"Havolim" as used in the title is not meant חלילה to deprecate or disparage. See, e.g., the name of the website. It is a reference to
אין העולם מתקיים אלא בשביל הבל תינוקות של בית רבן, א"ל רב פפא לאביי דידי ודידך מאי, א"ל אינו דומה הבל שיש בו חטא להבל שאין בו חטא.
But l'maiseh, you'll see why I'm posting this here, and not on my other website.
1. Rav Galinsky here in his sefer talks of an experience he had when he travelled to collect all over the world. He once stayed at a fine man's house, a baal tzedaka, and he told him a vort. It was not meant as a criticism, it was just in response to something the man had said.
He began by saying that although we have tremendous potential, and every man should say "when can I be like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov," we also have terrible middos which are part of what it means to be human, and we have to constantly be on guard against them, and not be meyayeish if we have that feeling or thought. You just have to realize this is part of what it means to be a mixture of Heaven and Earth, and you should anticipate it, and face it, and overcome it.
He said that he once heard from Harav Chatzkel Levenstein on the topic, who said that every middah can be used in Avodas Hashem in some form. The Alter from Kelm said that this is why they're called middos. Middah means measure. Every middah, what we call good and what we call bad, is vitally important, but only in the right dose. 500 years ago, the Swiss physician and chemist Paracelsus expressed the basic principle of toxicology: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.” This is often condensed to: “The dose makes the poison.” Anivus and rachamim can be deadly (ענוונותו של זכריה בן אבקילוס), and gaiva and achzariyus can be vitally important.
Rav Galinsky asked Reb Chatzkel, how can we possibly use the middah of "ולא תסורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם," the middos of Kefira? Reb Chatzkel famously answered that when a person is faced with a terrible challenge, he must have bitachon. When a person earns a living, he must have b)itachon. But if a poor person comes to you, or someone that doesn't have a job and can't earn a living, comes to you for help, do not tell him to have bitachon. That should not be what you say, and it should not be how you feel. You should feel that if you don't help him, he will be hungry and he will suffer. That was one of my all time favorite New Yorker cartoons:
Rav Galinsky's host told him that they, Chasidim, had exactly the same idea, expressed differently. Someone came to the Baal Shem in terrible distress, saying that the army was going to quarter a soldier in every person's house. The concerns of kashrus, drunkeness, having women in the house, are self evident. It so happened that the Baal Shem's talmid was in the house, Reb Nachum of Horodna, or something like that, and he said, "Gam zu l'tova." The Baal Shem retorted "It is a good thing that you did not live at the time of Haman, because instead of eitzos and taanis and tefilla, you would have just said "Gam zu l'tova.""
(I heard this in the name of Reb Meir Simcha. At a kneisiah, the gedolim discussed all the terrible dangers facing the community, and one person said אין לנו להשען אלא על אבינו שבשמים. Reb Meir Simcha said that now he understands why that expression is in the Mishna that speaks of the terrible events of ikvesa d'meshicha. This, too is one of the terrible events, that the gedolim will throw their hands up in the air and say oy, אין לנו etc.)
The host then continued and said that he heard someone apply this to a passuk in our parsha, in Beshalach. It says ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם ולא נחם. The lesson is that when the tzibbur is faced with a crisis, you had better not act like נחום איש גמזו, that is not the time to say גם זו לטובה. That is pshat in the passuk. When it comes to את העם, when the tzibbur is facing hardships, then לא נחם, it is not the time for Nachum, it is not the time for pieties like gam zu l'tovah.
2. When I said this to my friend, he responded with a famous story.
Reb Nachum the Darshan was chastising the community. As is often the case when the mussar is needed, his criticism offended some of the listeners. The insulted Baalei Batim got up in protest,shaking their fists at the Rov and one of them cried out "Who are you to criticise us? You're not God, לא נחם אלקים!" The Rov immediately responded,
"דרך ארץ, פלשתים!!"
Ok, then, now that I've taken care of this, I can go shopping for fruit for Tu biShvat and bird seed for Parshas Shira. I have my priorities straight.
UPDATE WITH EXCELLENT MM FROM ר' בוקספאן, from R Yaakov Yosef
14 comments:
Both great! But while number 2 is havel havolim, number 1 may be just hevel.
Did you add that explanation about the title after I left my comment? No offense, but while I love that last joke, I don't think there's a "chalila" in calling it havel havolim. I was well aware of the intended meaning of havolim and I was kind of hoping that in this case, you had also intended the double meaning.
Yes, everything you said is correct, including that I added the explanation after you left the comment. The internet, even the corners that are as self selecting as this, is a strange place. I've written obvious sarcasm and gotten reactions ranging from "Yes, finally I've found someone that knows what's going on!" to "and you call yourself a Rabbi?" So you can never be too careful. This was once an anonymous blog, but after all my children got married I began writing my name, and now my grandchildren are starting to go out..... I'm just hoping that an eccentric grandfather is not too big of a chisaron. I love the second one, too. דרך ארץ, פלישטים!
If I understand you correctly, part of what you're saying is that when a person gives tzedakah, this is a very small measure of kefirah, because if the person being asked to give tzedakah had perfect emunah/bitachon and not even a small measure of kefirah, then he wouldn't give tzedakah but would rely completely on Hashem to provide the poor man with what he needs.
Lichorah this doesn't hold water though, for the simple reason that it is a mitzvah to give tzedakah and it is an aveirah to have kefirah, even in the smallest measure. So there must be a way to give tzedakah without needing to have any small measure of kefirah in order to do so, and that is simply to believe that you are only Hashem's instrument in providing the poor man with his needs, and deserve no credit of your own.
Although I agree with your overall point regarding proper measures of "character trait" middos such as anger, arrogance, etc., I would suggest that when it comes to a לא תעשה in the Torah (such as kefirah), there is no such thing as "good in proper dosage" or "incorporating it into avodas Hashem". These things are here in order to be overcome and negated, not in order to be accepted and incorporated in proper dosages.
If you were being tongue-in-cheek about the entire point, then I withdraw my comment.
Your point about kefirah is very strong. It's from Reb Chatzkel, not me, and it's been said by others as well. By the way, Reb Chatzkel and my grandfather, R Akiva Berlin, used to review the Alter's shmuessen together in Kelm. I enjoy reminding the Ginsberg brothers that we're grandchildren of chavrusos. Anyway, I have to think about your point - obviously it's not "a little kefirah." It must be an avoidance of emunah.
Look at what the Ben Ish Chai in sefer Benayahu, on the gemara (brachos 60b) says in the name of the Besht about the chiluk between Nachum's gam zu and R' Akiva's (who, incidentally was a talmid of NIGZ) kol d'avid rachmana . Lulei d'mistafina, unlike the Ben Ish Chai's understanding, I would venture to say that R' Akiva was living in a world of the future yediah that all is letovah (many many rayos to this). In this world, where we say dayan ha'emes, we only should be modeh al kol midda umidda, and thereby show our recognition of the ultimate tova which we cant yet understand, for ourselves and not for others. That is the "kefira" here, of the emuna of hatov vihameitiv of the future.
What you're saying reminds me of the schism among the achronim on how to read
כשם שמברכים על הטוב כך מברכים על הרע
whether that means with simcha. Believe it or not, there are those that say that it has to be with simcha. Others say that the כשם does not entail emotional equivalence. The truth must lie between, that intellectual faith does not have to translate to emotion. If we are expected to accept contradictory perspectives, then nothing is really kfirah.
I know nothing about this, but are there actually achronim who interpret Rava on 60b there in brachos who says "likvulinhu b'simcha" in a lav davka way?
Regarding the Etzem zug from Rav Chatzakal that there is a place for Kefira in the mitzva of tzedaka, you must see the marvelous pshat From Rav Yaakov Yosef (of Vilna andd New York fame) where he explains the passuk Ashrei Maskil El Dal in just such a way. That the one time to be an enlightened man of science that does not rely on miracles, i.e. a Maskil, is when it pertains to a Dal, a poor person. There is much more that he says and though I have not recently updated my list it is most definitely on my top ten of verter.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34762&st=&pgnum=110
Am a little lazy and did not check the Ben Yehoyuda but I heard from Rav Kreisworth in 1975 at the pesicha of the Lakewood Kollel in Los Angeles the following chiluk between NIGZ and his Talmid Rabbi Akiva.
Nachum the Rebbe was no doubt on a higher level. He was able to identify and tap-un precisely what was good in the tragedy. He could say definitively, Gam Zu L`Tovah -This Is For Good.
Rabbi Akiva, on a lower level, could not identify the what and why that made it good but knew that from Hashem there can be no bad. Hence he b`klolous said, All that The Merciful One does is for good, Yet he could not top-un and shpeer what it precisely may have been.
While the amazing Rav Kreisworth spoke for near three hours (the olam of baalei battim and lomdim were mostly going crazy) those are the only words that I remember or even understood.
R Avrohm, that vort from R Yakov Yosef is BRILLIANT. Occasionaly I come across something my father zatzal would like, and he had very. high. standards. Only rarely would he say that something is "karov to emes." This, he would like.
With regard to the etzem idea of "kefirah" having a place in the mitzvah of tzedaka, it doesn't seem that the vort from Rav Yaakov Yosef adds anything to the idea expressed in the original post, except to use the idea to create a highly original interpretation of the word "maskil" (interpreting it to mean a lack of bitachon in Hashem) in the possuk in Tehillim 41:2. As to the etzem vort, it seems to me (as I mentioned in my comment above), that no amount of "kefirah" should ever be considered the recommended approach, let alone ideal. Instead, in the same way in which an individual's own efforts to make a keli to receive Hashem's bracha of parnasah for himself do not contradict that individual's emunah that all goodness comes from Hashem and the bitachon that he trusts in Hashem to provide all of his needs - in the same manner, there is no contradiction between giving tzedaka with generosity, alacrity and diligence, and at the same time having the same emunah and the same bitachon on behalf of the recipient of the tzedaka that one gives. Thus, the choice between "telling the poor person to have bitachon" versus "giving him tzedakah generously" is a false dichotomy. Ideally, it seems to me, the giver should encourage the poor person to have bitachon WHILE giving him generously, and reassuring him that he (the giver) is no more than Hashem's instrument in providing for his (the poor person's) needs.
I agree with you, and that's why I'm struggling to find a way to explain the idea. Maybe the idea is that while we believe absolutely, and are willing to live and die for those beliefs, there is a side of us that is not 100% convinced, and we need to give that side free rein. I don't know. Of course you're right. But remember what Menashe said to Rav Ashi when he called him מנשה חברין on 120b. You can be the greatest talmid chacham and maamin and still have a shemetz avoda zara somewhere inside. But maybe you should bury it and never ever admit it. I don't know. I'm still working on it.
Well, perhaps we can say as follows. While it's true that even the greatest may still have a "shemetz avodah zara," it's also true that we don't hold up that "shemetz avodah zara" as the ideal to which we should all aspire. On the other hand, for those wealthy individuals who may be holding by not giving tzedaka at all, perhaps the first step is to get them to give, even if it means encouraging them to do so in a way of "כחי ועוצם ידי" and not in an ideal manner of bitachon. So perhaps the vort is applicable on some level, for those who don't give. But later, once they have reached a higher level and are accustomed to giving, they can be taught to give generously AND in a manner of bitachon too (which is the ideal manner)
Post a Comment