JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Tetzaveh

PARSHAT TETZAVEH – THE RISK FACTOR OF SUCCESS

Parshat Tetzaveh deals primarily with the special clothing that the kohanim (priests) wore when serving in the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and later in the Temple. Referring to the kohanim, the phrase “Vzeh hadavar,” is used (29:1). Translated literally, the words mean “This is the thing” or “This is the word.”
The Midrash presents several different interpretations of this phrase. One explanation is that “word” refers to words of prayer. Specifically, it alludes to the incident when the Jews worshiped the Golden Calf and were saved by the prayers of Moshe (Moses). Among those saved by Moshe’s prayers was Aaron the High Priest. Hence, it was in the merit of those prayers that Aaron was now being prepared to assume his role. The Midrash writes that the salvation of Aaron teaches the importance and power of praying to G-d.
While on this topic, the Midrash also gives another biblical example of a great person who would always steadfastly pray: Mordechai of the Purim story. After Haman decreed that the Jews would all be killed on one day, Mordechai donned sackcloth and ashes and began sitting at the gateway to the palace, praying for their salvation.
While this was happening, the king was reminded of a time when Mordechai saved him, and he decided to honor Mordechai out of gratitude. A great parade was arranged. Mordechai wore the king’s clothing and rode the king’s horse, which was led by Haman, the king’s chief minister. This was considered an enormous honor.
But the decree against the Jews as a people was still in effect.
The Midrash points out that the testament to Mordechai’s devotion to prayer is that when the parade ended, he returned to the same spot wearing his sackcloth and continued to pray. He continued as before, without allowing the glory of the parade to turn his head. This was a testament to Mordechai’s greatness.
This text reveals a great deal about the insidious and destructive power of arrogance. Mordechai was a supremely righteous person. Yet, one single incidence of receiving great honor could have totally changed him. His piety notwithstanding, the parade might have caused him to stop praying for his own life and that of the Jewish Nation in their moment of mortal danger. Somehow, the honor might have blinded him into rationalizing that, “The danger wouldn’t affect him, and it really wasn’t necessary to pray.” It required additional piety for Mordechai to rise above this tendency.
This Midrash describes and defines how people should pursue success.
As a rule, from childhood on, most individuals are subjected to various forms of pressure to do things well. The intention is to produce people who will excel at what they do…and become ‘successful’ adults. While success is generally commendable and should be pursued, it can also be terribly destructive. Theoretically, one moment of great honor could have somewhat compromised the moral integrity of Mordechai, who was a supremely righteous person. This vulnerability to ‘compromised moral integrity’ would be even greater in one less pious than Mordechai.
When people rise above their contemporaries to the top positions in their fields, they are constantly being honored by others. This, in turn, can lead to profound arrogance, which would degrade their modesty and refinement of character to a level below that of their peers.
People should pursue success. However, that same success can prove to be a moral ‘kiss of death’ unless it is dealt with properly…as Mordechai did.

JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Mishpatim

PARSHAT MISHPATIM – INGRATITUDE

Parshat Mishpatim ( 22:30) contains the sentence, "U'basar basadeh treifa lo tocheilu lakelev tashlichun oto." When an animal is not slaughtered properly, the Torah commands us to throw its meat to the dogs as a reward. The Commentary of Rashi writes that we reward dogs this way because they abstained from barking in Egypt on the night of the Plague of the Firstborn.

The Commentary of the Daat Zekenim Mi’Baalei Ha’Tosafot offers a different reason for rewarding the dogs. Dogs protect the flocks by scaring away wolves that would otherwise prey on the sheep. The Commentary of DZ then adds that to not repay the dogs for their service would be “Kafuy Tov.” The term “Kafuy Tov” connotes a denial or rejection of a favor received.

After a favor is received, a measure of gratitude is due. The Hebrew term for this moral imperative is Hacarat Tov, acknowledging good. Kafuy Tov connotes the opposite extreme – beyond not repaying the favor, the recipient ignores or denies that the favor ever occurred and returns bad for good.

For the purposes of this dvar, let us refer to the practitioners of Hacarat Tov as category 1. Category 2 refers to those who practice little Hacarat Tov and instead tend to ignore what others have done for them; they act as if nothing occurred. The third and least ethical of the three categories are those who are Kafuy Tov. They repay good with bad; they “bite the hand that feeds them.”

There is a great deal of Talmudic literature that praises Hacarat Tov and condemns being Kafuy Tov. For example, In Shemot 1:8, where the onset of the slavery in Egypt is described, it is written, “And there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.” A new Pharaoh arose who was not mindful of what Joseph had done for Egypt during the seven years of plenty and famine. Explaining that phrase, the commentary of Rabbenu Bachya writes, “Anyone who rejects the good of a friend will eventually come to reject the Good of G-d.”

According to the DZ, to not repay the dogs for their service would be Kafuy Tov. This needs to be understood. Kafuy Tov, connotes the third category, an overt rejection of a favor received. But simply not repaying the dogs would be an instance of the second category. Why does the DZ categorize it as Kafuy Tov?

Apparently, the DZ is teaching that there is no such thing as Category 2. ‘Merely’ not responding with gratitude and ignoring the good received from others is the moral equivalent of being Kafuy Tov. Although they seem different, not acknowledging a favor received is one and the same as “biting the hand that feeds.” The internal call of the neshama (soul) to be overtly grateful is strongly imbedded in people. In fact, it is so basic to human decency that ignoring that call entails a psychological rejection of the very fact that a favor was received. For this reason, the DZ wrote that in the ethics of the Torah, to ignore good received is one and the same as repaying good with evil.

This concept has wide application. People are always on the receiving end of favors - from parents, friends, spouses, rabbis, co-workers, and so forth. Each and every kindness received generates a separate and distinct ‘invoice’ for Hacarat Tov. To simply ignore those invoices is to be Kafuy Tov - a serious flaw in one’s moral/spiritual integrity.

Treating every single favor received as an IOU that must be paid (to whatever extent possible and without driving one’s self crazy in the process) suffuses one’s human interactions with enormous refinement and positive energy. The moral imperative of the Torah is that we should all strive to act this way.

JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Yitro

PARSHAT YITRO – EMBARRASSMENT AND HONOR

After growing to manhood, Moshe (Moses) killed an Egyptian taskmaster who was attempting to beat a Jewish slave to death. He then fled to Midyan where he married Yitro’s daughter Tziporah who bore him two sons. When Hashem (G-d) summoned Moshe to liberate the Jews, he left Midyan for Egypt with his wife and children. On the outskirts of Egypt, Moshe met his brother Ahron (Aaron) who advised that it would be better for the wife and children to return to Midyan until after the Exodus (Rashi 18, 2).

Parshat Yitro begins by describing how, after the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, Yitro brought Tziporah and her children to the camp of the Jews to reunite them with Moshe. As Yitro neared the Jewish camp, he sent word to Moshe that he would soon arrive. The Commentary of Rashi (Yitro 18:6) explains that Yitro’s purpose was to assure that Moshe would come out to greet him. Yitro’s message to Moshe was recorded in the Torah for posterity without it being criticized. This indicates that the Torah considers what Yitro did to be correct.

A generally accepted Torah virtue is that honor should be avoided. For example, it is written that, “Jealousy, lust and honor remove a person from the world” (Pirkei Avot 4:21). If so, asks the commentary of the Gur Aryeh, how can it be that Yitro acted properly? He was pursuing the honor of being greeted by Moshe, the great prophet and leader of the Jewish people.

The Gur Aryeh answers that Yitro was not seeking honor. Rather, he sought to avoid being embarrassed. Normally, a host goes out to greet an arriving guest - especially if it is the host’s father-in-law. Accordingly, had Moshe not have gone out to meet Yitro, it would have been a public insult. Yitro therefore acted to prevent this from happening.

(At least) two different relevant ethical principles can be inferred from this text:

I. Avoiding personal embarrassment is a moral virtue of the torah. A man who walks outside with a stained shirt is violating the Torah’s ethical code. Clearly, the same holds true of any other unbecoming or improper behavior that could prove embarrassing. When we (sadly) hear of Jews whose financial crimes make headlines, they are typically guilty of at least three major sins: stealing, lying and “chillul Hashem” (desecrating G-d’s Name by one’s improper conduct). But it is also true that on a personal level, these criminals have violated the Torah’s morality by causing themselves to be embarrassed.

II. A cardinal principle of Torah is that one should avoid pursuing a “Mitzvah haba biaverah,” a good deed that is made possible by a transgression. For instance, we do not steal from others or work on Shabbat in order to earn money for additional charity. Honor is so harmful that (as already mentioned) it “removes a person from the world.” If so, why was it proper for Yitro to pursue honor in order to adhere to the Torah’s virtue of avoiding embarrassment?

It must be that when personal honor is pursued for a just reason, its normally harmful effects can be avoided. For example, a halacha (law) of the Torah is that one should honor his Rebbe (teacher of Torah). Halacha (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah, 242:20) states further that a Rebbe who refuses this honor is “withholding kindness from its owner” (“owner” being the student seeking to bestow the honor). The halacha is certainly not demanding that the Rebbe should sin. Rather, since the Rebbe is allowing himself to be honored for a proper reason, he can avoid the harm that typically infects those who are honored often such as arrogance, feelings of self importance, and so forth.

This same principle also is applicable to a parent or classroom teacher and at times, even a boss in a workplace. Insisting on a certain measure of deference is often called for; but the honor can be pursued without its ordinarily damaging consequences.

Very possibly, in all of these cases, special care must be taken. The recipients of the honor must always remind themselves to retain their humility and pay no heed to the honor being received. They must keep in mind that the honor is for their position but not because they are superior. With these precautions in place, it is possible to receive the honor and yet avoid its normally detrimental fallout.

The point should however be made that not all embarrassment should be avoided at all costs. The prophet Yechezkel (Ezekiel) is referred to in the Torah as Yechezkel son of Buzi. “Buzi,” the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Yechezkel 1:3) writes, is a derivative of the Hebrew word “Baz” which means embarrassment. Buzi was attached to Yechezkel’s name to connote that he was often embarrassed. Clearly, Yechezkel was being extolled for the fact that he endured humiliation in order to perform G-d’s work.

Yechezkel’s ongoing embarrassment at the hands of others was praised. Yet, the incident with Yisro suggests that even a one-time incidence of personal embarrassment should be avoided. What is correct?

In truth, these two sources are not contradictory. There are times when, depending on how it is performed, the same deed either will or will not earn the ridicule of others. In such cases, one should make certain to act in a way that will preclude the ridicule. Yitro was about to visit the camp of the Jews, no matter what. But he attempted to do it in a way that wojuld not prove embarrassing to him.

But there are other times when a person’s perfectly appropriate and righteous deeds will end up being scorned by others. In such cases, one should persevere despite the inevitable embarrassment. Like Yechezkel, one must be mindful of pleasing G-d and unmindful about pleasing fools and evildoers.

For that, Yechezkel earned G-d’s everlasting honor.