I've been very excited for this week's parsha because R Yaakov has my favorite vort in the whole emes liyaakov (or at least, what I've read of it) on this week's parsha.
Yaakov flees from eisav to charan and bumps into a bunch of shepherds lazing by the well. Yaakov, a foreigner from a different country, having never met these people ever before in his life, immediately proceeds to "but in" to their business asking them why they are lazing around and not working. That's a little bit awkward - what prompted Yaakov to do this?
The seforno asks this question, and he writes:
הצדיק ימאס את העול ג"כ אל האחרים כאמרו תועבת צדיקים איש עול
Yaakov protested the laziness of the shephers because a tzaddik cannot stand evil - in himself, or in others.
R Yaakov, I believe, argues on this seforno. He begins by making a diyuk in Yaakov's language when he starts talking to the shepherds (Having been attacked over this diyuk, I think we can concede under pressure that it is not muchrach - but R yaakov's point exists without it so it is not crucial.)
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יַעֲקֹב אַחַי מֵאַיִן אַתֶּם וַיֹּאמְרוּ מֵחָרָן אֲנָחְנוּ:
Since when are these total strangers his "brothers"?
To buttress this diyuk, r yaakov directs our attention to a rashi in parshas chukas. When moshe rabbeinu sends to edom asking to be allowed to pass through his land, he begins by saying, "ko amar achicha yisrael". rashi comments:
...אחיך ישראל - מה ראה להזכיר כאן אחוה
So you see that it is fair to wonder why someone should start talking about being brother to someone who isn't really his brother.
Shifting focus for a moment, we know there is a machlokes in the gemara in erchin concerning how far one must go to rebuke others in fulfillment of the mitzvah of tochachah. One opinion says give up when the guy you're trying to rebuke gets really mad at you, another opinion is when he starts cursing you, we paskin that you shouldn't give up until he starts hitting you. Regardless of which opinion you take, how does this make sense? Since when do you not fulfill a mitzvah deoraysa because someone will curse you out over it, and even if they'll start hitting you (obviously as long as there is no danger to life), why should that stop fulfillment of a mitzvah deoraysa?
Says R yaakov, if the mitzvah of tochacha were to act as G-d's police officers (as the seforno might very well claim), then the above question would indeed hold. But look at the way the rambam formulates mitzvas tochacha:
הרואה חבירו שחטא או שהלך בדרך לא טובה מצוה להחזירו למוטב ולהודיעו שהוא חוטא על עצמו במעשיו הרעים שנאמר הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך. המוכיח את חבירו בין בדברים שבינו לבינו. בין בדברים שבינו לבין המקום. צריך להוכיחו בינו לבין עצמו. וידבר לו בנחת ובלשון רכה ויודיעו שאינו אומר לו אלא לטובתו להביאו לחיי העולם הבא. אם קיבל ממנו מוטב ואם לאו יוכיחנו פעם שניה ושלישית. וכן תמיד חייב אדם להוכיחו עד שיכהו החוטא ויאמר לו איני שומע. וכל שאפשר בידו למחות ואינו מוחה הוא נתפש בעון אלו כיון שאפשר לו למחות בהם:
We might have thought, before seeing this rambam, that the mitzvah of tochacha is a mitzvah bein adam lamakom - a religious obligation to dispel evil from our midst. But the rambam is clear that that is NOT the case - mitzvas tochacha is a mitzvah bein adam lachaveiro - we have an obligation to look out for our friend's ultimate best interests - if we really care about our friends, then we will help them stay on the right path. (lichora a big nafka minah of this that you have to ask mechila from your friend for NOT rebuking him enough - pretty wild if that is true)
It now immediately follows that we should ony be mochiach as long as we are acting in the rebukee's best interests - that is, our goal is not to eliminate evil at all costs, in which case we would be mochiach even after the guy started cursing/hitting. Rather, our goal is to help bring this guy back to what's best for him. When he starts cursing/hitting, we say that tochacha, even if it will stop evil right now, will not be productive in our real goal of helping this person.
It wouldn't have necessarily been appropriate for any random person to just start giving tochacha to total strangers. But yaakov avinu cared so much about people that he was even able to refer to total strangers as his brothers. It was in this spirit that yaakov offered his rebuke, and only because of this that his rebuke was acceptable.
As the gemara goes on to say in erchin, nowadays we don't know how to be mochiach. It's a high enough darga to care about and be a kannai for Hashem. It is perhaps an even higher darga for a person to care about other people. Tochacha requires that the two merge: on the one hand, one has to take very seriously the mitzvos bein adam lamakom to be able to rebuke others in their performance. On the other hand, the rebuke has to come not from kannaus, but rather, from deeply caring about the individual whom you are rebuking. this is no small feat.
I think this is a very important context to mitzvas tochacha that has important practical applications. From least to greatest:
1. I once had a halachic debate with someone about the following scenario: if you see someone eating a pig sandwich, can you steal the sandwich from them to prevent them from doing an issur. (Funny that this also sort of comes up in the parsha by rachel stealing lavan's avodah zarah - obviously that story isn't a raayah to this shailah whatsoever.) Without going into the details, I think that any attempt to answer this question must be misyaches to the above understanding that mitzvas tochacha isn't about being g-d's police officer - its about caring about other jews.
2. People who know me know that I've ranted since tenth grade about the weak excuse of the chazon ish to explain why we are so meikel in how we treat apikorsim nowadays. This approach really provides a much firmer basis to his mehalech - nowadays we don't know how to be mochiach - the only way we can act to help our fellow Jews who have unfortunately turned off the path is to treat them with love. I still don't know if I agree to this because it seems so black and white against the rambam - but I don't think this is an appropriate forum to discuss this issue.
3. A few weeks ago I wrote about Rabbi Yosef Mendelevich's ahavas yisrael and how he allowed no distinction between his love of G-d and love of man. (http://doleh-u-mashkeh.blogspot.com/2013/10/rabbi-yosef-mendelevich.html). I was thinking of this R Yaakov when I wrote that. I've always thought that it is very wrong when you see some people who go into chinuch / rabbanus not because they have such a burning passion to teach young children torah, but rather, because they want to stay in learning (for themselves). Like R yaakov's pshat in tochacha, a person can't go into chinuch as part of his avodas hashem bein adam lamakom - it has to be a mitzvah bein adam lachaveiro. A mechanech needs to be someone like R yosef Mendelevich, like Yaakov avinu, who teaches others torah not as a mitzvah bein adam lamakom but rather because of his burning ahavas yisrael and desire to teach bnei yisrael torah and bring them closer to hakadosh baruch hu.
Even if we don't go into chinuch, that's a lesson for us as friends, siblings, parents, and everything else we'll do in life.
Its a little early, but I will still take this chance to wish everyone a good shabbos!
No comments:
Post a Comment