Parshas Mishpatim - Pear Pressure

Parshas Mishpatim

Pear Pressure

By: Daniel Listhaus

לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת

“You shall not go after the many to do bad; and you shall not respond to a dispute to tilt after the many.”

-Mishpatim 23:2

This passuk (verse) in our parsha is alluding to a number of laws relevant to how the sanhedrin and beis din (Jewish court) must conduct themselves. There are many different views as to how to learn this passuk. Rashi¹ explains that when the passuk says, “Do not respond to a dispute...”, the word for 'dispute' (ריב) is written without the letter yud (as רב) to teach us that a judge cannot argue with someone greater (רב) than him in the court. For this reason, the sanhedrin would start voicing their opinions “from the side” - meaning starting from the lesser members of the court.

The Ohr HaChaim,² however, does not like Rashi's explanation because it is not the simple reading of the passuk. Instead, the Ohr HaChaim takes a completely different approach in how to interpret it. He explains that the Gemara³ brings a statement from Rav Kahana that if beis din unanimously declares someone guilty in a capital case, the accused is actually acquitted. The Ohr HaChaim continues to explain that the aforementioned passuk is coming to counter mistakes that people might rationalize and make in one of two situations. The first scenario is as follows. Imagine all the judges voiced their opinions and so far everyone voted that the person is guilty. Now it is your turn to vote and you think that the man is innocent. So you think to yourself the following, “If I say innocent, then the result will be that the man will be found guilty because both requirements will have been met. First, the overwhelming majority is saying guilty;⁴ and second, there is opposition of at least one person saying innocent – me. If I also say guilty, though, then the second requirement will not be met and indeed the person will come out innocent just as I honestly believe he is. Furthermore, I am anyway probably doing the right thing by saying guilty even though I think he is innocent, because everyone else said guilty and this way I could be mevatel da'ati l'rabim (lower my opinion and instead agree to others)”. This, writes the Ohr HaChaim, is a tremendous mistake to think. It is not your job to outsmart the Torah. Do not fool yourself to follow after the majority just to get your desired outcome. Rather you should say what you think and allow Hashem's system of rules to determine the conclusion that is supposed to be reached.

The Ohr HaChaim continues to explain another similar circumstance which one might rationalize that it is okay to distort the truth and follow after the majority. Imagine that all the judges have already stated their opinions, and they all think that the person is guilty. Inside your head you also agree that he is guilty. However, you are torn. If you say that you also agree that he is guilty, then because the vote will be unanimous that he is guilty, the one on trial will actually go free. So, instead you think to yourself that you should say that he is innocent in order to create resistance, and as a result, the man will be convicted. Again the Ohr HaChaim expresses the importance of not trying to outsmart the Torah. We must do our job and allow Hashem to do His. Our job is to voice our honest opinion. Hashem's job is to add up the figures and plug the grand total into the Torah's formulas and equations. A judge must remember his role in court. His job is not to make everyone else happy or to ensure that his opinion materializes. Rather, a judge's job is to claim what he honestly thinks.

The Ohr HaChaim seems to be teaching us that we must constantly be balancing two roles. On the one hand, we are each our own person and responsible for ourselves as individuals. On the other hand, we share a role as part of the rabim (public). We must understand when it is our duty to be independent and when the proper thing is to be mevatel (make oneself secondary) to the rabim. When it comes to the sanhedrin, the Torah says that each individual judge has the task of applying his Torah to the court case and come out with his own unique perspective, independent of what others have said, think, or what one could say to seem to be in consensus with the general public.

Rashi in Gemara⁵ seems to start off explaining the same way as he does in Chumash, but then seems to add in a little more information than necessary. Rashi starts by saying that the passuk is coming to teach an issur (prohibition) of arguing with the greatest member of the sanhedrin. However, Rashi does not stop here but instead continues to write, “And this is why the sanhedrin starts voicing their opinion “from the side” - from the least of the members of the sanhedrin, in order that one should not hear one of his colleagues declaring innocent, and agree to him.”

This Rashi seems to be self-contradictory! What is the reason that the sanhedrin would start from the lesser judge? Is it so that he could not contradict the most prestigious member of the court, or is it because we do not want him to hear what his fellow judges have to say?

The Mahar'shal⁶ comes to address this issue and explains that Rashi is bothered by the following question. Granted the passuk teaches us (according to Rashi) that one is not permitted to argue with the head of the sanhedrin, and therefore he could not be the one who gives his view first, but still, why not start with the second most esteemed member of the sanhedrin? This is what Rashi is coming to answer and is why Rashi continues to explain that if we would start by other great members of the sanhedrin, the people after him may be swayed to agree. Therefore, we start all the way by the least prestigious member of the sanhedrin.⁷

The S'forno⁸ writes a similar idea that the Torah is telling the sanhedrin that if ten people have voted innocent and eleven have voted guilty, the one whose turn it is now to vote should not say that he will vote guilty because that is what the majority has decided thus far. A judges decision must be completely independent of what others have said. Each individual's vote must be based on his own s'varos (logic) and applications, nothing to do with the opinions of others.

Let us stop a minute and think about who exactly we are talking about. We are dealing with the sanhedrin. The sanhedrin was comprised of the most outstanding people. They were not only fluent in all of Torah, not only humongous ba'alei middos and yirei shamayim (G-d fearing people with great traits), but they had overcome and conquered some of man's hardest desires. The judges of sanhedrin had to meet a specific set of qualifications. They had to be wealthy people, G-d fearing, men of truth, and people who despise money.⁹ These Rabbanim were independent thinkers and open-minded within the limits of the Torah. Even the least prestigious of the sanhedrin was still so incredible in terms of his Torah knowledge and yiras Hashem. For example, we know that there were 600,000 Jewish men between 20 and 60. Multiply that by two to include women of the same age bracket, and let us multiply that number by two to include all people from 0 to 20 and 60 to 80, the product is 2,400,000. The 71 or 23 member sanhedrin represented a tiny fraction of the population and every single one of them were really the cream-of-the-crop. Is it really necessary for the Torah to demand of the sanhedrin to start from the least among them in order to ensure that one will not just copy what someone greater than him said, or even worse, just state an opinion arbitrarily based on which direction most of the sanhedrin already voted towards? How could a member of the sanhedrin, with all the incredible qualities previously discussed, actually decide to vote solely based on what he heard his colleagues say so far, or voice his opinion only based on where the majority is standing at this point? How could a member of the sanhedrin consciously do something like this?

Perhaps the answer to this question could be learned from a pear.¹⁰ If you ever have an unripe pear that you would like to ripen a lot faster than it wants to, there is a simple solution. You could take a ripening banana and put it in a paper bag with the pear. The reason this works is because bananas produce a lot of Ethylene,¹¹ the chemical that stimulates fruits to ripen, when ripening. Therefore if you put a ripening banana in the same bag as a pear, the pear will benefit from the extra supply of Ethylene in the air, and will in turn start to ripen as well. This is an amazing fact – just by being in the same bag as a ripening banana, the pear will start to ripen as well. The “pear pressure” is just too great to bear. Whether the pear wants to start ripening or not makes no difference, it will find itself unconsciously start ripening under the pressure of its fellow fruits.

Perhaps this is what the Torah is trying to teach us as well. Of course the sanhedrin consisted of the best people in the world. However, in the end of the day, being in the same room as others, especially when others are greater or one side has more members in agreement, there is an incredible pressure which effects us subconsciously and tells us not to think for ourselves, but instead follow after the crowd. The rationales start to kick in and then mistakes could, G-d forbid, be made. This is not the job of a member of the sanhedrin. Someone appointed as part of the sanhedrin is expected to bring his Torah to the table and offer his insights and opinions on the subject based on his own thoughts and perspective.

Peer pressure is something which effects us whether we like it or not. We are influenced by our family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Like many things, however, this pressure could be used for good or bad. The mishna in Pirkei Avos¹² states that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer are of the opinion that the proper ways a person should cling to in order to ensure reward in olam haba'ah (The World to Come), are to cling to a good friend and a good neighbor, respectively. However, the opposite holds true as well. Being around a bad friend or living in a community with bad values is the worst thing for a person. It will subconsciously change him as a person and effect him in every decision and aspect of life.

We cannot ignore the fact that people must live and interact with others on a daily basis. At the same time we must also realize that, as a result, one will, by definition, be influenced by those who he or she comes in contact with. The only way that one could prepare oneself for this is if one learns the lesson from the sanhedrin. Just like the smallest of the sanhedrin must state his opinion first before hearing those of his colleagues which may effect his decision, so too we must make sure that we solidify our values, beliefs, and opinions so that we could have a proverbial bar setting our standards.

On the other hand, the powerful force of peer pressure could be harnessed and used for tremendous good. One who takes the time in researching those he will spend time with, and follows the advice of Pirkei Avos¹³ to “acquire for yourself a friend”, will allow himself to grow and become an even greater person through sharing with a friend each others' strengths and positive motivations.

May we take the lesson of peer pressure to realize that our environments and influential circles have a tremendous impact on us whether we be a person or a pear.

1Shemos 23:2

2Ibid.

3Sanhedrin 17a

4Rashi (23:2) in our parsha as well as the gemara Sanhedrin explain that to convict someone in a capital case, there has to be a winning majority of at least two votes. (And if you will ask: Q. How is it possible to have a winning vote of [at least] two in a sanhedrin of 23? The sanhedrin had to consist of an odd amount of members so, mathematically, it is impossible for there ever to be a winning majority of exactly two. A. The sanhedrin had to consist of an odd amount of members but they were allowed to abstain.

5Sanhedrin 36a

6Ibid.

7See Mahar'sha there to see his many questions on this Mahar'shal and his alternate explanation.

8Shemos 23:2

9Shemos 18:21

10Okay, I admit you could learn it from other fruits too, but then I lose my pun.

11H2C=CH2 or C2H4

12Pirkei Avos 2:13-14

13Pirkei Avos 1:6
Photo Credit: Edited version of http://www.dailypainters.com/paintings/220858/-Pears-with-Paper-Bags-watercolor-13-x-18-framed/Diane-Morgan and http://super.abril.com.br/blogs/planeta/casca-de-banana-pode-despoluir-a-agua/

Parshas Yisro - Loud Music and Boiling Frogs

Parshas Yisro

Loud Music and Boiling Frogs

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן חֹתֵן משֶׁה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹקים לְמשֶׁה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ כִּי הוֹצִיא ה' אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם

“And the father-in-law of Moshe, Yisro, the priest of Midyan, heard all that G-d had done for Moshe and for [B'nei] Yisroel, His people, that Hashem had taken [B'nei] Yisroel out of Mitzrayim.”

-Yisro 18:1

וַיְהִי קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר הוֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק מְאֹד משֶׁה יְדַבֵּר וְהָאֱלֹקים יַעֲנֶנּוּ בְקוֹל

“And the sound of the shofar grew increasingly stronger; Moshe would speak and G-d would answer him with a voice.”

-Yisro 19:19

Rashi¹ on this passuk (verse) brings a Gemara² which is bothered what was it that Yisro heard that inspired him to convert and join B'nei Yisroel in the midbar (desert)? Rashi answers by bringing two of the three suggestions offered in the Gemara writes that Yisro heard about the war B'nei Yisroel fought with Amalek and he also heard about the miraculous event of kriyas Yam Suf (splitting of the Red Sea).

This Rashi, and really the Gemara itself, is very difficult to understand. The answer to why Yisro chose to join with B'nei Yisroel in the midbar could not simply be that he had heard about the war with Amalek and kriyas Yam Suf. The entire world had known about these events and so whatever Yisro heard was heard by all. Yet, he was the only one who actually allowed himself to be inspired enough to come. So what was it really that Yisro heard which caused him to come and how are Rashi and the Gemara addressing this issue?

At this point in our history, the B'nei Yisroel found themselves at Har Sinai experiencing something truly out of this world. The magical combination of thunder, lightning, shofar blasts, clouds, fire, smoke, and water was extraordinary in the full sense of the word, and certainly served as a perfect summary of Hashem's complete control over the world, which was displayed during the makkos (plagues) and kriyas Yam Suf (splitting of the Red Sea). The Torah³ describes that the sound of a shofar could be heard growing increasingly louder. The Ibn Ezra⁴ comments that usually when someone blows a shofar, it starts out loud with power and then, as one is trying to keep his breath flowing, the sound grows softer until it gradually dies out. However, this particular shofar blast started soft and grew increasingly louder. The reason for this, the Ibn Ezra writes, was in order not to scare the B'nei Yisroel with starting with such a loud sound.

There is no doubt that this grand shofar blowing was indeed incredibly loud and quite scary – especially considering the setting on Har Sinai – if so, what did it help to have the shofar grow louder and louder? If at some decibel the sound was unbearable or too intense, all that slowly raising the volume should accomplish is a delay until it reaches that point. However, once that degree is attained, shouldn't it be just as frightening?

Conceptually, this argument makes a lot of sense. After all, why should gradually reaching a certain volume be any different than starting at that point? If it is too loud, then it should be deemed as such regardless, and if not then it should not be necessary to reach the volume gradually. However, the reality is that by reaching a certain volume, or anything for that matter, gradually, one could achieve any feat, which without doing so would be deemed impossible.

This idea is often expressed as the Sorites Paradox. The Sorites Paradox states that there is no such thing as a heap of grain. After all, imagine a single grain on a table, certainly no one would argue that that would be called a heap. Now imagine that someone puts one more grain next to it – still no heap. As one continues to add grain upon grain, there is really no point that one could clearly point at and say that there is now a heap, because why should adding one more grain make the collection any more a heap than it was a moment ago with one less grain?

In 1872, Heinzmann, a German scientist, demonstrated in an experiment that a normal frog placed in a pot of water being gradually heated, would not jump out. In his project, Heinzman raised the temperature from lukewarm to hot at a rate of less than 0.2 degrees Celsius per minute. After about two and a half hours, the frog was found dead in the very hot water. Yet, frogs placed directly into such hot water, would immediately jump out.

The Sorites Paradox is something that confronts us every day. We are often surprised when we look back at pictures of people who we see every day and notice how different they look and yet we never realized. It seems funny how such things go unnoticed. The scary part, though, is trying to think about all the other times that this idea may effect us and we have yet to realize; because the truth is that just as our ears easily adjust to slight increases in volume, and frogs get used to the gradual change in temperature, we as individuals too become comfortable with the slightly different person we become at the end of each day. Although many of us rarely view it this way, the reality is that at the end of every single day, the decisions we made, the attitudes we allowed to prevail, the thoughts that went through our heads, and our reactions to scenarios we found ourselves in all change us ever so slightly that it is hard to notice these small daily tweaks. The danger comes when we find ourselves over time with a personality, attitude or perspective that we would have never jumped into originally, but somehow became acceptable over the passing of time and gradually attaining such a level.

The only way to circumvent this risk is to introspect and program oneself to lead a life with certain guidelines to help define the way one acts each day. This will ensure that the small changes of our daily lives are in sync with what we really want of ourselves, and we will not be surprised later when we look back and wonder how we got to where we are.

Another aspect to this is the idea that big achievements are attained by taking small steps – one at a time. Adding even one grain at a time at some point does in fact become a heap. Similarly, directing our focus to make positive small tweaks each day to gradually grow spiritually will glean tremendous effects.

Perhaps with this we could better understand the first Rashi in the parsha. One could imagine that although everyone had heard about the events of milchemes Amalek (war with Amalek) and Kriyas Yam Suf, because they had followed after so many mirraculous events of all the plagues in Mitzrayim, seeing miracles become the norm in the world's eyes. Yisro, however, listened and watched these evens attentively and appreciated them for what they inherently were and trying to demonstrate, instead of allowing the recent progression of miracles water-down the experience. This is exactly what the Gemara and Rashi are trying to convey. What did Yisro hear that caused him to convert and come? He heard milchemes Amalek and kriyas Yam Suf. These were indeed things which only Yisro heard because everyone else got used to the boiling water and the gradual increase in volume to the point that miracles ceased to faze them.

May Hashem help us realize who we are and who we want to be in order that we not fall subject to the Sorites Paradox and end up being someone we would have never thought of becoming. Rather, we should keep in mind this power of gradual change and use it to our advantage to achieve great heights.

1Shemos 18:1

2Zevachim 116a. The Third opinion brought in the Gemara is that he heard about the giving of the Torah on Har Sinai

3Shemos 19:19

4Ibid.  
Photo Credit: and  http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2009/05/illustrations-the-boiled-frog/ and http://en.wikinoticia.com/lifestyle/psychology/40403-loud-music-increases-alcohol-consumption  

Parshas Yisro - Sunken Chunk

Parshas Yisro

Sunken Chunk

By: Daniel Listhaus

אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי: וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ

“You have seen what I did to Egypt, and that I carried you on the wings of eagles and brought you to Me. And now, if you listen well to Me and you will keep My covenant, you will be a treasure to Me from among the all the nations, for the earth is Mine.”

-Yisro 19:4-5

As the B'nei Yisroel were getting ready to accept the Torah, Hashem commanded Moshe to announce that if we decide now to listen to the mitzvos of Hashem, then we will become a treasure to Him. Rashi¹ on this passuk (verse) explains based on the Mechilta² that Hashem was telling us the following, “If you accept the Torah upon yourselves now, then it will be pleasant to you from now on, for all beginnings are difficult.” The Sifsei Chochomim³ comments here that Rashi stresses the word “if” because it is a conditional statement: If you accept the Torah now, then it will be pleasant in the future.

If we read this Rashi carefully, we will realize that there are a couple of difficulties. First, why is it that if we accept the Torah now it will be pleasant to us from now on? Was this a promise or a fact? Second, what is Rashi coming to add by saying, “because all beginnings are difficult”? What is that coming to explain? It sounds like the whole condition in the beginning of Rashi is pivoted on this idea or reason. But where exactly does it fit into the picture? Is it the reason as to why one should accept the Torah now, or is it supposed to represent the reason why it will be pleasant later?

Perhaps we could better appreciate and understand this Rashi if we introspect a fascinating area of human psychology. The first fact to realize is that when a person invests time in something it becomes important to him. The Nachalas Yaakov⁴ writes that there are two approaches to Torah. One approach is to jump in and work hard at it. The other method is, as the mishna in Pirkei Avos⁵ warns against, the attitude of, “I'll study Torah when I get around to it”. Starting any new project is difficult, especially an endless, life-time task of learning Torah and becoming closer to Hashem. However, it is the willingness of a person to, despite its difficulty, invest time in such an undertaking which makes the task precious in his eyes. In other words, it is indeed the reason that all beginnings are difficult which makes it that if a person decides to spend the time working on such a difficult project, that it will in fact become pleasant from now on. Something which people invest time into becomes important to them. It is a cause and effect relationship and this is what Rashi is pointing out: If one takes the step forward and spends the time working on Torah when it is most difficult, then surely it will be pleasant in one's eyes from now and on. This is a natural effect in investing time in something, it gains importance in one's eyes.

This is a tremendous lesson to take to heart. There is a dual relationship between chashivus (importance) and how we spend our resources. On the one hand, we are willing and actually desire to spend time and money for things which are important to us. On the other hand, this relationship works conversely as well. Things that we spend our resources – time or money – on also become chashuv (important) in our eyes.

Unfortunately, there is a flip-side to this area of psychology which often times works to our detriment. There are times that we spend time or money on a certain task and then cannot get ourselves to stop even when we realize that continuing would be a complete waste of time. In economics, this idea is known as sunk costs. Essentially, this concept describes the idea that a decision at any given point should be made independent of the history associated with the task at hand. To make this clearer, let us analyze an experiment that Max Bazerman, a professor at Harvard, does with his MBA students each year.⁶ Every year, this professor comes to class with a $20 bill and tells his students that he will be auctioning off the twenty dollars. There are two rules to this auction. The first rule is that the highest bidder receives the twenty dollars. The second rule is that the second highest bidder must pay the amount he bid for his last, losing bid without getting anything in return. For example, if the winning bidder bids nine dollars and the second to highest bidder offered eight dollars, the nine-dollar guy will win the $20, while the eight-dollar bidder will have to pay the professor without getting anything in return.

The auction starts at one dollar and quickly reaches the $12-$16 range, at which point usually all students leave the auction except for two or three. Slowly, the bidding reaches $20. At this point all the onlookers start laughing because it is clear to everyone that it is impossible for any one of the remaining bidders to come out making money. Yet, despite this realization, the bidding almost always goes beyond $21. As a matter of fact, most of these auctions go beyond $50 and often up to $100. One time the winning bid actually went all the way to $204! The force behind this drive to keep bidding is called Loss Aversion. People are afraid to lose or feel that they have lost and will continue spending money in order not to admit to a loss.

This same principle could also be seen when it comes to spending time on something. For example, imagine you go to an amusement park and you really want to go on a certain roller coaster, however it is closed. So, you go and wait in line for the bumper cars. After standing in line for twenty-five minutes you hear that the roller coaster you really wanted to go on has re-opened. Chances are that you would choose not to go on the roller coaster at that point because, after all, you have already invested the time into waiting for the bumper cars. This is a sad truth even though you originally had no intention or desire to go on the bumper cars ride. This is also a form of loss aversion. We feel too bad to admit that we have wasted our time and as a result are more willing to waste even more time than to admit this to ourselves. This is know as the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

The reality is that it does not make sense to take into account costs that have already been spent. Whether it be a sunken chunk of money or time, a decision now should be made independent of those facts. If in an isolated decision between the roller coaster or the bumper cars, you would choose the roller coaster, then that should be the only factor in your decision even after waiting the twenty-five minutes in line. Those twenty-five minutes were spent already regardless of what you decide to do at this point, and therefore should not be taken into account as a relevant factor when weighing the option of staying on the bumper cars line versus going to the roller coaster. Rather, the decision at hand would be to decide if it is worth it to remain on this line for another five minutes, until it is your turn for the bumper cars, or go to the roller coaster line and wait there for five minutes. Those should be the only relevant factors in the decision. The fact that it is emotionally painful to admit that you just wasted twenty-five minutes is not a rational reason to waste another five minutes to continue to go on the bumper cars ride.

This concept is one that effects us on a daily basis in both physical and spiritual ways. How often does one go to a restaurant and find the food unappetizing. Yet one is willing to finish it, despite the stomach pains it may bring later, as to not feel bad about the money already spent on the food? How often does one start a video game and get bored half way through yet feel the need to continue to the end because of the levels already achieved? These are all bad decisions people make when blindly following the Sunk Cost Fallacy. We tend to forget that the money or time we spent on something does not know or care if we will choose to continue the task in which we invested.

We must be in-tuned to the fact that human psychology attributes chashivus to things we spend money or time on just as we would spend money and time on things that are chashuv to us. This converse relationship is one we must realize and watch for as to not fall into the trap of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. More importantly, though, if we do find ourselves doing something which is a waste of time we should train ourselves to remake our decisions constantly in the present, without being based on what we have done in the past. This way we will only continue to support that which we rationally decide to be important, and not just support projects on which we are afraid to admit that we have wasted time or money.

Perhaps this is another angle as to how to understand a different Rashi in this week's parsha. Rashi⁷ writes a few passukim earlier that Hashem demands of us to view the learning of Torah each day as if it was given today. Every day we should re-decide to follow ratzon Hashem and keep His mitzvos. It should not become a routine or an emotional need to go further because of the time, money, and reputation we already have invested in a Torah lifestyle, rather we should constantly realize that the investment of being a shomer Torah u'mitzvos (keeper of the Torah and mitzvos) is one that is worth everything and totally outweighs anything which might conflict with it at any given point. As a matter of fact, the Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez⁸ points out that in birkas HaTorah (Blessings made on the Torah) the text of the bracha is: Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d, King of the universe, who selected us from all the nations...Blessed are You, Hashem, the Giver of the Torah.” The present-tense form of the word is used – “Giver”, as opposed to “The One Who gave”, in order to allude to the fact that every day we must re-accept the Torah upon ourselves.

The lesson of Rashi that success in Torah is correlated and conditioned with one's drive to spend time on studying Torah at the point which is hardest, is one of which we must constantly be aware. We must be careful in deciding which tasks and projects to undertake, but at the same time know that after a bad decision is made we must not be afraid to admit it to ourselves and re-decide based on the present conditions. In this way we will avoid falling into the trap of wasting our lives via loss aversion and the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

May we have the zechus to better decide and understand what is best for us so that we could invest our time into things that are chashuv to Hashem, and in return these things will become even more chashuv to us.

1Shemos 19:5

2Ibid

3Ibid

4Ibid

5Pirkei Avos 2:5

6Brafman, Ori and Rom, Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior. 2008. Random House Inc., New York. Page 30.

7Shemos 19:1

8Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez, Parshas Yisro; 3^rd Perek; 19:1
Photo Credit: http://braintrustgroup.com/2012/how-sunk-costs-can-be-minimized-with-agile/

Parshas Beshalach - In G-d We Trust

Parshas Beshalach

In G-d We Trust

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל משֶׁה הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר לָכֶם לֶחֶם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם וְיָצָא הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ לְמַעַן אֲנַסֶּנּוּ הֲיֵלֵךְ בְּתוֹרָתִי אִם לֹא

“Hashem said to Moses, 'Behold! I shall rain down for you food from heaven; let the people go out and pick each day's matter on its day, so that I may test him, whether he will follow My Torah or not.”

-Beshalach 16:4

After witnessing the wonders of kriyas Yam Suf (the splitting of the Red Sea) and the whole Egyptian army being wiped out, the Jews certainly realized their newly found freedom to a higher degree. They sung Az Yashir¹ and thanked Hashem from the depths of their hearts. However, it seems that it was only a matter of days until the Jews turned to Moshe and started a series of complaints. First they complained about the lack of water, and then they complained about not having food.² At that point, Hashem said that he would send the manna as a test to see if the Jews were ready to follow the Torah.³

Rashi⁴ explains that the manna came with two rules. The first rule was that one could not leave over any manna to save for the next day. The second, equally important rule, was that one cannot go out to collect the manna on Shabbos. Rashi continues to explain that the manna, with its rules, was actually a test us to see if the Jews in the midbar (desert) would be able to keep the mitzvos of the Torah.

This Rashi, and really the passuk (verse) itself, is hard to understand. How could this two-rule game properly gauge how B'nei Yisroel would measure up in being able to keep the Torah? Imagine yourself, for a moment, as a part of the Jewish population of that time in the desert. You just came out of Mitzrayim after having watched the Egyptians suffer through the ten makkos (plagues) and experience the finale of kriyas Yam Suf – a time when the whole world recognized Hashem's full control over nature. Now, you find yourself among a group of hungry, recently freed slaves in the middle of a desert. Hashem performs yet another miracle and provides manna from the sky to 600,000 men between twenty and sixty, let alone all the children, elders, and women.⁵

You see all of this, appreciate it, and internalize it. Yet, one morning decide to break the small rule and store some extra manna away and save it for breakfast the following morning. Does this action show in any way that you are totally incapable of performing mitzvos (Hashem's commandments)? If someone would subsequently challenge you to do any particular mitzva would there be any more of a reason to believe that you would be hesitant to doing it? Surely just because someone would be willing to break the rule of the manna, would not necessarily mean that one would stop from being a perfect, kosher keeping, shomer Shabbos Jew. Why did Hashem use the manna as a test to see if we were ready to keep the Torah? The requirements of the manna seem to have nothing to do with what we as Jews are tasked with on a daily basis through performing the mitzvos. Name a mitzvah and it would probably not cross such a person's mind to transgress on it: Performing Bris millah, putting on tefillin, wearing tzitzis, reading Shema, having a Pesach seder – what does keeping to the rules of the manna prove that demonstrates that he will be careful in all the mitzvos?

Let us take a step back to understand what exactly is the purpose of the Torah and its mitzvos. The Torah is much more more than a history book and is much deeper than a law book. Rather, the Torah is literally the blueprint and instruction manual for the world. Hashem is the creator of the world and he left an instruction manual which describes the guidelines as to the best way to live in this world. This is why, unlike any other religion, our Torah is all-inclusive. There is a set of rules for goyim (non-Jews), converts, slaves, and Jews. The Torah has a hierarchy as well as a system of different roles which recognizes that everyone has a purpose in this world and everyone has the ability to strive for more. This system is perfect but depends on the basic understanding that Hashem knows what is best and that everyone must be willing to accept his or her role in society within this system.

However, adopting a Torah lifestyle is not easy; and leaving aside the fact that it is not easy, so many aspects of it seem highly ridiculous. Does it really matter which shoelace I tie first? What times I daven throughout the day? The amount of time I wait between eating meat and milk? The Torah's rules are very demanding, intricate, and cover every aspect of life no matter how small and mundane the action may seem in our eyes. The only way that one could honestly accept such a lifestyle is if he or she has complete trust in Hashem that what He asks us to do is absolutely the best for us.

Conceptually, it makes sense that the creator of the world would no best how to live in it. Just as one would optimize a game board and pieces by reading the instruction manual provided by its creator, so too a person looking to optimize his life should consult the manual for the world provided by The Creator – His Torah. This is something which makes sense logically, but when there are other factors introduced it becomes hard to really internalize. When one starts to think about the “opportunity cost” of keeping the Torah – all those McDonald cheese burgers which one could have eaten, and all the “fun” that could have been had, it is harder to really appreciate the demanding life of a Torah-Jew. The only way to fight these thoughts and feelings is by realizing that there are no opportunity costs. There is nothing good outside of the Torah, and nothing lost by following the word of Hashem. It is this complete trust and faith in Hashem which is the only way that one will stay on the path of keeping Torah and mitzvos.

The ultimate test of faith and trust lays where a person would like to have the most control, but is willing to have complete trust in Hashem that He will take care of it. Being at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, food is a necessity of life which we like to be in control over. When Hashem gave us the manna with rules that one cannot stash the leftovers for the next day or collect on Shabbos, Hashem was testing us to see if we had complete trust and faith in Him. Hashem wanted to see if we would accept whatever He would tell us to do without a question. This is the mindset needed in order for one to properly accept the Torah.

Every Shabbos by the seudah (meal) we use lechem mishna (two breads) to symbolize the extra portion of manna that fell on Friday for Shabbos – reminding us that we were not allowed to go out to collect manna on Shabbos.⁶ Additionally, we cover the challah by placing a board underneath and a cover on top in order to remember the fact that the manna came in a pre-packaged, individualized box per person, of a layer of dew underneath and a layer of dew on top.⁷ What better time is there to remember the manna than at a time we spend to become closer to Hashem? Shabbos is a time of dropping work and showing complete trust in Hashem – like a weekly mini sh'mita year, and at the same time it is used as a constant reminder of the manna – which contains the basics of being a Torah Jew.

The Gemara⁸ relates that the manna did not come to the same spot for everyone. If one was a tzaddik, he would find the manna right by the entrance to his house. The average person would have to go just outside the camp in the desert to collect their manna, while the r'shaim (wicked people) would have to go outside the camp to collect their manna. The manna represents our relationship with Hashem. The closer the relationship with Hashem, the closer the manna came to the individual.

The manna was the perfect test to see if we were ready to receive the Torah because it tested our trust in Hashem. A complete trust in Hashem that He knows best is a necessary prerequisite to accepting the Torah properly. Only with a trust that Hashem's laws and demands are perfect, does one realize that there is no risk in keeping the Torah, there are no opportunity costs in keeping the Torah, and no losses by choosing to follow the way of Hashem.

1Shemos 15:1-19. Moshe led the men and Miriam led the women (Shemos 15:20-21). We now say Az Yashir daily as part of Shacharis davening.

2The passuk (Shemos 15:22) says that they had traveled for three days and could not find drinking water, so they complained to Moshe. Then they were hungry and complained that they needed food.

3Shemos 16:4

4Ibid.

5Shemos 12:37

6Orach Chaim 274, 1 and Mishna Berura there.

7Orach Chaim 271, 9 and Mishna Berura there.

8Yoma 75a

Phot Credit: http://ww2.valdosta.edu/~canwilliams/ebook2.html

Parshas Va'eira - Don't Judge a Book by its Cover

Parshas Va'eira

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover

By: Daniel Listhaus

הוּא אַהֲרֹן וּמשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר אָמַר ה' לָהֶם הוֹצִיאוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַל צִבְאֹתָם: הֵם הַמְדַבְּרִים אֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם הוּא משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן

“This is Moshe Aharon and Moshe to whom Hashem said: 'Take the Children of Israel out of Egypt according to their legions.' They are the ones who spoke to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to take the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; this is Moshe and Aharon.”

-Va'eria 6:26-27

Rashi¹ comments that throughout Chumash, there are some times that the Torah puts Moshe's name before Aharon's, and other times that the Torah chooses to write Aharon's name before Moshe's.² The reason for this, as Rashi continues to explain, is in order to convey that Moshe and Aharon were equal in significance.

The Kli Yakar³ makes the same observation but explains in more detail. He writes that as one reads through the story of B'nei Yisroel in Mitzrayim, it does not take too much effort to realize who the protagonist is. Moshe was the one who met Hashem at the s'neh (the [burning] bush) and was the one specifically appointed by Hashem Himself as the one who would take B'nei Yisroel out of Mitzrayim and bring them to Har Sinai to receive the Torah. In order to counter such a perspective of the story, the Torah comes to tell us that indeed Aharon played just as much an important role as Moshe. The Kli Yakar continues to say that the Torah also must refer to them as “Moshe and Aharon”, with writing Moshe's name first, because one could also read through the conversations between them and Pharaoh and notice that because of Moshe's speech impediment, Aharon was the one who did most of the talking. Therefore, the Torah must also come to put Moshe's name first in order for us to realize that despite the fact that Aharon played such a vital role in communicating to Pharaoh, Moshe's role of communicating Pharaoh was deemed as equally important.

This Rashi and Kli Yakar are very difficult to understand. There is no question that Aharon was an incredible person. As a matter of fact, before Moshe came back to Mitzrayim, Aharon was the one who would get nevuos (prophecies) from Hashem. However, is it really possible that once Moshe came back from Midyan after experiencing talking to Hashem face-to-face – something that only Moshe ever experienced – that Aharon was even close to the greatness that Moshe possessed? The Torah itself testifies to Moshes greatness stating that, “This man Moshe was exceedingly humble, more so than any person on the face of the earth.”⁴ Furthermore, in the Ani Ma'amins,⁵ we declare that the nevuos (prophecies) of Moshe rabbeinu are all emes (truth; reality), and that he is the 'father' of of all nevi'im (prophets) – all those who came before him and after him. This is also expressed in the poem of Yigdal⁶ which states, “There was never anyone in the Jewish people as great as Moshe, nor will there ever be.” How can it be that Rashi and the Kli Yakar explain that Moshe and Aharon were of equal greatness if it seems that Moshe was clearly someone who achieved heights greater than anyone?

The truth is that a similar question could be asked exactly the other way. Aharon indeed played the key role in communicating to Pharaoh. Hashem Himself told Moshe, “You shall speak to him [Aharon] and put the words in his mouth; and I shall be with your mouth and with his mouth, and teach you both what you are to do; and it will be that he will be a mouth for you and you will be for him a master”.⁷ Aharon truly did more speaking to Pharaoh than Moshe, so why is the Torah calling them equals in this area? If the Torah is simply trying to convey that there were some things that Aharon did better than Moshe and other areas that Moshe excelled in, that is already apparent from the passukim and we would not need the Torah to switch the order of their names a few times in order to catch our attention and tell us this. If indeed the Torah is trying to tell us, as the Kli Yakar is suggesting, that they were both equal in both areas, then at least granted we would understand that the Torah would want to go out of its way to point this out, because it is not at all obvious. However how can this explanation be true after we know two basic facts: that Moshe was greater than any person to ever live and that Aharon was the one who spoke to Pharaoh?

It must be that Rashi and the Kli Yakar are teaching us an incredible lesson. We see from here that one cannot see a person's true success by what one perceives he accomplished in the world. Each individual has his or her own inner conflict, flawed character trait, or mission to solve in this world. Additionally, when Hashem sends us to live in this world, he programs us with certain settings: Which family will we born into? What number are we to be amongst siblings? Will we be wealthy or poor? Tall or short? Each of us is given a different combination of a variety of elements. It is within this environment, with the tools we are given, that we are expected to accomplish what we were put into this world for. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the same quantitative level and position be achieved by every person, or even to assume that it is possible for one to do so, because different things are expected from different people based on the abilities Hashem provided them with.

The Ramban, in his Igeres Haramban,⁸ writes that there is absolutely nothing of which man could be prideful. One could brag about his wealth, honor, or wisdom, but really these things come from Hashem. Therefore, really, every person is equal before Hashem. The fact that a person is wise makes him no more independent than the one who is not; and Hashem could, at any moment, easily reverse their situations with no effort at all. The Ramban continues to write that despite the fact that before Hashem all are equal, a humble person should look at others and assume that they are better than himself. If one sees someone else who is rich or wise, he must accord him respect because perhaps Hashem made him wealthy because he is a tzaddik (righteous person). Yet, even when one knows someone who is struggling to make a living or who is not so bright, one cannot assume that Hashem is upset at him. Rather, one must accord respect to such a person and think to himself that that person is more righteous than himself for when he himself does aveiros (sins) he does so on purpose, but this person only sins accidentally.

We cannot judge a person's accomplishments based on what we see as his successes. We may see two people standing right next to each other one and know for certain that one of them is clearly on a much higher spiritual level than the other. However, that means nothing about how much each accomplished percentage-wise of what Hashem expects of them as individuals, and therefore it is impossible to know who in fact is more accomplished.

The Gemara⁹ brings a statement from R' Yitzchak: If a person says to you “I tried but did not succeed”, do not believe him. If a person says, “I did not try but succeeded”, do not believe him. If a person says, “I tried and found success”, believe him.

On the surface this Gemara is difficult to understand. There are plenty of people who seem to have an easier time grasping things, while there are also certainly others who, as much as they try, just cannot understand.¹⁰ So why is it that we only believe the one who says “I tried and found success”? Is it really not possible to try and still not succeed?

Perhaps with the aforementioned concept we could understand this Gemara. True success is not necessarily defined as what objective level you achieve or the number of things you accomplish. Rather, success is measured by how much you fulfill what is expected of you. If you truly tried your hardest with the tools that Hashem provided you in the environment he placed you in, then of course, by definition, you succeeded, no matter how little it may be perceived by others that you changed. As individuals, we often think that our own lives are so intricate with so many details and challenges, and when we look at others we think of how easy they have it. However, we must not judge a book by its cover. It could be that the small things that that person is expected to accomplish are much harder for him than the many things that are expected of you, given each of your personalities and life settings.

There is no doubt that Moshe and Aharon were two different people with different challenges and personalities. Additionally, there is no question that quantitatively, Moshe achieved the highest possible level of kedusha (Holiness) and nevuah which was never, nor will ever, be matched by anyone else. However, that does not mean that no one could accomplish the same amount that Moshe did in his lifetime. Moshe utilized his settings and tools from Hashem to the max and achieved the level of success that was expected of him. In the same way, Aharon too matched Moshe in terns of what was expected of him as his role as a person and part of B'nei Yisroel. Additionally, Moshe was as much a speaker to Pharaoh, as little as he did, as Aharon was despite the fact that Aharon spent much more time speaking to Pharaoh.

We too have the ability to have our names worthy of being placed before Moshe's to demonstrate that, like Aharon, we have accomplished our role to the fullest. All we have to do is try our hardest to use what Hashem gave us to complete our purpose for being here.

May Hashem help us realize what our mission in life is as individuals and then help us maximize our potential in order that we could indeed honestly proclaim, “I have tried and found true success.”

1Shemos 6:26

2This format is the exception. The above quoted passuk (verse) is one such example. Another example is in Bamidbar 3:1.

3Ibid.

4Bamidbar 12:3

5The seventh Ani Ma'amin (Thirteen Principles of Faith) based on the Rambam.

6Yigdal mirrors the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith. This poem could be found in the Siddur at the very beginning of Shacharis.

7Shemos 4:16

8This is a letter that the Ramban sent to his son.

9Megillah 6b

10This Gemara is specifically dealing with learning Torah and not business matters (which the Gemara describes could be decided that you not be successful despite working hard). However let us assume that the same would be true regarding working on oneself and trying to accomplish what one's purpose is.

Photo Credit:: www.k9safesearch.com/search.jsp?q=don't+judge+a+book+by+its+cover&v=i