The term gemillat ḥasadim is usually taken to mean, in Jewish life, a free loan. I think it has a deeper meaning. There are two kinds of ḥesed: one is the ordinary and immature kind, and the other is a more mature sort. The first type of ḥesed is where the one who does the favor secretly or unconsciously expects some kind of compensation, for he thinks to himself, “Maybe someday I will need this man’s favor, and therefore it is worth my time doing something for him now.” It is basically utilitarian – a form of trade or barter. The higher kind is motivated not by a sense of trade, but by genuine human kindness. It is a mature sort of ḥesed. Hence, the term gemillat – not from the word gamol, “to pay,” but from the word lehigamel, “to be weaned,” as in beyom higamel Yitzḥak. When a man is weaned from childishness of character, when he grows up spiritually, he learns how to do a ḥesed for its own sake. This is the type of ḥesed that you of the ḥevra kadisha do for those who have passed on to their eternal reward.

This mishnah has a parallel in Chapter IV, where, in the name of R. Elazar HaKappar, we read of three similar qualities that “take a man out of the world” – עין רעה, יצר הרע, ושנאת הבריות. If we accept this parallelism, then “the evil eye” should be understood not in its usual context as a kind of “jinx,” but rather as a sense of begrudging which harms the perpetrator much more than its intended victim. Jealousy – the evil eye – eats away at the innards of the one who is jealous and slowly destroys him, not only psychologically and spiritually, but even physically. יצר הרע and תאווה are obviously related. And the pursuit of honor usually implies a desire to be superior to others – hence שנאת הבריות. But why only these three? And what is the meaning of the strange phrase “take him out of the world”? Should not the mishnah have mentioned three worse crimes – perhaps the three cardinal sins? I believe that the Tanna was aiming specifically at three qualities or dispositions which lend themselves to misinterpretation. The cardinal crimes or the great virtues are simple enough to observe. The blacks and the whites of life are not what make up the “world” – which is for the greatest part comprised of shades of gray. It is rare that, in crisis, we are confronted with clear-cut options: good and evil, right and wrong. Normally, we have to make subtle distinctions; we are faced with paradoxes and ambivalences and are forced to choose amid uncertainty and confusion. This confusion and ambivalence are most oppressive when we deal with ideas and qualities that can serve both the ends of good and of evil, of the right and of the wrong. At such times, not only is there an element of uncertainty as to whether we are using or abusing a certain quality, but there is a tendency for us to submit to rationalization – to abuse a quality and to assume we are doing the proper thing. Since the world is constituted mostly of such uncertainties and such qualities of double nature, when we c…

I didn’t reveal the title of my talk – “Humility” – to the convention chairman, because if I had, no one would have come to listen. (When I mentioned this to a layman earlier this week, his reaction was: “Good – rabbis could use a talk on that...”) Actually, I don’t intend מוסר but עיון – not to admonish but to analyze, not to preach but to comprehend, not to lecture but to give a שיעור. I have long been fascinated by Maimonides’ theory of the דרך האמצעית, which he elaborates first in his שמונה פרקים בפירוש המשניות and later in his הלכות דעות. Recently, I’ve been speaking and writing about the relevance of his concepts for the contemporary communal concerns that increasingly occupy our attention. This evening, I hope to continue that exploration by focusing on one of the two exceptions to the Maimonidean rule of the Middle Way – namely, כעס and גאוה. For now, we shall dwell on גאוה וענוה, and try to understand them per se – and then apply them, if possible, to our own situation.2 Maimonides' Theory of Humility: ...The case of Moses/Aaron/Miriam: והאיש משה ענו מאוד מכלהאדם אשר על פני האדמה and later (in רבי לויטס איש יבנה אומר מאוד מאוד הוה שפל רוח (אבות פ״ד שתקות אנוש רימה. .My Four Questions on Maimonides:a) is it true? Does שפלות of Moses imply that he was an ignoramus? Is Humility supposed to conflict w Truth?b) is it psychologically desirable? One need not applaud the efforts of 2nd -rate psychologists ... professional mission to turn people w injured psyches^accomplished narcissists ... terrorize relatives/ w new-found egos, i-o apprect tht cumulative wisdom of psych’ll inquiry has yielded valid insight that i-o t function properly, one must hv strong sense of self/feelg of self-worth.: As parents, do we desire to raise our ch w feeling of extreme lowliness/crushing inferiority/exceedingly weak self-image?? גמ׳ מגילה דף ל״א ע״א, כל מקום שאתה מוצא גבורתו של הקב״ה שם אתה מוצא ענוותנותו c) what ofנה וגס׳ סוף סוטה: משמת רבי בטלה ענוה, א״ל ר׳ יוסף לתנא d) How can …

I. ANGER: Our halakhic discussion revolved around כעס and the question of whether such outbursts of anger can be considered constructive (תיקון) or destructive (קלקול). Clearly, however, anger is ethically repugnant – as straight halakhah according to most Rishonim, and as halakhic musar according to Rambam. This dimension of כעס is often accompanied by similar phenomena (מידות מגונות) such as pride (גאווה) and disputatiousness (מחלוקת), as well as other such traits. We shall therefore proceed to discuss anger and then one or two of these related character defects that emerge from a study of how Judaism views the range of negative human emotions. The Rav’s axiological explanation of כעס: that the definition of idolatry is who or what stands at the center of my existence, and that anger reveals that my ego is that center. Proof of the Rav’s thesis: Rambam holds that there are only two individual exceptions to the law of moderation (מידת הבינוניות, שביל הזהב), and they are כעס and גאווה – common denominator: ego at the center. This is not as self-evident as it may seem. Thus, contemporary ethicists, under the influence of modern psychology, encourage the expression of anger as a catharsis, a voiding of noxious emotions that might otherwise becloud our judgment. Mental and physical health thus require free expression of anger. To put this in halakhic terminology, psychologists hold that because כעס can sometimes be technically considered תיקון – because it provides נחת רוח לנפש – therefore it is commendable. Thus, they consider anger a neutral phenomenon; like hunger, it is neither good nor bad. It is best to express resentment immediately rather than let it fester. Small angry encounters protect the individual against stagnated, unexchanged feelings. (This is in keeping with the phenomenon one notices, especially with patients of therapists who are philosophically and ethically mediocre, that their original symptoms may recede or disappear, but they are immediately r…

Our halakhic discussion revolved about קורע בחמתו, one who tears a garment in anger, and the question of whether such outbursts can be considered constructive (מתקן) or destructive (מקלקל). Clearly, however, anger as such is ethically repugnant – as straight halakhah according to most Rishonim, and as halakhic musar according to Rambam. This dimension of kaas, anger, is often accompanied by similar phenomena such as pride (גאוה) and disputatiousness (מחלוקת), as well as other such traits. We shall therefore proceed to discuss anger and then one or two of these concomitant character defects that emerge from a study of howJudaism views the range of negative human emotions.I once heard the Rav שליט״א offer an insightful axiological explanation of the dictum of the Sages identifying anger with the sin of idolatry: הכועס כאילו עע״ז. But if idolatry is basically fetish worship, how does that relate to us? After all, the Sages taught that historically the temptation of heathenism came to an end with the destruction of the First Temple. Yet, if idolatry is irrelevant to our modern experience, how account for the attraction of the Prophets for all ages, our own included; do not the Prophets rail against idolatry above all other sins? The Rav answers that one must first understand the nature of אמונה or faith in God: this means, he avers, that it is God who must occupy the very center of my concerns, my values, my very existence. If God is only peripheral to some other being or value--whether money or sensuality or any of the isms so ubiquitous in our times—we are by definition idolaters. Now, if one loses his temper and submits to anger, it is usually because his ego has been injured, and because that ego is his central, transcendent value. It is he himself who stands at center of his existence, and that kaas is therefore tantamount to idolatry. The validity of the Rav's thesis is evident from the fact that the Rambam holds that there are only two exceptions to the Law of M…

חלק ההלכה רבי סעדיה גאון לימד לנו שיטתו שהתורה תוך־תוכה שכלית, ואם ייתכן שיהיה לאדם מספיק זמן ויהיה בעל שכל עדין ועין חודרת, יש לאל ידו להגיע לכמעט כל מצוות התורה בכח שכלתו האנושית. וכשבא הגאון להדגים דבר זה, קבע שהעקרון הראשון שהשכל הבריא מעלה הוא: הכרת הטוב, הגמול לטובה שנעשה דו. ומזה נובעים הרבה מצוות, כגון: תפילה, קרבנות, כיבוד אב ואם, הלל, בהמייז וכדומה. בשעור זה נתמקד בשלש דוגמאות של הכרת הטוב, והן ברכת הגומל, ברכת מודים בשמ״ע, ואמירת מזמור לתודה בפסוקי דזמרה. ועיקר דיוננו בזה הוא מצוד. שכל-כולה הכרת הטוב, והיא ברכת הגומל. ברכת הגומל ברכה זו מקורה בברכות דף נ"ד ע״ב בסוגיא דדי צריכין להודות, ורבו גם רבו הקשיים גם בגמרא עצמה גם בראשונים, וישנם א י-אלה דיוקים וחילופי הנוסחאות בטוגיא קצרה זו שאינם אומרים אלא דרשני. למשל, שאלה פשוטה: הסוג יא עצמה מתחילה, "אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, ארבעה צריכין להודות" ומזכיר את הארבעה ומביא ראיות לכולם מתהילים ק״ז, ואחייב, "מאי מברך, אמר ר׳ יהודה, ברוך" וכוי. ומזה כנראה שרב בעצמו לא פירש איך צרי כי ן להודות ומהי ההודאה, ור׳ יהודה הוא שקובע שההודאה היא בצורת ברכה. ולכאורה היה על רב בעצמו לבאר מהי ההודאה, שהיא ברכה, ועל ר׳ יהודה למסור לנו את נוסח הברכה.1 ועוד: הרמב״ם פ״י מהלי ברכות ה״ח: ״וצריכין להודות בפני עשרה, ושנים מהם חכמים שנאמר וירוממוהו בקהל עם ובמושב זקנים יהללוהו. וכיצד מודה וכיצד מברך, עומד ביניהם (דהיינו, בין שני החכמים) ומברך בא"י אמ״ה הגומל לחייבים טובות שגמלני כל טוב." וקשה מ״ש הרמב״ם שבברכה זו "עומד ביניהם", שצריך לעמוד, ודבר זה לא נזכר בש״ס, ומהו מקורו לדין זה? והנה הנ״ל היא הגירסא ברמב״ם בדפוס שלפנינו, והכסף משנה והרבה אחרים טרחו ועמלו ליישב לשונו הכפול, "וכיצד מודה וכיצד מברך". והגרי" קאפח בפירושו למשנה תורה בהלכה זו קבע שהגירסא הנכונה היא "וכיצד מודה" ומשמיט "וכיצד מברך", וכתב שכן היא הגירטא בכל כתבי- היד. האם אפשר לקיים שניהם, או האם יש ט״ס באחת מגירסאות אלה? 1 שאלתנו היא לפי הגירסא בש״ם שלנו, הנדפס, "א״ר יהודה אמר רב", ולא לפי כ״י מינכן ואחרים המשמימים המלים "אמר רב", ועיי בד״ס על אתר. 1 hodaya2.new/Harch 28, 1993 ועוד יש חילופי גירסאות בנוסח הברכה, שבדפוס הוא "ברוך גומל חסדים טובים", וברי"ך ורא״ש וטוש״ע הוא כמ״ש הר…

הנושא: הכנסת אורחים והכנסת כלה מסרתי כהקדמה לדרשה שדרשתי לכבוד הבת־מצוה חנה ברכה דוידמן, שבט תשנ״ד, במלון הומווואק. תמיד תמהתי על הביטוי ״הכנסת אורחים״ – מדוע "הכנסה"? מדוע לא "כבוד האורחים" או "טובה לאורחים" וכדומה? נדמה לי כי המקור לביטוי ודאי בתרבות המדבר במזרח התיכון, בה שהו אבותינו. כשהיה אדם גר באוהל במדבר ועברו נוסעים, אז נזקקו להיכנס לאוהל – אם מחמת חום השמש או קור הלילה – והיה על בעל האוהל להכניסם לתוך אהלו.אחר כך, במשוך הדורות ואבותינו גרו בתרבות עירונית או בכפר, שימש הביטוי לרעיון שעל המארח לא רק לספק לאורחים אש״ל אלא להכניסם לתוך משפחתו, לתת להם הרגש של נוחיות כאילו בחיק משפחתם. ולפיכך—"הכנסת אורחים״.ודומה לזה—"הכנסת כלה", כי בימים ההם היה המנהג שהכלה באה לגור עם החתן בביתו ובבית משפחתו, ולפיכך המצוד, ה י תה להכניסה לתוך משפחת באהבה וכוי. (ואחי הרב משה נ״י הוסיף: ואולי לבעל המלון הפירוש הוא — שיש לו הכנסה מן הארוחים...)

It is a pleasure to greet all of you, and especially the living spirit of this very special group, Rabbi Isaac Trainin. His pioneering work on behalf of Bikkur Cholim as his post-retirement activity is sufficient testimony to his mental and spiritual health as well as to his health-mindedness. More power to him as a role model for all of us as to how to use one's time when the exigencies of career and the need to work for a living have released us from their ubiquitous claims.IIWe all know that bikkur cholim is a mitzvah, a religious commandment in Judaism. But exactly where does it fit into the rubric of the 613 commandments?Its technical categorization by Halakha (Jewish law) is a matter of dispute between two eminent halakhic authorities. One is a great decisor who flourished at the end of the Geonic period and is known as Baal Halakhot Gedolot, the author of a historic work by the name of Halakhot Gedolot ("the great compilation of laws") and is usually referred to by the acronym Behag. The other is the most distinguished name of medieval Sephardic Jewry, R. Moses ben Maimon—Maimonides or the Rambam. Maimonides assigns bikkur cholim to the mitzvah of "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," i.e., bikkur cholim is but one aspect of the more comprehensive injunction to love one's fellow human beings. His predecessor, Behag, however, holds that bikkur cholim is a separate and independent mitzvah, part of the general category of chesed or acts of loving-kindness.We can understand Maimonides: bikkur cholim obviously belongs with the mitzvah of love of fellow humans. But what of the Behag? If indeed bikkur cholim is an aspect of chesed, how does one distinguish between chesed and that other well-known and oft-discussed Jewish precept, tzedakah? If the former means love and concern for humans, is that not identical to the latter—for is not charity given to implement one's feeling of loving concern for the other? And if so, should not bikkur cholim be considered an a…

Abe Foxman’s gracious and hyperbolic introduction of me suggests a rather interesting zoological oddity: Foxman trying to paint a mere lamm as a lion... I shall follow the honorable tradition of responding to the flattering encomia we’ve heard this afternoon with the appropriate and sincere demurrals. But in one sense I accept your award, graciously but fully and without false modesty: If you judge courage by the number and frequency of attacks and the variety of directions from which these blows come — left, right, and center — then I am courageous! Indeed, too much so... I am grateful to my good and learned friend Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for his eloquent exaggeration of any claims I may have to this tribute, and I offer my warmest thanks to ADL — to Mel Salberg and to Abe Foxman and his associates, and to Burt Resnick and Sheldon Rudoff and to all gathered here, for the honor you have bestowed upon me. If there is anyone who is qualified to be an expert on courage, it is the ADL, and the entire community is indebted to ADL for its valiant and courageous activity. The times we live in — and I am speaking of months, not centuries or even decades — are so tense, so combative and confrontational, that civility has become suspect. It is everybody against everybody. The situation reminds me of the young man, proud but in tattered outfit, who seated himself opposite a distinguished looking gentleman on the train from Lublin to Warsaw. He bent over to the older man and said, “Excuse me, Reb Yid, can you please tell me the time?” The older man thought for a moment, then stretched out his hand and slapped the young fellow across the face. “I know what you’re up to! You will engage me in conversation, find out I have a daughter, worm your way into my home, and ask for her hand in marriage. And you’re so poverty stricken you don’t even own a watch!” We seem to be looking for opportunities to slap each other down. Dogmatism dominates, modesty of expression is as rare as it…

Rabbi Lamm explores the foundational role of integrity and harmony in rabbinic thought and practice.