאו ולא בשמעי בן גרא. ועוד נמצא במצוה זו תועלת רבה להשבית ריב ולהעביר המשטמות מלב בני אדם, ובהיות שלום בין אנשים יעשה השם יתברך שלום להם.

The Book of Education - Mitzvah 242

It is from the roots of the commandment that a person know and put into his heart that everything that happens to him - good and bad - the cause of it coming to him is from God, blessed be He. And from the hand of man - from the hand of a man to his brother - there would not be anything without the will of God, blessed be He. Hence, when a person caused him pain or hurt him, he should know for himself that his [own] sins caused [it], and that God, may He be blessed, ordained this for him. And he should not place his thoughts to taking vengeance from [the one who pained him], since he is not the cause of his evil, but rather the sin is the cause; like David, peace be upon him, stated (II Samuel 16:11), "leave him to curse, since the Lord told him [so]" - he made the matter depend upon his [own] sin, and not upon Shimei ben Gera. And there is also a great benefit found in this commandment, in quieting a dispute and removing enmity from the heart of people. And when there is peace among people, God, may He be blessed, will make peace for them.

Let’s take a closer look at the interaction between King David and Shimei ben Gera:

שמואל ב טז

(ה) וּבָ֛א הַמֶּ֥לֶךְ דָּוִ֖ד עַד־בַּחוּרִ֑ים וְהִנֵּ֣ה מִשָּׁם֩ אִ֨ישׁ יוֹצֵ֜א מִמִּשְׁפַּ֣חַת בֵּית־שָׁא֗וּל וּשְׁמוֹ֙ שִׁמְעִ֣י בֶן־גֵּרָ֔א יֹצֵ֥א יָצ֖וֹא וּמְקַלֵּֽל׃ (ו) וַיְסַקֵּ֤ל בָּֽאֲבָנִים֙ אֶת־דָּוִ֔ד וְאֶת־כׇּל־עַבְדֵ֖י הַמֶּ֣לֶךְ דָּוִ֑ד וְכׇל־הָעָם֙ וְכׇל־הַגִּבֹּרִ֔ים מִימִינ֖וֹ וּמִשְּׂמֹאלֽוֹ׃ (ז) וְכֹה־אָמַ֥ר שִׁמְעִ֖י בְּקַֽלְל֑וֹ צֵ֥א צֵ֛א אִ֥ישׁ הַדָּמִ֖ים וְאִ֥ישׁ הַבְּלִיָּֽעַל׃ (ח) הֵשִׁיב֩ עָלֶ֨יךָ יְהֹוָ֜ה כֹּ֣ל׀ דְּמֵ֣י בֵית־שָׁא֗וּל אֲשֶׁ֤ר מָלַ֙כְתָּ֙ תַּחְתָּ֔ו וַיִּתֵּ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־הַמְּלוּכָ֔ה בְּיַ֖ד אַבְשָׁל֣וֹם בְּנֶ֑ךָ וְהִנְּךָ֙ בְּרָ֣עָתֶ֔ךָ כִּ֛י אִ֥ישׁ דָּמִ֖ים אָֽתָּה׃ (ט) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲבִישַׁ֤י בֶּן־צְרוּיָה֙ אֶל־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ לָ֣מָּה יְקַלֵּ֞ל הַכֶּ֤לֶב הַמֵּת֙ הַזֶּ֔ה אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֖י הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ אֶעְבְּרָה־נָּ֖א וְאָסִ֥ירָה אֶת־רֹאשֽׁוֹ׃ (י) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ מַה־לִּ֥י וְלָכֶ֖ם בְּנֵ֣י צְרֻיָ֑ה [כֹּ֣ה] (כי) יְקַלֵּ֗ל [כִּ֤י] (וכי) יְהֹוָה֙ אָ֤מַר לוֹ֙ קַלֵּ֣ל אֶת־דָּוִ֔ד וּמִ֣י יֹאמַ֔ר מַדּ֖וּעַ עָשִׂ֥יתָה כֵּֽן׃ (יא) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר דָּוִ֤ד אֶל־אֲבִישַׁי֙ וְאֶל־כׇּל־עֲבָדָ֔יו הִנֵּ֥ה בְנִ֛י אֲשֶׁר־יָצָ֥א מִמֵּעַ֖י מְבַקֵּ֣שׁ אֶת־נַפְשִׁ֑י וְאַ֨ף כִּֽי־עַתָּ֜ה בֶּן־הַיְמִינִ֗י הַנִּ֤חוּ לוֹ֙ וִֽיקַלֵּ֔ל כִּ֥י אָמַר־ל֖וֹ יְהֹוָֽה׃ (יב) אוּלַ֛י יִרְאֶ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה [בְּעֵינִ֑י] (בעוני) וְהֵשִׁ֨יב יְהֹוָ֥ה לִי֙ טוֹבָ֔ה תַּ֥חַת קִלְלָת֖וֹ הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃ (יג) וַיֵּ֧לֶךְ דָּוִ֛ד וַאֲנָשָׁ֖יו בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ וְשִׁמְעִ֡י הֹלֵךְ֩ בְּצֵ֨לַע הָהָ֜ר לְעֻמָּת֗וֹ הָלוֹךְ֙ וַיְקַלֵּ֔ל וַיְסַקֵּ֤ל בָּאֲבָנִים֙ לְעֻמָּת֔וֹ וְעִפַּ֖ר בֶּעָפָֽר׃

Shemuel II 16

(5) And king David came to Bahurim and, behold, there came out of there a man from the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera, coming forth and cursing. (6) And he threw stones at David, and at all king David's servants and at all the people and at all the mighty men who were on his right and on his left hand. (7) And so said Shimei in his curse, "Begone, begone, you man of blood, and you wicked man. (8) The Lord has returned upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead you have reigned; and the Lord has given the kingdom into the hands of Absalom your son; and behold you are in your own evil for you are a man of blood.” (9) And Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? let me go over, I beg you, and remove his head.” (10) And the king said, "What is it between me and you, sons of Zeruiah? So let him curse, because the Lord has [surely] said to him, 'Curse David'; who then shall [have the right to] say, 'Why have you done so’?" (11) And David said to Abishai and to all his servants, "Behold my son who came from my body seeks my life; how much more now [that] the Benjamite [should do it]? let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. (12) Perhaps the Lord will see (the tears of) my eye, and the Lord will return to me good instead of his curse on this day.” (13) And David and his men went by the road; and Shimei went along the hillside opposite him, going and cursing and he threw stones toward him, and he threw earth.

A person has two potential responses to being slighted in this world. He can remain focused on the limited sphere of the personal. Or he can opt for a broader perspective, taking into account the larger context of God’s world and wisdom. In the instance of bearing a grudge or taking revenge, he can focus on his interpersonal interactions and stew in his petty emotions. Or his experience can serve as a prompt toward personal investigation. This is exemplified by King David’s response to Shimei ben Geira. Despite being in the midst of an insurrection by his son (or perhaps because of it according to the Abarbanel), he chooses not to respond immediately to the insults directed at him, notwithstanding having the right and the power to do so.

When things in our lives are going wrong or right, there is a tendency to interpret events consistent with our past. There is value in this tendency as it prompts us to reference our previous experience and learn from it. But our interpretations of current events can also be colored by our past. We may inadvertently project certain qualities onto a situation or another person based on this past experience, biasing our interpretation as a result.

When things go well, we take it a sign that God or the universe loves us. When they don’t go well, we feel abandoned and frustrated. These are natural reactions but they are also fairly unsophisticated. There are really only two interpretations in this framework, and neither does justice to the intricate complexities of the world designed and sustained by God.

King David could have merely interpreted someone cursing him as another example of rebellion against his kingdom. He could have had the man killed on the spot. But instead he wondered what he might learn from the situation. Herein lies the litmus test: do we simply use our experiences to reinforce our existing views? Or do we look to new data to expand our perspective? One approach leads to a lifetime of cramming new encounters into our current way of looking at the world. The other approach leads to a life of learning and development.

That’s not to say that one only take a broad perspective and completely ignore the realm of the practical. King David didn’t respond immediately to being insulted. But his final recorded instruction to his son Shlomo was to defend the honor of his kingdom …

Lot - A Study in Mediocrity and Ambivalence Part 2 - Printer Friendly Version

Lot was a member of Avraham’s family. He followed Avraham on his sojourns and adopted his values. But after living in Egypt, something changed. Lot was influenced by Egyptian society, which was technologically advanced, though morally primitive. After they left Egypt, Lot was no longer able to live with Avraham. He separated from his mentor and headed toward Sodom. The Talmud elaborates on this choice:

תלמוד בבלי – נזיר כג:

דרש רבא ואיתימא רבי יצחק מאי דכתיב {משלי י"ח:א'} לתאוה יבקש נפרד ובכל תושיה יתגלע לתאוה יבקש נפרד זה לוט ובכל תושיה יתגלע שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות דתנן עמוני ומואבי אסורין ואיסורן איסור עולם

Talmud Bavli - Nazir 23b

On the same issue, Rava expounded a verse homiletically, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who separates himself seeks his own desire, and snarls against all sound wisdom” (Proverbs 18:1)? “He who separates himself seeks his own desire,” this is Lot, who separated from Abraham. “And snarls [yitgala] against all sound wisdom,” this too describes Lot, as his shame was eventually revealed [nitgala] in the synagogues, when his actions recorded in the Torah are read in public, and in the study halls, where the halakhot of his descendants are taught. As we learned in a mishna: An Ammonite and a Moabite are prohibited from entering the congregation by marrying a Jewish woman, and their prohibition is permanent.

משלי יח:א

לְֽ֭תַאֲוָה יְבַקֵּ֣שׁ נִפְרָ֑ד בְּכׇל־תּ֝וּשִׁיָּ֗ה יִתְגַּלָּֽע׃

He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire, And snarlest against all sound wisdom.

רש"י משלי יח:א

לתאוה יבקש נפרד – מי שנפרד מן הקב"ה שלא לשמר מצותיו לתאות לבו ויצרו הרע הוא רודף וסופו בכל תושיה יתגלע בין החכמים תגלה חרפתו. ורבותינו פירשוהו בלוט שנפרד מאברהם על תאות לבו: ויבחר לו לוט את כל ככר הירדן וגו' (בראשית י"ג:י"א) כל המקרא הזה על שם ניאוף נאמר, וסופו נתגלה קלונו בבתי כניסיות ומדרשות: לא יבא עמוני וגו' (דברים כ"ג:ד').

Rashi on Mishlei 18:1

He who is separated seeks lust He who is separated from the Holy One, blessed be He, not keeping His precepts, pursues the lust of his heart and his evil inclination, and finally... in all sound wisdom, he is exposed Among the wise, his disgrace will be revealed. Our Sages expounded this as referring to Lot, who separated from Abraham because of the lust of his heart, as it is stated (Gen. 13:11): "And Lot chose for himself the entire plain of the Jordan, etc." This whole verse is stated concerning adultery. His end was that his shame was exposed in the synagogues and in the study halls, [when people read] (Deut. 23:4): "Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite may enter [the congregation of the Lord]."

The Talmud applies the verse in Mishlei to Lot, indicating that in his choice to separate from Avraham he was primarily motivated by his desires. He saw the lush plain of the Jordan, and eventually was sucked into the materialistic and immoral society of Sodom.

In Avraham’s household, Lot was exposed to a lifestyle committed to truth, justice, and kindness. It stood in stark contrast with the surrounding culture. Lot accepted Avraham’s principles and tried to follow his lead.

Lot’s experience in Egypt and his newfound wealth awakened a conflict within him. He was deeply influence by Avraham and wanted to stay loyal to his values. However, he also wanted everything the material world offered. He was hopeful he could simultaneously pursue both. But when these pursuits came into conflict, he was forced to make a choice. We see Lot choose to separate from Avraham in Parshat Lech Lecha. In Parshat Vayera, we see the consequences of this choice.

The conflict between Avraham’s values and the materialistic society of Sodom play out in Lot’s actions. He does sustain guests, but only at night out of the watchful eyes of his neighbors. He is willing to stand-up to protect them, but he is willing to give up his daughters to do so. He imitates particulars of Avraham’s actions, but they are devoid of Avraham’s values.

Lot is deeply conflicted about leaving Sodom. When he finally does, he insists that he can no longer live with Avraham. His world is no longer compatible with Avraham’s.

בראשית רבה פרשת וירא פרשה נא:ט

רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא בַּר רַבִּי חִיָּא מִשֵּׁם רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא תֻּרְגְּמָנָא אֵין כָּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת שֶׁאֵין קוֹרִין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁתוֹ שֶׁל לוֹט, מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ (משלי יח, א): בְּכָל תּוּשִׁיָּה יִתְגַּלָּע.

Bereisheet Rabbah 41:9

Rebbe Tanchuma bar Rebbe Chiya in the name of Rebbe Hoshaya the speaker, “Not a week goes by that we do not read the section of Lot.” What is the reason? “In all manner of wisdom he is exposed (Mishlei 18:1)

There is something universal in the story of Lot. While it possible to be steadfast in the Torah’s values and to have material wealth, exemplified by Avraham, sometimes the pursuit of each come into conflict. Avraham was clear about his priorities. He refused to accept even a shoelace from the king of Sodom (Bereisheet 14:22) lest it compromise his ability to teach and pursue justice. Lot tries to make compromises, but ends up with only the empty shell of Avraham’s teachings. His mediocre attempt at maintaining Avraham’s values and eventual ambivalence, lead him toward a path of depravity. Lot is a central character – he is cautionary tale. Sodom’s values of materialism, licentiousness, and corruption stand in contrast to Avraham’s values of truth, kindness, and justice. Lot’s ambivalence and mediocrity stand in contrast to Avraham’s clarity of mission and steadfast commitment.

References

Translation of the Talmud from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), digitized by Sefaria. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/Full/Nazir/23b.1#e0n6

Rashi in English on Mishlei. Translated by A. Cohen, Soncino Press (London, 1945). Retrieved from: https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Mishlei/18.1#e0n6

Lot: A Study in Mediocrity - Part 1 - Printer Friendly Version

Lot features prominently in the life and times of Avraham our forefather. Yet he is not an inspiring character. If Lot was deleted from the narrative, what would be lacking in our picture?

Lot goes through many of the same experiences as Avraham. He leaves his homeland. He sojourns in Egypt. He achieves wealth and success. But Lot’s development seems to have a very different outcome.

בראשית יב:ד

(ד) וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִתּ֖וֹ ל֑וֹט וְאַבְרָ֗ם בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּצֵאת֖וֹ מֵחָרָֽן׃

Bereisheet 12:4

Avram went as Hashem had spoken to him and Lot went with him, and Avram was seventy-five years old when he left Charan.

Shortly after we are introduced to Avraham, we are introduced to Lot. He accompanies Avraham. He is a member of his household. He goes down to Egypt with Avraham. But the experience had a very different effect on him. The Rav comments:

We should not think that all this happened in just a few days…Abraham might have been in Egypt for years…Egypt was the world’s most advanced country, and Abraham was a shepherd. Lot was completely overpowered and overwhelmed by the stupendous Egyptian culture, civilization, and technology. He could not resist the influence of the environment. Abraham could, Sarah could, but Lot couldn’t. Here is the acid test of the Jew: can he resist environmental pressures, can he withstand the impact of a culture that is materially great but morally and ethically very primitive? (Soloveitchik, 2008, p.119)

They left Egypt. Lot came along, maybe he was forced out as well. Avraham went right back to the same place he set up his tent before.

בראשית יג

(א) וַיַּ֩עַל֩ אַבְרָ֨ם מִמִּצְרַ֜יִם ה֠וּא וְאִשְׁתּ֧וֹ וְכׇל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֛וֹ וְל֥וֹט עִמּ֖וֹ הַנֶּֽגְבָּה׃ (ב) וְאַבְרָ֖ם כָּבֵ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד בַּמִּקְנֶ֕ה בַּכֶּ֖סֶף וּבַזָּהָֽב׃ (ג) וַיֵּ֙לֶךְ֙ לְמַסָּעָ֔יו מִנֶּ֖גֶב וְעַד־בֵּֽית־אֵ֑ל עַד־הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר־הָ֨יָה שָׁ֤ם אׇֽהֳלֹה֙ בַּתְּחִלָּ֔ה בֵּ֥ין בֵּֽית־אֵ֖ל וּבֵ֥ין הָעָֽי׃ (ד) אֶל־מְקוֹם֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ אֲשֶׁר־עָ֥שָׂה שָׁ֖ם בָּרִאשֹׁנָ֑ה וַיִּקְרָ֥א שָׁ֛ם אַבְרָ֖ם בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָֽה׃

Bereisheet 13

(1) Avram ascended from Egypt, he, his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, towards the Negev. (2) And Avram was very heavily laden with livestock, with silver, and with gold. (3) He went on his journeys from the Negev until Beit El, to the site where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beit El and Ai, (4) to the site of the altar which he had made there at first; and Avram called there in the name of Hashem.

Avraham was unchanged by his experience in Egypt, by the material wealth and success he achieved. After Mordechai was paraded through the streets by Haman, it says “he returned to the gate of the king” (Esther 6:12). Rashi comments, “he returned to his sackcloth and his fasting” (ibid). A royal parade in his honor changed nothing about Mordechai’s attitude or activities. Like Avraham, he returned to exactly the same spot.

But Lot changed. Not only did he change, but his relationship with Avraham changed. The Torah tells us simply “And Lot, too, who went with Avram” (13:5) using different language than previously describing their relationship (earlier in 12:4). Lot developed a degree of independence from Avraham (see Malbim 13:1). He was now wealthy as well.

בראשית יג

(ה) וְגַ֨ם־לְל֔וֹט הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ אֶת־אַבְרָ֑ם הָיָ֥ה צֹאן־וּבָקָ֖ר וְאֹהָלִֽים׃ (ו) וְלֹא־נָשָׂ֥א אֹתָ֛ם הָאָ֖רֶץ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו כִּֽי־הָיָ֤ה רְכוּשָׁם֙ רָ֔ב וְלֹ֥א יָֽכְל֖וּ לָשֶׁ֥בֶת יַחְדָּֽו׃ (ז) וַֽיְהִי־רִ֗יב בֵּ֚ין רֹעֵ֣י מִקְנֵֽה־אַבְרָ֔ם וּבֵ֖ין רֹעֵ֣י מִקְנֵה־ל֑וֹט וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י אָ֖ז יֹשֵׁ֥ב בָּאָֽרֶץ׃

Bereisheet 13

(5) And Lot, too, who went with Avram, had sheep, cattle, and tents. (6) And the land could not sustain them to dwell together because their possessions were many, and they could not dwell together. (7) There was strife between the herdsmen of Avram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock, and the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land.

The commentators grapple with the strange language describing this episode. It repeats the phrase “to dwell together” twice. It mentions strife between the shepherds, but not the owners. The Rav explains:

No feud, let alone one between people of higher caliber like Abraham and Lot, is precipitated by a shortage of pastureland. If Abraham and Lot wanted, they could have resolved this problem easily without creating a schism. After all, they had money, and they could have bought more pastureland; surely there was enough land for sale. But the trouble was that Abraham and Lot could not dwell together spiritually. Abraham and Lot did not have their old mutual respect and appreciation. There was no harmony between them. (Soloveitchik, 2008, p.122)

The more independence Lot achieved, the more his values drifted. Lot was not a man without values. He faithfully kept Avraham and Sarah’s secret during his stay in Egypt. But while Avraham had the characteristic of holding fast to his values, even in a hostile culture (a characteristic his descendants would share), Lot was deeply influenced by his surroundings. He had an opportunity to continue his life alongside Avraham. But he made a different choice.

בראשית יג

(י) וַיִּשָּׂא־ל֣וֹט אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־כׇּל־כִּכַּ֣ר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן כִּ֥י כֻלָּ֖הּ מַשְׁקֶ֑ה לִפְנֵ֣י׀ שַׁחֵ֣ת יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶת־סְדֹם֙ וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָ֔ה כְּגַן־יְהֹוָה֙ כְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בֹּאֲכָ֖ה צֹֽעַר׃ (יא) וַיִּבְחַר־ל֣וֹ ל֗וֹט אֵ֚ת כׇּל־כִּכַּ֣ר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וַיִּסַּ֥ע ל֖וֹט מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַיִּפָּ֣רְד֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ מֵעַ֥ל אָחִֽיו׃ (יב) אַבְרָ֖ם יָשַׁ֣ב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־כְּנָ֑עַן וְל֗וֹט יָשַׁב֙ בְּעָרֵ֣י הַכִּכָּ֔ר וַיֶּאֱהַ֖ל עַד־סְדֹֽם׃ (יג) וְאַנְשֵׁ֣י סְדֹ֔ם רָעִ֖ים וְחַטָּאִ֑ים לַיהֹוָ֖ה מְאֹֽד׃

Bereisheet 13

(10) Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire Jordan Plain, that all of it was well watered – before Hashem's destruction of Sedom and Amorah – like the garden of Hashem, like the land of Egypt as you come toward Tzo’ar. (11) Lot chose for himself the entire Jordan Plain and Lot traveled eastward, and they separated one from the other. (12) Avram dwelled in the land of Canaan, while Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sedom. (13) Now, the people of Sedom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against Hashem.

References

Soloveitchik, J., Shatz, David, Wolowelsky, Joel B, & Ziegler, Reuven. (2008). Abraham's journey : Reflections on the life of the founding patriarch. Jersey City, NJ: Published for Toras HoRav Foundation by KTAV Pub. House.

https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Bereshit/13.1#e0n6

Wealth and Beauty - Printer Friendly Version

The mishna makes an ostensibly odd comparison between Avraham and Bilam. It identifies 3 opposing qualities possessed by each, and then ascribes them to their respective students. The Rambam helps us understand each of their philosophies and how they are expressed in particular episodes recorded in the Torah.

משנה אבות ה:יט

כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. וּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. עַיִן טוֹבָה, וְרוּחַ נְמוּכָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ שְׁפָלָה, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. עַיִן רָעָה, וְרוּחַ גְּבוֹהָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ רְחָבָה, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. מַה בֵּין תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ לְתַלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, אוֹכְלִין בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְנוֹחֲלִין בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לְהַנְחִיל אֹהֲבַי יֵשׁ וְאֹצְרֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא (משלי ח':כ"א). אֲבָל תַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע יוֹרְשִׁין גֵּיהִנֹּם וְיוֹרְדִין לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאַתָּה אֱלֹהִים תּוֹרִידֵם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת אַנְשֵׁי דָמִים וּמִרְמָה לֹא יֶחֱצוּ יְמֵיהֶם וַאֲנִי אֶבְטַח בָּךְ (תהלים נ”ה:כ”ד).

Pirkei Avot 5:19

"Whoever possesses the following three traits is of the students of our father Abraham, and [whoever possesses] a different three traits is of the students of the wicked Bilaam. [Those who have] a good eye, a humble spirit and a 'lowly' soul [are] of the students of our father Abraham. [Those who have] an evil eye, an arrogant spirit and a desirous soul [are] of the students of the wicked Bilaam. What is the difference between the students of our father Abraham and the wicked Bilaam? The students of our father Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the World to Come, as it is said, 'There is for those who love Me to inherit (in the World to Come), and their storehouses (in this world) I will fill' (Proverbs 8:21). But the students of the wicked Bilaam inherit Gehinnom and descend into the pit of destruction, as it is said, 'And You, God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction, men of blood and deceit [who] will not live half their days. But I will trust in You' (Psalms 55:24).”

The Rambam, in his commentary on Avot, explains each of these terms and provides an illustration.

A “good eye” refers to the quality of contentment. This is illustrated by Avraham’s refusal to accept any payment from the king of Sodom. While Avraham’s primary intent was to rescue his relative Lot, he ended up restoring the kingdom of Sodom. He states:

בראשית יד:כב

אִם־מִחוּט֙ וְעַ֣ד שְׂרֽוֹךְ־נַ֔עַל וְאִם־אֶקַּ֖ח מִכׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹ֣א תֹאמַ֔ר אֲנִ֖י הֶעֱשַׁ֥רְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָֽם׃

Bereisheet 14:22

Not from a thread to a shoelace, I will not take from anything that is yours, lest you say, 'I have made Avram rich.'

Despite a significant financial upside, Avraham refused any spoils from Sodom. But how does this illustrate contentment? And if accepting money is problematic, why did Avraham accept money from the king of Egypt?

Wealth is not inherently evil. It is a resource which has many benefits. But it is merely a means, not an ends. Someone with a “good eye”, the quality of contentment, will not refuse a beneficial financial opportunity. But because he is satisfied with his current state of affairs, the lure of wealth does not blind him or cause him to compromise his values.

There was no reason for Avraham to refuse the financial benefits offered to him by the king of Egypt. But the potential perception of a financial relationship with the crooked community of Sodom would undermine Avraham’s pursuit of teaching justice. He made it clear that he would not accept even the slightest increase in wealth at the expense of his core mission and values.

Bilam in contrast posses the quality of a “bad eye”, never content with what he has, and always wanting more. He was hopeful the king of Moav would increase his wealth in exchange for cursing the Jewish people. Even the donkey could see the path he was on would lead to his own destruction. Despite warnings in many forms, he was completely blinded by the pursuit of money.

According to the Rambam, a “humble spirit” refers to moderation and mastery over one’s base desires. This is illustrated by Avraham’s comment as he descended to Egypt:

בראשית יב:יא

וַיְהִ֕י כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הִקְרִ֖יב לָב֣וֹא מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־שָׂרַ֣י אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ הִנֵּה־נָ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֛י אִשָּׁ֥ה יְפַת־מַרְאֶ֖ה אָֽתְּ

Bereisheet 14:22

When he approached Egypt, he said to his wife, Sarai, "Behold, please, I know that you are a beautiful woman.”

I don’t believe it is necessary to say that Avraham never looked at his wife, as some might suggest. Rather, Avraham never looked at his wife in that way, as an object. Physical beauty was not the basis of their relationship. They had a deep bond based on a shared philosophy, a mutual understanding, and a commitment to a common mission. But as they approached Egypt, it became apparent to Avraham that in this superficial society, Sarah would be viewed only as an object. He never viewed her that way or had seen her in that light previously.

It might be likened to someone growing up on an island, encountering Hollywood for the first time. It would be jarring to see women objectified based solely on their physical appearance. It became apparent to Avraham that Sarah would fit the profile of beauty in the shallow society of Egypt. This example gives us some insight into his philosophy and mastery over his instincts.

This stands in stark contrast to Bilam. He suggested that the women of Midian entice the men of the Jewish people. The Rambam explains that this gives you some insight into Bilam’s philosophy. Only someone who views women as objects could make such a suggestion.

The Rambam defines a “lowly soul” as possessing the quality of humility. When debating with God regarding the fate of Sodom, Avraham acknowledges that he is “but dust and ashes” (Bereisheet 18:27). Bilam by contrast brags and describes himself and “he who hears the word of God” (Bamidbar 24:4,16). Humility is the quality of one who sees himself and his place in the universe accurately, sees how much more there is to learn, and is always gaining and advancing. Arrogance conversely causes one’s development to stagnate.

This mishna ascribes these qualities to the students of Avraham and the students of Bilam. It is indicating that these qualities do not merely reflect a static disposition, but lead towards a particular path. Contentment, restraint, and humility, result in compounding benefits in the realm of the practical and with regard to a person’s ultimate development.

Thirsting for Knowledge - Avot 1:4 - Printer Friendly Version

This mishna offers some practical advice about interacting with and learning from our sages, teachers, and role models.

משנה כתב יד קאופמן אבות א:ד

יוֹסֵה בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה, וְיוֹסֵה בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. יוֹסֵה בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה אוֹמֵר: יְהִי בֵיתָךְ בֵּית וַעַד לַחֲכָמִים, וֶהֱוֵי מִתְאַבֵּק בַּעֲפַר רַגְלֵיהֶם, וְשׁוֹתֶה בְצִמְאָה אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם

Yossei ben Yoezer of Tzreida says: make your house the meeting place of the sages, and stick to the dust of their feet, and drink their words thirstily.

The Sforno interprets the first clause as making your home wherever the sages meet. Whether interpreted as opening your home to sages, or making your primary residence the study hall, the first clause prompts us to pursue as much contact with the sages as possible.

The dust of their feet might refer to the tangential or ancillary points made by the sages. These side points nonetheless can be instructive. As the Gemara states:

תלמוד בבלי – עבודה זרה יט עמוד ב

שאפילו שיחת חולין של תלמידי חכמים צריכה תלמוד

Even the mundane discussions of the scholars requires study

Though these ancillary points can provide great value, they are not the essence. One should not lose sight of the primary instruction provided by the sages. Their formal presentations and words of Torah should be consumed thirstily, like the lifeline that they are. Every detail should be pursued, analyzed, and reflected upon, down to the last drop.

Towers of Insecurity - Printer Friendly Version

The Talmud delves into the psychology of the generation of the dispersion. It offers an in-depth perspective on how man confronts his fears. Some approaches are more adaptive than others.

תלמוד בבלי – סנהדרין קט עמוד א

דור הפלגה אין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו'. מאי עבוד אמרי דבי רבי שילא נבנה מגדל ונעלה לרקיע ונכה אותו בקרדומות כדי שיזובו מימיו מחכו עלה במערבא א"כ ליבנו אחד בטורא. (אלא) א"ר ירמיה בר אלעזר נחלקו לג' כיתות אחת אומרת נעלה ונשב שם ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודה זרה ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה זו שאומרת נעלה ונשב שם הפיצם ה' וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה נעשו קופים ורוחות ושידים ולילין וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודה זרה {בראשית י"א:ט'} כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ.

Talmud Bavli – Sanhedrin 109a

The mishna teaches that the members of the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: What sin did they perform? Their sin is not explicitly delineated in the Torah. The school of Rabbi Sheila say that the builders of the Tower of Babel said: We will build a tower and ascend to heaven, and we will strike it with axes so that its waters will flow. They laughed at this explanation in the West, Eretz Yisrael, and asked: If that was their objective, let them build a tower on a mountain; why did they build it specifically in a valley (see Genesis 11:2)? Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Elazar says: They divided into three factions; one said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and dwell there. And one said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and engage in idol worship. And one said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and wage war. With regard to that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and dwell there, God dispersed them. And that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and wage war, became apes, and spirits, and demons, and female demons. And with regard to that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and engage in idol wor-ship, it is written: “Because there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). (Davidson translation)

The generation of the dispersion immediately followed the generation of the flood. One need not be Sigmund Freud to see they were responding to a sense of insecurity following the annihilation of human life on earth. The sages discuss different approaches to interpreting their actions.

The first approach offered by the school of Rebbe Sheila suggests the generation of the dispersion responded to the flood by trying to control nature. They built a tower to give them mastery over the heavens and the rain. Their erroneous attempt at security aimed to deny God’s ultimate control over the world. It may be hard to accept, but if Hashem wishes to destroy the world, there is nothing that man can do about it.

The sages of the west laughed at this approach. If one wants to interpret their actions in such practical terms, they should have built the tower on the top of a mountain, not in a valley. The actions of the generation of the dispersal must be interpreted in psychological terms. Rebbe Yirmiya subdivides the intentions of this generation into three groups.

The first group wanted to live at the top of the tower. They wished to distance themselves from the challenges of reality on earth. Sometimes a different view can lead to a new perspective. The view from a plane could bring about a sense of humility, to see humanity and nature at a different scale. But this skyscraper was not built out of humility, but out of a desire to escape the insecurities of life on earth. Hashem’s response was וּמִשָּׁם הֱפִיצָם י״י עַל פְּנֵי כׇּל הָאָרֶץ – from there He scattered them on the face of the entire earth. They were returned to the “face” of the land, forcing them to encounter and face the natural insecurities of the human condition. This would be healthier for their development.

The second group wanted to worship idols at the top of the tower. Why go through all the trouble of building a tower to worship idols? Why not worship idols on the ground?

Idol worship is always a primitive outlet born out of a desire for control. A sacrifice or offering is made to this or that god in order to bring about rain or sun, to secure something one fears is out of one’s control. It is a form of escape from the hard work, challenges, and insecurity accompanying the avenues for progress available to us. It assumes the rules of reality are patterned after our own making, as opposed to recognizing that within certain limits we can indeed dictate certain aspects of our own reality.

A large tower gives significance to otherwise ephemeral activities. An imposing cathedral gives apparent weightiness to the activities being conducted inside. The edifice signals the importance of the enterprise. Judaism never took this approach to the worship of the heart. As the Rav stated, “Many halakhic scholars insisted upon the utmost simplicity of the synagogue, and disapproved of elaborate ornaments in general” (Soloveitchik, 2005, p.6). Our houses of worship are simple and straightforward. It is the content of our prayers and the reading of the Torah that must be awe-inspiring.

Interpersonal communication can be an avenue toward shared meaning. We can draw each other’s attention to new ideas and perspectives, new heights that we might not reach independently. We can create a community that mutually reinforces shared values. But if our community structures draw us away from reality, they undermine the purpose of a social community. The response from Hashem was that social community of the generation of the dispersion was disrupted so that they could no longer understand one another. They would not complete a community structure designed to corrupt the community and lead it astray.

The third group wanted to use the tower to “make war”. They would use the tower for strategic advantage in order to conquer and dominate. They responded to the sense of insecurity brought about by the flood by pursuing a relative sense of security. They may not be able to control nature, but they could conquer and control others, putting them in a relatively better position than their fellow man. This is a form of denying the natural insecurity of the human condition through distraction, focusing on creating a sense of security and superiority relative to other people.

Man did not evolve to merely dominate his fellow in the manner which one group of animals competes and dominates over another. If this is how the generation would use their uniquely human capabilities, Hashem took them a step back in evolution, returning them to the animal kingdom or turning them into sub-human beings or forces (see Rashi for an explanation of the different spirits and demons). If man pursues power over others as a way to escape his own insecurity, he is to be dethroned and displaced from his position of dominion and strength.

אמר רבי יוחנן מגדל שליש נשרף שליש נבלע שליש קיים

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The uppermost third of the tower was burned, the lowermost third of the tower was swallowed into the earth, and the middle third remained intact.

The halakhic approach to objects of idol worship is that they are burned. Hashem responded to Korach’s desire for power over others by having the ground swallow him up. Both the primitive and the lust for power must be obliterated. Man’s desire to distance himself from the challenges of reality is understandable. He can be rehabilitated from this response to insecurity. One third of the tower remained intact (this interpretation is based on the Maharsha).

אמר רב אויר מגדל משכח אמר רב יוסף בבל ובורסיף סימן רע לתורה מאי בורסיף אמר ר' אסי בור שאפי.

Rav says: The atmosphere of the tower causes forgetfulness; anyone who goes there forgets what he has learned. As a result of the building of the tower, forgetting was introduced into the world. Rav Yosef says: Babylonia and the adjacent place, Bursif, are each a bad omen for Tora…

Printer Friendly Version

The Tower of Babel episode is both strange and compelling. The entire story is contained in 9 verses at the beginning of chapter 11. The following analysis and expansion is based closely on the comments of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary on the Torah. His approach to interpreting this episode has striking similarities to our own society.

וַֽיְהִ֥י כׇל־הָאָ֖רֶץ שָׂפָ֣ה אֶחָ֑ת וּדְבָרִ֖ים אֲחָדִֽים׃

The entire world was one language and one speech.

There was a time in human history, after the flood, when all of humanity shared a common language and common objectives.

וַֽיְהִ֖י בְּנׇסְעָ֣ם מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַֽיִּמְצְא֥וּ בִקְעָ֛ה בְּאֶ֥רֶץ שִׁנְעָ֖ר וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃

When they travelled from the East, they found a valley in the land of Shinar and they dwelled there.

They left the methods and mores of the previous society behind and established a new community.

וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר׃

They said one to the other, "Come, let us bake bricks and fire them in a furnace." The brick served them as stone and the tar served them as mortar.

They experienced a technological revolution. Previously, the could only build where there was available stone, which they would bond together with mortar. But they discovered that by firing mortar they could make bricks.

Why does the Torah detail the types of bricks they used to construct the building? There were at least two notable outcomes from this new technology. They could now build wherever they pleased, not limited by the natural resources of a particular geography. And the materials used for construction were man-made, the work of their own initiative and ingenuity. Man could surround himself with the work of his hands.

וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city and a tower, with its top in the heavens. And we will make for ourselves a name, lest we disperse over the face of all the earth."

They decided to use these new capabilities to aggrandize the human community. The technological innovations were not inherently bad. But when the only objective was נעשה לנו שם –to “make for ourselves a name,” the impact on society was indeed destructive. They became mesmerized and infatuated with their own technological prowess.

וַיֵּ֣רֶד יְהֹוָ֔ה לִרְאֹ֥ת אֶת־הָעִ֖יר וְאֶת־הַמִּגְדָּ֑ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּנ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י הָאָדָֽם׃

Hashem went down to see the city and the tower that the people had built.

God went to see, so to speak, before passing judgment. Technology is not bad, but its impact depends on the objective for which it is used. The society’s technical advancement became an ends in itself. If a person was killed, little attention was paid. But if a brick was lost, they mourned the loss in efficiency (Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer, 24).

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֗ה הֵ֣ן עַ֤ם אֶחָד֙ וְשָׂפָ֤ה אַחַת֙ לְכֻלָּ֔ם וְזֶ֖ה הַחִלָּ֣ם לַעֲשׂ֑וֹת וְעַתָּה֙ לֹֽא־יִבָּצֵ֣ר מֵהֶ֔ם כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָזְמ֖וּ לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת׃

Hashem said, "Behold, they are one people with one language for all, and this is what they have begun to do! Now, nothing will bar them from all they have plotted to do.

Here they are a collaborative and coordinated society, experiencing a revolution in technology that could improve the lives of individuals, and this is what they use it for? וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר — the means for them became an ends.

הָ֚בָה נֵֽרְדָ֔ה וְנָבְלָ֥ה שָׁ֖ם שְׂפָתָ֑ם אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפַ֥ת רֵעֵֽהוּ׃

Let us go down, and their language will wither away there, such that they will not be able to understand the language of their fellow.

Ibn Ezra and Rav Hirsch explain that God did not need to intervene. The path that this society was taking would naturally lead to divisiveness. A society that represses the uniqueness of the individual will naturally encounter resistance. While they shared a common language in form to begin with, the meanings of phrases would change for different groups. Over time individuals would no longer be able to communicate with one another.

וַיָּ֨פֶץ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֹתָ֛ם מִשָּׁ֖ם עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כׇל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיַּחְדְּל֖וּ לִבְנֹ֥ת הָעִֽיר׃

Hashem dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth and they stopped building the city.

The society was dispersed and the project came to a halt.

עַל־כֵּ֞ן קָרָ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ בָּבֶ֔ל כִּי־שָׁ֛ם בָּלַ֥ל יְהֹוָ֖ה שְׂפַ֣ת כׇּל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וּמִשָּׁם֙ הֱפִיצָ֣ם יְהֹוָ֔ה עַל־פְּנֵ֖י כׇּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Therefore, it was named Bavel, because there Hashem mixed up the languages of all the earth and from there Hashem dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

This was a critical juncture in the history of man that underscores the differences across humanity to this day. It is not just differences in language. Underlying these are different ways of interpreting and relating to the world. It makes it difficult for us to communicate and collaborate effectively across cultures.

With eerie accuracy, Rav Hirsch predicts elements of our current situation. We have experienced revolutions in technology. These provide us with incredible means to further the development and advancement of individual human beings. But instead of focusing on how technology can be leveraged to benefit the individual, technology is worshipped as an ends in itself. It is harnessed to subjugate the individual to the larger enterprise.

Our modern technology offers incredible opportunities for collaboration and communication. It can provide a profound benefit to humanity when in it is utilized to further individual development. But sadly it can also be used merely to נעשה לנו שם —make a name for ourselves. This undermines and destroys the bonds of human society, instead of furthering connection and leveraging our shared efforts to advance our common goals.

Printer-friendly Version

After recounting the dramatic creation of the world and man’s dismissal from the garden, the Torah records the tragic story of Kayin and Hevel.

בראשית ד

(ג) וַֽיְהִ֖י מִקֵּ֣ץ יָמִ֑ים וַיָּבֵ֨א קַ֜יִן מִפְּרִ֧י הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה מִנְחָ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה׃ (ד) וְהֶ֨בֶל הֵבִ֥יא גַם־ה֛וּא מִבְּכֹר֥וֹת צֹאנ֖וֹ וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן וַיִּ֣שַׁע יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־הֶ֖בֶל וְאֶל־מִנְחָתֽוֹ׃ (ה) וְאֶל־קַ֥יִן וְאֶל־מִנְחָת֖וֹ לֹ֣א שָׁעָ֑ה וַיִּ֤חַר לְקַ֙יִן֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ פָּנָֽיו׃

(3) After some time, Kayin brought an offering to Hashem from the fruit of the ground. (4) Hevel, too, brought from the firstlings of his flock and the fattest. Hashem looked favorably on Hevel and his offering, (5) but on Kayin and his offering, He did not look favorably. Kayin was very angry and his face fell.

Hevel and Kayin both bring offerings. God favors Hevel’s offering and a few verses later we read:

(ח) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קׇם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃

(8) Kayin said to his brother Hevel––.12 While they were in the field, Kayin rose up against his brother Hevel and killed him.

The takeaway from the story is often assumed to be lesson about the pitfalls of jealousy. But there are two verses in between Kayin’s depression and the murder of his brother that tell us another facet of the story.

What may sometimes be glossed over is a very important link in this chain of events. God approaches Kayin and intercedes, giving him a message, outlining for him what the רד׳׳ק calls the method of Teshuva for generations to come.

רד"ק בראשית ד:ו

ויאמר י"י – היה הדבור עמו כדי ליסרו ולהשיבו למוטב וללמדו דרך תשובה לו ולדורות הבאים כי החוטא יש לו כפרה אם ישוב בתשובה שלימה.

'ויאמר ה, the reason that God addressed him was in order to discipline him and to bring him back to a lifestyle that would endear him to God. He wanted to teach him how to repent, something of the utmost importance for subsequent generations. He taught him that there is atonement for sinners if their repentance is 100% sincere.

Here is God’s message:

(ו) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־קָ֑יִן לָ֚מָּה חָ֣רָה לָ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה נָפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ׃ (ז) הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשׇׁל־בּֽוֹ׃

(6) Hashem said to Kayin, "Why are you angry and why has your face fallen? (7) If you improve, will you not be uplifted? But if you do not improve, sin is crouching at the entrance; for you it lusts, but you may rule over it.

Onkelos adds some additional elements:

(ו) וַאֲמַר יְיָ לְקָיִן לְמָא תְּקֵיף לָךְ וּלְמָא אִתְכְּבִישׁוּ אַפָּךְ. (ז) הֲלָא אִם תּוֹטֵיב עוּבָדָךְ יִשְׁתְּבֵיק לָךְ וְאִם לָא תוֹטֵיב עוּבָדָךְ לְיוֹם דִּינָא חֶטְאָךְ נְטִיר עֲתִיד לְאִתְפְּרָעָא מִנָּךְ אִם לָא תְּתוּב וְאִם תְּתוּב יִשְׁתְּבֵיק לָךְ.

And Hashem said to Kayin, why are you so upset and why are you downcast? Is it not so that if you improve your ways you will be forgiven? And if you you do not improve your ways, your mistake will be kept until the day of judgment and punishment will be exacted if you do not return, but if you do return it will be forgiven for you.

The content of God’s message to Kayin is the first exhortation of Teshuva, often translated as return or repentance. If we improve in response to our mistakes, then we will be uplifted. If we do not improve, our mistakes will multiply. Even though our mistakes have the potential to trip us up, we can overcome them.

The Baltimore Ravens' defense is one of the best in recent history, and they still hold the single season record for the lowest points allowed per game. The old mantra of the Ravens' defense was "Bend Don't Break". While it technically refers to a 2-deep-safety or Tampa 2 coverage pattern, it also refers to a mentality. It's impossible to avoid making mistakes. But how we respond to those mistakes is paramount. One mistake is not usually what costs you the game. Letting one mistake turn into another and failing to adjust is what ultimately loses the game.

This idea is at the root of the first murder in history. While one might casually explain that Kayin killed Hevel because God paid attention to Hevel’s offering and not his, this is an oversimplification of the story. God paid plenty of attention to Kayin, giving him a personal message, outlining for him how he could correct his error. He ended up ignoring this message, and falling into a situation he later describes as גדול עוני מנשוא, a mistake that really is too much to bear.

The story of Kayin and Hevel is not just about jealousy. A careful read shows a different and fundamental message. Our mistakes do not define us. But how we respond to them does.

Printer Friendly Version

We are approaching the homestretch, the final 2 days of this string of holidays. Each holiday has it's own personality, it's own concepts and ideas, it's own קדושת היום Kedushat Hayom –distinctive holiness. Though it might seem similar, שמיני עצרת Shemini Atzeret –the 8th day is not part of the holiday of sukkot. As we see reflected in the formulation of our prayer services, it is no longer חג הסוכות Chag HaSukkot –the holiday of sukkot but יום שמיני חג העצרת הזה –the 8th day the holiday of Atzeret. It is a different holiday, and it too has it's own unique identity. But this identity is hard to pinpoint. We have no mitzvah like Matzah or Lulav to guide us. What is the identity, the קדושת היום -distinctive holiness, and the meaning of עצרת Atzeret?

The Torah in פרשת אמור has a brief description:

ויקרא כג:לו

שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּקְרִיבוּ אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק עֲצֶרֶת הִוא כָּל־מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ

Seven days you will bring an offering to God, and on the 8th day it will be a distinctive holiday for you, and you will be an offering to God. It is an Atzeret, all work you will not do.

The word עצרת Atzeret is probably best translated as a pause. Rashi (based on the מדרש רבה) helps us understand this further:

 רש"י ויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כג:לו

עצרת הוא - עצרתי אתכם אצלי כמלך שזימן את בניו לסעודה לכך וכך ימים, כיון שהגיע זמנן להפטר אמר בני בבקשה מכם, עכבו עמי עוד יום אחד, קשה עלי פרידתכם

It is a pause - I stopped you while you were with me, like a king that invites his children to a mean for a specified amount of time. Once they reached the time for them to depart, he said, “my children, I ask you to please stay with me one more day. Your departure is difficult for me.

What is this analogy with a king and his sons? What relevance does this have to understanding the holiday of Shemini Atzeret?

I would like to attempt to translate an aspect of Rashi's משל –parable into a slightly more modern analogy:

Imagine taking a weeklong vacation somewhere remote. After spending a week in a new place, developing new routines, engaging in new activities, it’s almost like you’re a different person. You’re reading more, taking the time to savor your morning cup of coffee, you’re enjoying different aspects of life than usual. It’s finally time to go, and you’re a bit conflicted about getting back to the daily routine. As you begin to pack up, you stop. You pause, look around, reflect on the wonderful time you have had. Almost on whim, you make the decision to spend one more day on vacation. Not to do anything in particular, you don’t plan any specific activities, but just to spend one more day in vacation mode, to crystalize the experience, and internalize it, before you return to the hustle and bustle of every day life. Perhaps even to try and take some of it with you.

This is the idea of עצרת Atzeret, taking a pause. Taking extra time to savor the moment, to take it all in. It’s been an intense few weeks. Experientially, probably the most intense period of the Jewish calendar. We’ve hopefully gained new insight, emerged as new people, had an opportunity to rejoice in our renewed relationship with Torah and God. Indeed it is a privilege to have a moment to step back, push day-to-day life back for one last moment, and rejoice and delight in this wonderful day.

That may be the meaning of Rashi's parable. God is the King, and we've had a unique opportunity to spend time these last weeks לפני השם Lifnei Hashem –before God, with God's presence closer than usual, playing a more prominent in our lives. It is the special ideas, concepts, and experiences of these special days that are still in our minds eye. Part of שמיני עצרת Shemini Atzeret –a pause on the 8th day, is about taking a moment to reflect on these ideas and experiences while they are fresh in our mind, with the hope that we can bring some of this with us into our year ahead.

Printer Friendly Version

הֲבֵ֤ל הֲבָלִים֙ אָמַ֣ר קֹהֶ֔לֶת הֲבֵ֥ל הֲבָלִ֖ים הַכֹּ֥ל הָֽבֶל -קהלת א:ב

Vanity of vanities said Kohelet, vanity of vanities everything is vanity. -Kohelet 1:2

The Ramban asks, how could King Solomon, call the world הבל hevel –vanity, a breathe of air, when Moshe’s Torah calls the world טוב Tov –good and even טוב מאד Tov Meod –very good?

The Ramban explains that physical world is made up of matter which is configured in certain forms. Translated into our modern physics, we see a table which appears to us as stable. However, it is actually made up of atoms and molecules that are far from static. They are in a temporary configuration that gives the illusion of being solid.

According to the Ramban, when King Solomon says הבל הבלים –vanity of vanities, he is not calling the work of creation worthless. Rather, he is highlighting that the permanence we ascribe to the physical objects around us is false. Everything tangible in our world is like a breath of air, temporary and fleeting.

ולכן אמר שלמה כי פרטי העולם, כל הגופות, כגון האדם וכל בעלי חיים והצמחים הם עוברים ונפסדים וחוזרים מהר אל יסודם, כהבל היוצא מן האדם (דף קפה).

It is for this reason that Solomon said that the individual things in the world—all material bodies such as those of men, all living creatures, and plants—are transitory and destructible, and they will [ultimately] resolve into their elements just as the breath that comes out of a person’s mouth (p.316).

This realization results in a shift in perspective. Many of our life pursuits are predicated on the permanence of our acquisitions. Whether it be wealth, power, or prestige, we ascribe significance to these material achievements, expecting them to endure. The short-lived nature of these accomplishments is incongruent with how we generally relate to them.

אבל הוא צווי, יצוה האדם שיהביל את ההבלים, ולא יעשם עיקר במחשבתו, ולא יחשוב שיוכל להעמידם הרבה.

Rather, it expresses a command; Solomon bids man to nullify the vanities [of the world] and neither make them a mainstay of his thoughts nor think that he can give much substance to them.

(The expression הבל הבלים thus means “Nullify the vanities.” In other words, depart from them and render them ineffectual insofar as your life and character are concerned -Chavel, p.316-7)

This perspective has practical import for how we relate to objects in our lives. The same object can have very different roles in our mind. A car can be a mode of transportation, but it can also be status symbol, signaling to ourselves and to others our value and experience of wealth and luxury. Looking at a car through the lens of Kohelet, we are reminded that this object which is assigned so much significance will one day be withering away in a junkyard.

King Solomon’s statement, according to the Ramban, is a directive. We should not let those things which are only temporary take on an importance that is out of scale. We are called upon to internalize the temporary nature of our surroundings and reorient towards what is ultimately valuable.

הֲבֵ֤ל הֲבָלִים֙ אָמַ֣ר קֹהֶ֔לֶת הֲבֵ֥ל הֲבָלִ֖ים הַכֹּ֥ל הָֽבֶל -קהלת א:ב

Nullify the vanities said Kohelet. Nullify the vanities, for everything is temporary. -Kohelet 1:2