Lashon Hora: Some Dos and Don'ts

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Yaakov spends 20 years living in Lavan’s house.

He has his rows with Lavan – more than a third of the parsha is dedicated to their dialogues. And it isn’t pretty. Accusations, threats, etc. One would think Yaakov has every right in the world to talk about Lavan. To let it out about how bad a guy Lavan is. To announce to the world that Lavan is the biggest cheat. To let everyone know they should never deal with Lavan, never work for Lavan, never have anything to do with Lavan.

But he doesn’t do that. Sure, he speaks to his wives about their collective relationship with Lavan before they leave on account of the evil eye Lavan has been pointing in all of their direction. Is this Lashon Hora? No. When there is an existential threat facing himself, his children, his family, he must talk about it.

But at the very end of the parsha, after having it out for the final time with Lavan, Yaakov and Lavan reach an agreement. We’ll build a pile of rocks. I’ll stay on my side, you stay on your side. And we will leave each other alone.

Translation: The threat is passed.

So there is nothing to say.

Recall that when Yaakov came to Charan at the beginning of the parsha, and asked people how Lavan was, they said He’s fine. Everything’s good! Which stands to reason that all of Lavan’s tricks were just with Yaakov. For whatever reason. Is he a threat to others? We don’t know.

But now he is out of Yaakov’s life. And so when do we ever find Yaakov talking about Lavan? At the beginning of next week’s parsha, Yaakov will send a message to Eisav – “Im Lavan garti” – I’ve been living with Lavan. Plain fact. Non-judgmental. No incriminating information about his experience. Rashi even puts a positive spin on it, saying “and I kept the 613 mitzvos” – meaning, I remained steadfast with God in Lavan’s house.

The part of “not learning from his wicked ways” is Rashi’s comment suggesting an implication from Yaakov’s words, but it does not mean that Yaakov said that.

The Chofetz Chaim decried Lashon Hora because he saw people had no shame in speaking it. One of the Talmud’s examples of how you know if something is Lashon hora is you have to turn around to see if someone you don’t want to be hearing is listening. Tell-tale sign that the words are Lashon Hora.

The Gemara in Arachin 15b has a number of aphorisms about Lashon Hora. But they’re not just lip-service.

And R. Johanan said in the name of R. Joseph b. Zimra: One who bears evil tales almost denies the foundation [of faith].
R. Johanan say in the name of R. Joseph b. Zimra: Any one who bears evil tales will be visited by plagues
Further said Resh Lakish: One who slanders makes his sin reach unto heaven
R. Hisda said in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: One who slanders deserves to be stoned with stones.
R. Hisda say in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: Of him who slanders, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: He and I cannot live together in the world
Further said R. Hisda in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: About one who slanders, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to the prince of Gehinnom: I shall be against him from above, you be against him from below, and we shall condemn him
R. Hama b. Hanina said: What is the remedy for slanderers? If he be a scholar, let him engage in the Torah. But if he be an ignorant person, let him become humble 

The Talmud also compares Lashon Hora to an arrow, or nowadays a bullet, because once it’s fired, you can regret it all you want but you can’t stop its trajectory. The damage is impossible to be undone. The best a person can achieve MAYBE is to be granted forgiveness and MAYBE a chance to clarify or “take back” the comment before whom it was said.

So let’s make some groundrules. If one can learn, learn Torah and have it be an antidote to engaging in Lashon Hora.

If a person is not so learned, practice a bit of humility. We wouldn’t want people to speak about us, so let us not speak about others.

When my grandmother, A"H was in her mid-70s she told me a story which she found to be quite instructive in how she viewed gossip that some people live to discuss. One day she was in the company of a bunch of her long-time girlfriends. One of them had a piece of juicy gossip. The others were begging her to tell them. She asked them, “Can you all keep a secret?” They leaned in, “Yes, yes, of course.”

“Well so can I.”

My grandmother was very impressed by this person.

We must learn from Yaakov Avinu – when you are threatened, any Lashon Hora you engage in must be l’toeles, to achieve a goal which is for the betterment and wellbeing of your family or community. But if it is simply aimed at destroying and just bringing people down, it has no place in our community. We must eradicate the evils of Lashon Hora from among us.

Prayers of Righteous People Must Come from The Humblest of Places

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I wonder what it was like for Yitzchak and Rivkah to bare their souls before the Almighty in their hopes of having a child.

Yitzchak pleaded with God opposite his wife, (or perhaps, as Rashbam translates, for his wife’s sake) for she was barren. God granted his plea, and his wife Rivkah became pregnant.

Perhaps in the repetition of the word “Ishto” there’s a subtle hint of a generational difference. While Avraham was eventually agreeable to the idea that he could have a child from another woman, this was not an option for Yitzchak. He wanted the child to come from HIS WIFE RIVKAH.

The Midrash explains that his prayer was more worthy than hers because he was a tsaddik ben tsaddik – the righteous product of righteous parents. Does this mean her prayer was worthless? How could it be that the prayer of someone who has unrighteous parents is worthless?

The Midrash Sechel Tov throws an interesting twist, suggesting that her barreness was a response to the blessing of her family when she left, those who told her to be a mother of a multitude of descendants – the fact that she is childless for 20 years demonstrates that their blessing was worthless. Her children were born on account of her husband’s prayer.

That’s no justification for her personal suffering! 20 years of infertility, just so her brother wouldn’t get the credit of his blessing coming true? Troubling!

There is an interesting theory in the rabbinosphere about why the Foremothers were all barren until prayer or a blessing opened their wombs. The Talmud (Yebamot 64) says quite simply that God wanted their “prayers of the righteous.”

Rabbenu Bechaya notes from here that the prayers of the righteous have the power to change nature. And the proof is from the specific word the Torah uses, “Va’ye’etar,” whose root references a farming tool which overturns grain. This prayer was to overturn God’s decree. (Paroh uses the same language to Moshe four times, perhaps for obvious reasons.)

He goes on to give specific reasons for the barren-ness of each of the mothers.

• Sarah – She was barren so that Yishmael would be born. She was barren to open the door for her name to change. Sarai was barren. But Sarah was not. 
• Rivkah was barren for 20 years – why? So that Eisav would not have the chance to rebel in Avraham’s lifetime. For Avraham to “come to his fathers in peace,” Eisav’s birth needed to be delayed 20 years. 
• Rachel was barren so that Bilhah and Zilpah would be put into a position from which they could produce Dan, Naftali, Gad, Asher. 

Which leaves us to answer the question of how the prayers of a righteous child of righteous parents has more merit than a righteous child of wicked parents?

The Slonimer Rebbe says, You’re looking at it wrong. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Prayer, Tefillah, Kavvanah, requires one to demonstrate the quality of being extremely humble, especially before the Almighty. Someone who comes from a not as clean background has a very EASY time humbling oneself. “God. I know I’ve done bad things in my life. I know I come from parents who were sinful. So I am undeserving. But, here I am.”

It’s pretty easy to be a realist in that kind of situation.

But a Tzaddik ben Tzaddik? “God. I’m a good person. My parents were good people. So I’m not really sure why I’m having this difficult time in my life. Here I am.”

It is much harder for such a person to humble oneself and say, “I am nothing. My background is worth nothing. Everything I’ve done in my life is meaningless before you. So here I am, asking for something I don’t deserve to get.”

Do you think Yitzchak wanted a child more than Rivkah did? The Meshech Chokhma says Yitzchak knew he was going to have a child! It was promised to him by God through the blessing to Avraham. He knew he was not the problem! Therefore, as Chizkuni notes, he didn’t need to pray for himself!

And so he prayed for her.

And of course Rivkah also wanted a child. But many who describe her prayer explain it similarly as her saying I only want a child with HIM. And she prayed for her husband to be the father of her children – that they should be able to make it work.

This is the lesson we have to remember. Prayer is sometimes selfish. But more often it’s selfless. I’m praying for the other person. I’m looking out for my family, my friends. And I am humbling myself so that God can see that I am sincere.

Davening is only meaningful if it is a serious endeavor. And as we learn from the Slonimer Rebbe, the more one humbles oneself, the more powerful the davening is.

This is our challenge when we come to shul. To daven like Yitzchak and Rivkah. To have our priorities clear and correct. To know what we come to do, what we have to do to achieve it, and how this challenge can last twenty years… or a lifetime! until our goals are met. Those of us who have a spouse should pray for our spouse. Those of us who have children, should pray for our children. Those who have grandchildren or great-grandchildren, should be very busy in the synagogue – praying for each and every one of them.

We should also pray for those who are or seem to be alone, that they should find the "simchas hachaim" (joy of living) they seek to have, in whatever ways they choose to go about making this life meaningful.

And those of us who have no family have a community. Pray for our community, locally and globally – pray for the people of Israel. Pray that we should experience peace and prosperity, and the continued opportunity to enjoy life with family, friends, communities, and, most humbly, with our God.

An Officer and a Gentleman - A Veteran's Day Sermon

November 11, Parshat Chayei Sarah

 The sermon began with the reading of this prayer in Hebrew and in English. It was lightly adjusted to include those who "served" as well as those who are serving now. https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/prayers/prayer-safety-american-military-forces/ 

We are honored to be observing Veterans Day today, בו ביום, and to give tribute – as well as to the Veterans of the United States of America – specifically to the members of our shul who served in the Armed Forces of the United States.

United States citizens always owe a debt of gratitude to those who served in the US military, because it is the military and all of its branches who put themselves at the front lines to protect all of us from invading powers. Keeping all military confrontations off shore – I believe since the Civil War is one of the greatest gifts given to the United States by its military.

To be a military person, one must not only be giving, and ready to sacrifice. But one must believe in the cause for which we stand and for which we fight. One must be ready to take orders when given. And one must be able to follow orders, so that any mission may succeed.

The true heroes are the ones who don’t think of themselves as heroes. Who humbly go about their business, and their job, serving for the sake of God and country, and, as we say in our tribute to the military, The valiant soldiers, who risk their lives to protect the welfare of all Your creation.

In thinking about this, it occurred to me that we have a model of the first real military man in our parsha. He is a Veteran who turned his life into one of service. Who dedicated his life to following orders. And who always lived a life of integrity and honor.

One of the more mysterious characters in the Torah is Avraham’s anonymous servant. While Avraham’s servant Eliezer is named only once in the Torah, in chapter 15, that name is given by the Midrash to every servant we see attached to Avraham. Whether it is the person who joins Avraham in fighting against the 4 kings, or the person who prepares the meat for the 3 guests at the beginning of last week’s parsha, or the one who accompanies him to the Binding of Yitzchak. So universal is this view, that I am unaware of anyone who even questions whether the fellow Avraham sends to find a wife for Yitzchak could possibly be anyone other than Eliezer.

In the scheme of his story being presented in the Torah, he gets more press time than Yitzchak gets in the Torah. We almost, in a sense, know more about him than we know about our second patriarch. And in many ways, he’s viewed as a success story of Avraham’s and Sarah’s from their efforts in Charan. He is called “Damesek Eliezer” – implying he was from Damascus – which is somewhere near Charan. Two weeks ago I suggested he was the main success story of the Nefesh Asher Asu B’Charan.

In the Midrash, there is a view that he did not want to be successful in his mission to bring back a wife for Yitzchak, because he had a daughter whom he hoped Yitzchak would marry. Beyond that perspective, the credit given to him for his fealty to Avraham is beyond anything most people experience – beyond, I suppose, in the military.

He too has his own story, his own journey, in the teachings of the rabbis.

The first time he is introduced to us is in Chapter 14, when the Torah recounts the tale of the battle with the 4 kings. The Talmud in Nedarim 32a talks about how Avraham’s 318 men were in fact Eliezer, with numerical value of 318 – an idea confirmed by Midrash Tanchuma, who says Avraham told his servants who were sinful to go home. All left, so God made Eliezer as strong as 318 men.

Targum Yonatan (14:13) says he was Nimrod’s son, which is what made him a great warrior. No matter how we splice it, he was on the battle field alongside Avraham, present only because he was following orders.

There is no question that he earns his stripes in the battles against the 4 kings. Avraham’s concern that Eliezer would be the only one to inherit him was legitimate! After all, Eliezer had been willing to sacrifice everything for Avraham!

And when the destruction of Sodom ended Lot’s narrative in the Torah, things may have been looking up for Eliezer. But in the meantime, Yishmael had been born. Yitzchak’s sun was rising. But at the end of last week’s parsha, Yishmael had been rejected, or at least ejected, and Yitzchak’s relationsh wip with Avraham may have become an estranged one, owing to one view of how Yitzchak understood his role in the Akedah.

Translation – perhaps Eliezer is seeing the dawn of a new day for himself. And then, after the death of Sarah, and no new possibility for Avraham to have another child, Eliezer may have thought it’s a done deal. Until Avraham asks him to find a wife for Yitzchak.

Strike one – Yitzchak will inherit. Strike two - the wife will not be from Eliezer’s line. What does he do now?

Supposing the assumption is true, that he was banking on failing, in hopes of becoming Avraham’s Mechutan, the fact that he goes through with his mission anyway shows how he is able to detach his personal view from the plans of his superior officer. Why did Avraham not want Eliezer’s daughter? The information we have is sketchy at best.

The simplest answer is that Avraham’s main objection was because Eliezer was from the descendants of Cham, who had been cursed. And while the Midrash Rabba (60) tells us Eliezer was able to get his way out of being cursed, that objective was only achieved due to his success in this mission – finding a wife for Yitzchak.

One midrash in Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer says that he was a servant of Nimrod’s that Nimrod gave to Avraham after the fiery furnace incident. He earned his own freedom due to his service to Yitzchak, and merited to become Og king of Bashan.

Even if that Midrash is accurate, I don’t suppose any Og that exists at this time is the same Og as the one Moshe confronts 400 years later. Og, like Pharaoh, was a title given to each king of Bashan.

In either case, Eliezer is rewarded due to his success in finding Rivkah.

How did Avraham know Eliezer could be trusted in such a fashion?

I believe it hinges down to one simple verse which describes everything we need to know about Eliezer. (ב) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶל־עַבְדּוֹ֙ זְקַ֣ן בֵּית֔וֹ הַמֹּשֵׁ֖ל בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֑וֹ Zkan beyso means he is the elder of Avraham’s household. But what does הַמֹּשֵׁ֖ל בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֑וֹ mean? The Pesikta explains שהיה שליט ביצרו כמותו: That he was in control of his yetzer/inclination, just as he was.

The Kli Yakar fills in the blanks of what this means. Eliezer was above suspicion! He would not take bribes! Some commentaries suggest that Eliezer might find the right girl for Yitzchak and keep her for himself! Avraham knew Eliezer would never do this. Because he was מֹּשֵׁ֖ל בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֑וֹ – he knew what was his own. And he therefore knew what was not his own.

Kli Yakar explains how those who have a desire for money actually has the coveted money control them. Koheles 6 speaks of this, how a person who is not שמח בחלקו is always expecting something from God, and is always suspect of personally justifying taking things that don’t belong to him. He who is שמח בחלקו on the other hand, is מֹּשֵׁ֖ל בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֑ו . He would NEVER take what doesn’t belong to him. He rules over his belongings, and his belongings don’t rule over him.

Those who served in the armed forces know what it means to live this existence – being selfless, doing what’s right because it’s right, following orders, getting the job done, etc. even when personal interests might be in conflict with the greater mission.

We all know life isn’t roses. And even the military, with all its order and rules, is not roses. But there is an ideal which is aimed for, and a product which emerges, which we proudly look to as people who served with honor and distinction. Sometimes at great sacrifice.

That was Eliezer. And that is the people we honor on this day.

"The Years That Avraham LIVED"

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Both our first Patriarch and Matriarch die in this Torah portion. The parsha begins with the death of Sarah, hence the name “Chayei Sarah,” and it essentially concludes with the end of the lives of Avraham and Yishmael, respectively.

How Sarah’s death and Avraham’s death are portrayed are only slightly different, aside from the obvious difference in the number of years they lived.

“And these were the life of Sarah, 100 hundred years, 20 years, and 7 years, the years of the life of Sarah.” (23:1) For Avraham it says, “These were the days of the years of the life of Avraham, that he lived, 100 years, 70 years and 5 years.” (25:7)

In the depiction of the summary of Avraham’s life, there is a curious phrase that seems unnecessary: “That he lived.”

It should seem obvious that if we are seeing an enumeration of the numbers of years of Avraham’s life, that these are the years that he lived. We never say “so and so was 90 at death, and he lived a different number of years," so why is that the implication for Avraham?

Firstly, we do actually say this at times, such as when a person spent the last few years in a terrible medical condition. Whether Alzheimer’s, dementia, vegetative, unresponsive, a coma, etc – how often do we hear family members say “This is not a life anymore.” Always praying for a recovery, of course, but also hoping for an end to suffering.

Even with such a disclaimer, the phrase still begs an explanation.

Or HaChaim utilizes a known Midrash about Eisav, that he was about to (as we might say today) “go off the derech,” and Avraham’s life was cut short by 5 years so he wouldn’t see Eisav in a bad light. This Midrash presupposes that all 3 patriarchs were supposed to live for 180 years.

In this perspective “Avraham lived” only 175 of the years of what were supposed to be his 180.

Kli Yakar’s approach is a little more profound. Focusing not on Avraham’s missing 5 years, he notes the difference between the life of Avraham and the life of Sarah. Sarah’s life was much more tragic – between her infertility, her being abducted by Pharaoh, Avimelekh and perhaps others, and dealing with the aftermath of the binding of Yitzchak – it’s hard to say she lived life to the fullest and got the most out of as many moments as possible.

Avraham, on the other hand, lived life to the utmost. From recognizing God at a younger age, spreading ideas of monotheism, having a spectacular relationship with God, having a number of children, and even seeing his grandchildren in his lifetime, Avraham’s life was a life that “he lived.”

And so we must ask ourselves a simple question. Because of course we all go through the motions of life and live our allotted years. But in what manner do we make our lives “worth living?”

For some people life is about providing for the material needs of self, family and others.
For some people life is about getting as close to God as possible.
Some people put much stock in their daily davening. Some in their regular learning.
Some want to eat, drink, and be merry.
Some don’t want anyone to tell them what to do.
Some focus on politics, some focus on sports, some on current events, while some are ignorant of it all.

Are we living our lives well – making this one-time gift into a life that was worth it?

Avraham did it at every moment. Sarah didn’t merit it for various reasons. And now the question is about us. How do we live our lives? Are we truly living in every possible moment?

People Evolve: Growing Into A Relationship

Parshat Vayera

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I am currently teaching a weekly parsha class using the commentary of Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg, Ha’ktav v’hakabbalah. As it doesn’t appear in a classic Chumash, it is less known outside of Chumash scholarship – but the perspective he brings is fascinating and worth the effort of finding the text – available for free at Hebrewbooks.org – and studying at length.

Yiddish speakers will enjoy an additional perk, as he explains some concepts in finer detail with Yiddish expressions.

In Lech Lecha, he noted that the encounter in Egypt, when Sarah was taken by Pharaoh, ended with Pharaoh sending them out of Egypt, with the Torah describing their departure as accompanied by great wealth. Rabbi Mecklenberg explains, noting the word “Vayhi lo” (and he had) rather than “Vayiten lo” (that Pharaoh gave him) the wealth as an indication that Avraham and Sarah left Egypt with the wealth they had brought down to Egypt. Comparing Pharaoh’s evil designs against Sarah to the King of Sodom’s nefarious plans, and how Avraham rejected gifts from the latter to avoid his laying claim of making Avraham wealthy, Rabbi Mecklenberg makes the bold claim that Pharaoh did not actually give Avraham any parting gifts – Avraham wouldn’t have accepted them anyway. Pharaoh just let Avraham keep whatever he had brought down to Egypt.

In his lengthy analysis on their descent, Rabbi Mecklenburg makes another bold claim that Avraham and Sarah’s marriage was designed following Noachide rules. In those pre-Torah days, as Maimonides points out in his Laws of Marriage, all that was needed for a union to be recognized as a marriage was for a man and woman to agree to live together, consummate their union, and they’re married. Divorce was accomplished through their mutual agreement that the relationship was over. And the idea of remarrying the same person was not problematic, contrary to the verse in the Torah which forbids a re-union if the woman was with a different man in the interim. (Devarim 24:4)

As a Noachide-law marriage, knowing she would be abducted in any case, the goal of telling others they are siblings (in the same manner that Avraham and Lot were “brothers” – Sarah was Lot’s sister) was meant to share the relationship that was OK for the foreign nations to know of in a truthful manner, while not acknowledging a different relationship of marriage which, for a short time, actually ended!

With all of this as a background, it is interesting that Ha’ktav V’hakbbalah doesn’t make similar claims regarding Avimelekh in Chapter 20. Of course it is much harder to make a claim that Avimelekh did not give them anything, as the verse even says (20:14) “Avimelekh took sheep, cattle, and male and female slaves, and he gave [them] to Avraham. He [also] returned [Avraham's] wife Sarah to him.”

In 20:11-13 Avraham essentially explains why claiming Sarah as his sister is actually the truth, confirming the idea of Noachide marriage (and divorce) for us.

Rabbi Mecklenburg does not address the gift-giving at all. Perhaps it is already clear at this point that Avraham is wealthy. Perhaps Avimelekh’s character (flaws as it is) is a little more savory than Pharaoh and King of Sodom, allowing Avraham to be comfortable receiving these gifts. But one gift stands out, in 20:16, when Avimelekh says “I am giving your 'brother' a thousand pieces of silver. Let it be compensation for you.” (Living Torah translation)

The words “Ksut einayim” which Rabbi Kaplan translated as “compensation” are, as Rabbi Kaplan notes in his commentary

“A difficult idiom, literally translated as 'an eye covering.' Thus, 'something to prevent you from seeing any more evil' (cf. Ibn Ezra; Rashi). Others interpret it as a vindication, something that will cover other people's eyes and prevent them from seeing wrong (Rashbam). Another interpretation is that '[the money] will cover people's eyes and prevent them from looking at you wantonly' (Ramban). Other commentators take it literally, as a veil to show that Sarah was a properly married woman (HaKethav VeHaKabbalah). Still other sources translate eynayim as 'colors' rather than 'eyes,' and render the phrase, 'let [the money] be used to buy you a colorful cloak' (Radak). Finally, some make the subject of the phrase Abraham: '[Abraham] shall be for you as an eye-covering,' however the latter expression is translated (Ibn Ezra).” 

While Rabbi Kaplan was clearly aware of the K’tav V’Hakabbalah, in his miniscule reference here he doesn’t do justice to the length of the exposition on this verse. Making references to Middle Eastern cultures which routinely had women covering their faces, to preserve their beauty for their husbands (culturally a different outlook than that of the West), Rabbi Mecklenburg wonders about how Avraham and Sarah went about preserving or rejecting the face-covering custom. Moreso, he talks about how Avraham is the “eye covering,” protecting her and others from sinning due to her beauty.

Regarding the money, Rabbi Mecklenburg argues that it wasn’t really given, that Avimelekh had intended to give it to Avraham as a gift for the fine bride Avimelekh had taken from her brother. But that never came about, so the dowry was never given.

Like everyone, Avraham and Sarah evolved. They grew into their relationship, how they dealt with outsiders, and developed a trust of one another that, to a certain degree, is beyond our comprehension. How would any of us deal with a potentate who takes women at his will, and kills husbands to unchain the women (let the irony of justifying murder to avoid adultery not go unnoticed)?

Hopefully these are not challenges we come face to face with. But may all marriages be blessed to be built on understanding and trust, so challenges and hurdles can be overcome together, and not a cause for making a marriage fall apart.