The Key To Success

“You shall offer the one sheep in the morning, and the second sheep shall you offer in the afternoon”(29:39)

There is a Midrash which discusses the a priori axiom of the Torah. Rabbi Akiva states that the a priori axiom is “ve’ahavta lerayacha kamocha” – “love your friend as you do yourself”.¹

Ben Azai cites the verse “Zeh sefer toldos adam, beyom bero Elokim adam bidmus Elokim asah oso” – “This is the account of man’s origin: On the day that Hashem created man, He made him in his likeness.”^2,3

A variant Midrash, recorded by the author of the Ein Yaakov, offers a third opinion. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi states “Es hakeves ha’echad ta’aseh baboker, ve’es hakeves ha’sheini ta’aseh bein ha’arbayim” – “You shall offer one sheep in the morning and a second sheep shall you offer in the afternoon” as the a priori axiom.⁴ What is the issue being disputed by these three opinions?

There are three basic relationships which each individual is expected to perfect exist in this world. These relationships are “bein adam le’atzmo” – “man’s relationship to himself”, “bein adam lachaveiro” – “man’s relationship to his fellow man”, and “bein adam lamakom” – “man’s relationship to Hashem”. The three relationships are interdependent to the extent that if there is a deficiency within one of them, all three are lacking.

Fundamental to man’s ability to accomplish and succeed in any endeavor in life is his degree of self-esteem. A person with low self-esteem is not motivated to accomplish. What should a person focus on so that he may develop a positive definition of himself? Rabbi Akiva maintains that by performing acts of kindness and exhibiting love toward his fellow man, a person will build up a positive perception of himself. By learning to love others, a person comes to love himself.

Ben Azai disagrees. He maintains that a person with a low self-image, who does not love himself, cannot love others. How then does a person come to appreciate himself? The Torah teaches that man is created in Hashem’s image. The most heinous of transgressors, the blasphemer is required to be buried before nightfall of the day he is executed. Rashi explains that it is deprecating to Hashem, in whose image the blasphemer was created, for his corpse to remain exposed overnight. Even the corpse of this sinner retains the stamp of G-d’s likeness. Therefore, the knowledge that man is a G-dly being is sufficient to give man a positive definition of himself, thereby enabling him to perfect his other relationships.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi does not find Ben Azai’s solution satisfactory, for the knowledge that man is created in Hashem’s image is only indicative of man’s potential. The awareness of this potential cannot be the source of man’s self-esteem. On the contrary, a person’s self-esteem can be extremely damaged by the knowledge that he has tremendous potential, but he is not actually achieving to potential. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi offers an alternative solution. Hashem requires man to serve Him by bringing offerings twice daily. This means that although Hashem is omnipotent, He has created a relationship with Bnei Yisroel by which we can offer Him something. We can cater to His “needs”. The knowledge that a person is needed in a relationship is an enormous self-esteem builder. The ultimate boost in self-esteem comes when a person recognizes that the One who needs him is Hashem. The understanding that we have a relationship with Hashem and He desires that we serve Him, gives man self-esteem and is also the vehicle through which man can actualize his potential. The system that Hashem has designed for us to follow is the path which we must take to ultimately be fulfilled.

For us to actualize our potential, we  must first develop our self-esteem. According to Rabbi Akiva, this can be achieved by focusing upon our relationships with his fellow men. Ben Azai argues that man’s relationship with himself is the key to a positive self-definition, while Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi maintains that man’s awareness of his relationship with Hashem is the building block to success in all relationships.

Close To The Chest

“and the fourth row: tarshish, shoham, and yashfeh…” (28:20)

Aharon wore an ornament on his chest called the “Choshen”; it had gold settings into which twelve precious gems were placed. Each gem represented one of the twelve sons of Yaakov. The last of the Choshen’s gems was the “yashpeh”. Rabbeinu Bechaya cites a Midrash which connects the yashpeh stone with the Tribe of Binyamin. Yashpeh, explains the Midrash, is a contraction of the words “yesh” and “peh” – “has a mouth”; it was chosen to represent Binyamin because its name reflects a praiseworthy trait displayed by him. Although Binyamin was aware that his brothers sold Yoseif into slavery, he did not reveal their actions to his father.[1] If Binyamin was being lauded for his silence, why was the gem called “yashpeh” – “has a mouth”? Should the more appropriate name not be “ainpeh” – “has no mouth”? What trait did Binyamin exhibit through his silence?

The Talmud relates that Yaakov suspected that Lavan may attempt to substitute Leah for Rachel. Therefore, as a preventative measure he gave Rachel a secret password which would identify her to him on their wedding night. At the thought of her sister’s public humiliation Rachel revealed to Leah the password which enabled Lavan’s subterfuge to be successful. The Talmud identifies Rachel’s behavior as an example of “tznius” – “modesty” and states that because of her exceptional display of tznius she merited to have great descendants who too would display exemplary acts of tznius: Shaul HaMelech, after being anointed by Shmuel as the Sovereign of Israel, did not reveal his status to his family members.[2] Esther, while in the pageant which would determine the next queen of Persia, did not reveal her regal ancestry for fear that it would place the other girls at a disadvantage.[3] What new definition of tznius is the Talmud revealing?

Tznius is generally defined as a code of modesty which determines our mode of dress and behavior. We approach this obligation as “bein adam lamakom”, a responsibility that we have to our Creator. The Talmud is teaching us that the requirement to be modest is also “bein adam lachaveiro”, a social responsibility. The laws of tznius require that we act in a manner which does not invade the space of others. Our actions must be measured in terms of how they will impact upon the sensitivities of our fellow man. The manner of dress required is not dictated by how much of the body must be covered alone, but by the awareness that dressing in a provocative manner may be an attack upon the senses of another as well. An outfit that meets the Halachic specifications in terms of its length may still violate the laws of tznius if it is designed in a manner which draws public attention.

Staying within our own space and not invading the space of others is not only relegated to attire. Speech is the area through which we have the greatest difficulty in focusing upon the sensitivities of others. All too often we speak up because of the benefit we derive from what we are saying, but fail to realize the damage we do to others with the content, decibel level and even verbosity of our speech.

All of the examples of tznius ascribed to the descendants of Rachel involve mastery over the spoken word. In Rachel’s situation, the fact that she discerned the appropriate time to divulge sensitive information is highlighted. In the scenarios involving her descendants their ability to abstain from divulging information at personal cost is highlighted. Binyamin is the son of Rachel and it is this specific trait which is being heralded.

A person who has endured a terribly traumatic experience very often is unable to discuss it for fear that discussing it will cause him to relive the experience. Overcoming this fear and conversing with a person who cares about him helps ease the burden of the trauma. Binyamin’s loss of his only maternal brother at the hands of his paternal brothers must have been a highly traumatic experience. The only one to whom he could convey his feelings was his father, yet he refrained from doing so.

By assigning the yashpeh as the gem to represent Binyamin the Torah is attesting to the fact that his abstinence from discussing his brother’s fate was not a result of his inability to divulge the information due to his trauma. On the contrary, “yesh peh”, his ability to converse about the issue was intact. Although it might have been of great emotional benefit for Binyamin to discuss the matter with his father, the knowledge that the pain his father would receive when enlightened as to his sons’ actions would not permit Binyamin to speak. This acute sensitivity to protecting others from pain, even at great personal sacrifice, stems from Binyamin’s perfection of his inherited trait of tzinus.

INDUCED HOLINESS

by Rabbi Naftali Reich

How is this week's parashah different from all the other parshios in the last four Books of the Torah? Parashas Tetzaveh is missing something that appears in every parashah from Shemos and on - the mention of the name of Moses. From the time he first appears in the hallowed pages of the Torah as a baby in a basket floating among the reeds of the Nile River, Moses's name is mentioned thousands of times in every context. But not this week. Not even once. Why? The Talmud tells us that when Moses pleaded with Hashem to forgive the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden Calf, he declared, "If You do not forgive the people, erase me from Your Book." And Hashem, apparently not having forgiven the Jewish people completely, accommodated him by removing the mention of his name from one part of the Torah - this week's parashah. But Hashem certainly did not pick a parashah at random from which to delete mention of Moses's name. There must have been some significance in the selection of Tetzaveh. What message is implied in this omission?

The answer lies in our appreciation of Moses as the greatest prophet who ever lived. How exactly did his level of prophecy differ from that of other prophets? Maimonides explains that Moses had the gift of spontaneous prophecy. Other prophets needed to induce a state of ecstasy in themselves before they could attain to prophecy. In the Book of Kings, we read about Elisha calling for a musician to help him achieve a state of serenity and expanded consciousness.

Moses, however, needed no special preparations of this kind. He could naturally and easily communicate with Hashem at all times. Through his tremendous devotion and righteousness, he had risen to such a level of spiritual development that he was permanently in a state of prophetic ecstasy. He no longer needed external stimuli to induce the spirit of prophecy. Tetzaveh, this week's parashah, highlights the importance of a particular kind of external stimulus to the spiritual condition of a person - his garments. "Clothes make the man," goes the saying. The priestly garments described in this week's parashah certainly made the Kohein. When he donned these consecrated garments, he was infused with a state of priestly sanctification, without which he would not have been qualified to perform the Temple service.

According to the Talmud, a Kohein who omitted even one of these special garment was considered a zar, a non-Kohein, with regard to the service. The priestly garments, then, are the epitome of external stimuli by which a state of holiness is induced.

In this light, we can understand why Hashem chose Tetzaveh for the omission of the name of Moses. Not only did the laws of the garments themselves not apply to Moses, the very concept of the garments was not relevant to him. He had purified and sanctified himself to such a degree that his state of prophetic holiness had become part of his very being, not a temporarily induced condition. A guest in a hotel heard that a certain sage famed as the "guardian of his tongue" was in the dining room. The man, who had never seen the famous sage, rushed to catch a glimpse of him. In the dining room, he found two venerable sages deep in conversation. But which was the famous one? The man watched them for a few minutes. One was speaking animatedly and at great length. The other was practically silent. Aha! He thought. The silent one must be the "guardian of his tongue." With great awe and trepidation, he approached the silent sage and greeted him. "You are mistaken, my friend," the silent sage replied. Noticing the look of bafflement on the man's face, he continued, "Let me explain. Guarding his tongue had become such a natural characteristic of my friend that he can allow himself to speak freely. But I, alas, must consider my words carefully before I speak, and it is safer for me to remain silent."

In our own lives, although we cannot expect to attain the spiritual levels of Moses or one of our great sages, we can follow their lead within the parameters of our own abilities. We can take the fine characteristics in which we excel personally - whether it is kindness, charity, concern for the sick, honesty or anything else - and integrate them so deeply into our personalities that they become part of our very essence. To do so does not require additional expenditures of time or exertion, only an investment of spiritual and emotional energy. It is an investment guaranteed to pay wonderful dividends.

Text Copyright © 2008 by Rabbi Naftali Reich and Torah.org. Rabbi Reich is on the faculty of the Ohr Somayach Tanenbaum Education Center.