The Sources for the Kiruv Obligation
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #27: The Sources for the Kiruv
Obligation
In the previous two lessons, we have focused on the loving nature of
reaching out to others and the historical precedents for bringing them closer to
God. Besides the sources already quoted, there are a number of interpersonal
mitzvot which lie at the heart of the obligation.
One of the biggest
proponents of kiruv was none other than Rav Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen Kagan,
better known as the Chafetz Chayim. Though his name is often associated with the
concept of purity of speech or his halakhic masterwork Mishna Berura, he
also called for a movement of epic proportions to return lost Jews. His
Chomat Ha-dat delineates four basic sources for this endeavor, which are
binding upon all.
The first source of
obligation is what we discussed in the initial lesson. One is required to assist
others actively to recognize God's goodness and to appreciate His name and that
of the Torah, based on the mitzvot of ahava, of loving both God
and one's fellow man, as well as the mitzva of kiddush ha-shem,
sanctifying the name of God. The mitzva of kiruv is rooted in love,
recognizing that at times one shows true love of God by foregoing personal
growth in order to ensure that the overall goal of God's name being sanctified
is achieved.
Arevut and Tokhacha
The second obligation is
rooted in one's responsibility for others, arevut, as discussed at length
in Lesson 20. The Chafetz Chayim explains that the dictum of kol Yisrael
arevim zeh ba-zeh teaches that the Jewish people are to be viewed as one
organism; therefore, any part of the body that is deficient will by definition
affect everyone.
The Chafetz Chayim
explains that one who is careful to keep the laws of Shabbat but is not involved
in influencing others to do so will be called to task in the future. He will be
viewed as a Sabbath desecrater for allowing others to sin.
A similar understanding
appears in Reishit Chokhma, by Rav Eliyahu de Vidas (Shaar Ha-yira
14):
It is written (Devarim
32:9), "For Gods people are His portion; Yaakov, the cord of His inheritance."
This indicates that all Jewish souls are bound to one another like a braided
cord, and are, therefore, united together with no separation.
When you shake one end of
a taut rope, the entire rope vibrates. This is the meaning of the verse (Bamidbar
16:22) "One man sins, but You rage at the entire congregation!" This also
explains the case of Akhan, the reason being that "all
Jews are guarantors for one another."
Furthermore, the Chafetz Chayim views
tokhacha as an explicit mitzva obligating one to help others improve their
spiritual practice. The Rambam
explicitly states in Hilkhot De'ot 6:7 that even observing one's friend
walking in a way that is not good obligates one to offer reproof:
If one observes that a person has committed a sin or is
pursuing a path which is not good, it is a duty to bring the one in
error back to the right path and point out to him that he is wronging himself by
his evil actions, as it is said: "You shall certainly rebuke your comrade."
In fact, the Chafetz Chayim writes that in the
future not only will one be held accountable for failing to help others
spiritually, but these others will actually accuse whoever forgoes this
obligation of negligence.
The Right Hand and the Left
One might add that even
in this noble effort which is rooted in love (see Lessons 21-22), one must be
careful to ensure that this act is one of kiruv. Whenever one may attempt
to influence others in any way, one always runs the risk of actually turning
them off. If one does so, one will not only fail to achieve the desired results;
one will actually accomplish the opposite. The Talmud (Sota 47a,
Sanhedrin 107b) offers some practical advice for offering constructive
criticism.
Our Rabbis taught: One
must always ensure that the left hand pushes away as the right hand brings close
unlike Elisha, who pushed Gechazi away with two hands, and unlike Yehoshua ben
Perachya, who pushed his student away with two hands.
Thus, the weaker hand,
the left, is the one used to distance the sinner, while the right hand, the
stronger one, is to be used to bring the other close. (See Maharsha,
Sanhedrin ad loc.) The Talmud adds that even great men like the prophet
Elisha and the sage Yehoshua ben Perachya went too far in distancing their
pupils who had strayed, causing these disciples to fail completely.
Indeed, the Abarbanel (Devarim
33) notes that the concluding portions of the Torah, describing what will befall
the Jewish people in the future based on whether they obey God or unfortunately
fail to do so, provide a model of this conduct: the right hand must bring close,
as one must focus primarily on the good and assure that there will be a positive
end.
The Alshikh is very fond
of this lesson and includes it numerous times in his various commentaries. In
his commentary to Shir Ha-shirim (2:6), he explains that this is the
meaning of the verse: "His left hand is under my head, and His right hand
embraces me."
Israel says: Even when I
am in exile, God has not forsaken me. Though He pushes me away with His left
hand, He draws me close with His right. His left hand is under my head and His
right hand embraces me.
The Alshikh further expounds the biblical
language, noting that instead of using the simple phrase tachat roshi,
under my head, this verses chooses to use the phrase tachat le-roshi,
which literally means under to my head. This indicates that even though Israel
metaphorically feels distanced by the left hand, we recognize even this as an
act of love.
This teaches us that even
the suffering is beneficial to us. God acts like a doctor who administers a
blood test. Though this may be painful, it is necessary for the patient's
health. Similarly, we must suffer in order to cleanse our soul of the filth of
the evil inclination.
Rav Immanuel Ricchi, in his Mishnaic
commentary Hon Ashir, examines the dictum in Avot 1:7:
Do not attach yourself to the wicked.
He explains that one may not join an evildoer, but one also must not distance
such a person completely. One must distance with the left hand while using the
right to bring the wicked closer to the true path.
A number of contemporary
halakhic authorities (see Yabbia Omer, OC 15:6; Meshaneh
Halakhot 9:216) endorse this mindset for anyone involved with kiruv.
However, this does not answer one simple question: how can one try to help
change others' behavior without turning them off?
In this regard, we may
refer to a story of Rav Chayim Ozer Grodzinski, a younger contemporary of the
Chafetz Chayim (recorded by Shmuel Himelstein in Wisdom & Wit, published
by Mesorah Publications in 2003). He was once approached by a young Jew who had
forgone observance; after receiving a draft notice, he approached the great sage
to beseech his assistance in escaping the deadly Russian draft.
Rav Chayim Ozer fully
understood that one of the purposes of drafting Jews was to eliminate their
Jewish observance, so he asked the youth how he felt his Shabbat observance
would be hurt in the army. The youth looked down and admitted that in truth it
had been some time since he had observed Shabbat. Rav Chayim Ozer continued to
attempt to gage the youth's level of observance, only to find out that along
with Shabbat, the youth had abandoned eating kosher food, wearing tefillin
and praying.
At this point, the youth
was convinced that Rav Chayim Ozer would not only refuse to give him a blessing
but would severely reprimand him: how dare he ask for a blessing when he was
entirely unobservant! However, Rav Chayim Ozer merely sat there in tears and
delivered the following remark: I can only hope the Russian army will be as
disappointed with you as I am.
The youth was beside himself. What did
the statement of Rav Chayim Ozer meant? His doubts were resolved when he soon
after received a completely out-of-the-ordinary letter from the draft office.
The Russians were disappointed in his abilities and had no interest in
conscripting him.
The words expressing Rav
Chayim Ozer's hurt alongside his concern had been fulfilled. However, after
hearing Rav Chayim Ozer's message, the youth decided to dedicate his life to
observance.
The Interpersonal Sources
The Chafetz Chayim points
to a third set of obligations: those interpersonal mitzvot that require
one to help others physically. One is obliged to return another's lost article,
and one is forbidden to stand idly by as another's blood is spilled; thus, one
is required to assist others in times of distress. Though the focus of the Torah
upon another's lost object or a threat to another's life, it obviously would
require the same type of action on behalf of an individual in spiritual danger.
These interpersonal mitzvot, according to the Chafetz Chayim, clearly
express one's spiritual obligations to others.
In fact, the Chafetz
Chayim is not the originator of all these ideas, though he is extremely eloquent
in presenting them. The Chafetz Chayim's comments are based on an understanding
that the various interpersonal mitzvot requiring one to save others
lives and care for their possessions clearly would obligate no less when others
are faced with spiritual losses. Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz quotes a number of
earlier sources that are understood similarly. This idea is actually found in
Rashi's commentary to Devarim 23:9, when he explains (based on Sifrei
252) why the Torah forbids descendants of converts from the nations of Ammon and
Moab from ever marrying native-born Jews, while it allows grandchildren of
converts from Edom and Egypt to do so. He relates this to the complicity of
Ammon and Moab in the Baal Peor incident, in which Israel was led into an orgy
of sin.
Thus, you learn from here that someone who causes a
person to sin does worse than one who kills him, for one who kills him, kills
him in this world, whereas one who leads him to sin removes him from this world
and the World to Come. Therefore, Edom, who came forth against them with the
sword, is not rejected, nor is Egypt, who drowned them. These, however, who
caused them to sin, are rejected.
In fact, a number of early commentators write
that these interpersonal mitzvot mandate spiritual assistance as well.
The Shela (Parashat Kedoshim) states:
The prohibition of
standing idly by (Vayikra 19:16) is entailed because kol Yisrael
arevim zeh ba-zeh. Now, if we are required to save the physical body, we
certainly are equally responsible to save the soul, i.e. if we see others
involved in sin, we must save them.
In Minchat Chinnukh (139:4), Rav Yosef
Babad points out that bringing others back to the proper path involves a
fulfillment of a few interpersonal mitzvot.
Besides fulfilling the
commandment "You shall certainly rebuke your comrade, one also fulfills the
commandment "You shall not stand idly by the blood of your fellow." This
commandment requires that we save someone whose life is in danger for example,
through drowning. Bringing another back to Torah is no less significant.
Furthermore, one also
fulfills the mitzva of returning another's lost article (Devarim 22:1):
"You shall return them to your brother. As our Sages teach us (Bava Kamma
81b), this commandment also requires us to restore a person's life and health.
Therefore, if one can save a person from sin, which involves a loss of both body
and soul, one certainly has the responsibility to save him and bring him back to
the right path.
In truth, there are those who take issue with
this understanding (see Rav Saadia Gaons Sefer Ha-mitzvot, Positive 28)
and limit these specific obligations to their context of physical assistance.
However, the copious sources cited indicate that the need to reach out to others
is essentially not only an obligation bein adam la-Makom but one bein
adam le-chavero.
The Curse
The Chafetz Chayim cites a fourth obligation
for kiruv rechokim, based on the verses in Parashat Ki Tavo
concerning the ceremony to take place at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval. The final
line to be recited is the following:
Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this
Torah, to fulfill them. And all the people shall say, Amen! (Devarim
27:26)
The
commentators differ as to the meaning of this imprecation. Rashi explains this
verse as a general declaration to uphold the entire Torah:
Here, Moshe included the entire Torah, and they
accepted it upon themselves with a curse and an oath.
The Ramban writes an alternative understanding
based on the Yerushalmi, which understands the verse as related to one's
communal responsibility:
In the Yerushalmi,
Sota (7:4), I saw a question regarding the verse: "Is the Torah falling that
it must be held up?
Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta says, This is the earthly
court, for Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna said in the name of Shemuel, It was
concerning this matter that Yoshiyahu tore his garments and said, It is
incumbent upon me to uphold. Rabbi Asi says in the name of Rabbi Tanchum bar
Chiya: One may study the Torah, teach it to others, observe and perform its
mitzvot; nevertheless, if one has the capacity to strengthen it among the
public and does not do so, he is also included in this curse.
The Ramban continues by explaining the
ramifications of his understanding.
The Sages thus expound
the verses reference to upholding the Torah as binding upon the royal house or
the princes, who have within their power to uphold and enforce the observance of
Torah against the wicked who nullify it. Even if one is a perfectly righteous
person in his own deeds, but he has the ability to strengthen the observance of
Torah against the wicked who nullify it and does not do so, he is cursed.
Though the Ramban limits the scope to powerful
community leaders, such as King Yoshiyahu (see II Melakhim 22:11, II
Divrei Hayamim 34:19), the last opinion in the Yerushalmi would actually
seem to include anyone who is able to do so. There is keeping the Torah, which
is extremely important, but there is still a curse for one who doesn't "uphold
the words of this Torah by helping others observe them.
The Chafetz Chayim
understands that anyone who occupies a position in which one may help others has
already accepted the obligation to do so with the force of a blessing and a
curse. Obviously, the tremendous potential blessing should be an equal, if not
greater, impetus than the curse designated for one who fails to live up to this
promise.
A Time for Action
An understanding of the
importance of fulfilling these various mitzvot and responsibilities, one
may often wonder why indeed it seems that many fail to live up to these
obligations. The most basic reason for lackadaisical observance of kiruv
is the mindset that one is not fit to take part in this endeavor. Clearly, one
must be cognizant of the possible dangers of negative influence (see Mikhtav
Mei-Eliyahu, Vol. I, The Influence of One's Surrounding). However, there
are other reasons given as well.
The Chafetz Chayim uses
an analogy to address this question, one of a small town on fire. All the
citizens run to the local water source, forming a bucket brigade to extinguish
the fire. One man goes into hiding and doesn't involve himself. When confronted
afterwards, he explains that he is not a trained fireman, and the public should
rely on professionals. His neighbors respond: When there is a contained fire,
then we can rely on the firemen, but when the entire town is burning, everyone
must take action.
This is the view of the
Chafetz Chayim, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, before
the assimilation that is so common in our day became rampant. He felt that the
whole town was burning; can anyone familiar with the modern statistics state
otherwise?
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein,
in a seminal and passionate speech (available at:
http://www.vbm-torah.org/purim/silent.htm), questions whether those who are not involved in
this endeavor are indeed dubious of their ability to be helpful or are rather
less concerned than they should be. He cites the Purim story in the Scroll of
Esther, in which Mordekhai informs Queen Esther of the impending decree
regarding the annihilation of the Jewish people. Esther seems to be more
concerned with Mordekhais appearance than the plight of her people. She is
understandably afraid to approach the king to try to avert the decree, as
approaching the throne room without invitation is a capital crime. Mordekhai
seems to ignore this, accusing her of the most cowardly weakness due to lack of
concern.
Do not imagine that you
will escape in the royal palace from all the Jews. For if you will remain silent
at this time, relief and salvation will arise for the Jews from somewhere else,
and you and your father's house will perish. Who knows, perhaps for the sake of
a time like this you came to join the royalty?" (4:14).
Rav Lichtenstein explains the gravity of
Mordekhai's accusation.
Behind the apparent timidity lies
apathy. If you really cared, if you considered your own soul to be at stake,
would you be able to say, "For a whole month I have not been called to the
king"? Is this how someone talks when she believes that her nation is in danger?
Is this the response of someone who cares?
Someone who really cares, someone whose
consciousness is deeply rooted in the collective experience of Am Yisrael,
someone whose destiny is bound up with that of the nation, disregards any
consideration of danger or possible anger on the part of the king. In fact, such
a person doesn't even have to disregard these thoughts - they don't even enter
her mind. Such considerations arise, whether consciously or subconsciously, out
of a perception that everyone else may perish, but I will manage to save my own
skin.
In the Scroll of Esther, there is a happy ending. Queen
Esther takes Mordekhai's words to heart and puts her life on the line to save
the Jewish people. That is the turning point of the book, and the "young,
passive, powerless Esther faces her moment of truth, and she prevails. She
passes the test. And it is now that she rises to her full height and reveals
herself- not just in title, but in essence - as Queen Esther."
Rav Lichtenstein describes powerfully
this message and then questions whether our modern predicament is any different:
Such was Esther's redemption then. And
the same applies to us today. We are all, to some degree, Esther. Each of us,
for whatever reason, has doubts as to his ability to accomplish. We, too, are
hesitant: "What, we're going to achieve all that? We're going to save Am
Yisrael? I'm going to put a stop to assimilation? Little me? I'm just a
youngster; I can achieve only little: a little bit in my neighborhood, a little
bit in a youth group, a little bit in the family. But to start a revolution? To
determine the future of a nation?
To avert an evil decree? Little me?"
Today too, everyone knows that Am
Yisrael is in grave danger. There is danger of assimilation, danger of mixed
marriages, danger of people losing their way, danger of being cut off from roots
and values. Can it be that only you can't see it? As if this information is
hidden somewhere? Is there any difficulty involved in obtaining the statistics
on Jewish education in Israel and in the diaspora? Someone who cares enough can
get his hands on the figures: sixty percent of Jews in the diaspora are being
lost! And the situation here in Israel is nothing to be excited about. A person
is quite capable of finding out, if he's interested enough, the number of
students who "drop out" of the national-religious system!
This is the real question. If you
understand the situation - and there is no reason or excuse not to - then you
hear the cry that emanates from every part of the country, from every corner of
the globe, expressed in the spiritual dangers surrounding us and threatening us
on every side. Someone who cares knows what is going on, and once he knows he
must ask himself: What significance does this knowledge have for me? To what
extent does it cause me pain? To what extent do I identify with world Jewry, in
fasting and prayer? To what extent is my spiritual world structured such that
Knesset Yisrael and its dangers are on one side and I, with my
considerations and private plans, am on the other?
Like Esther, we will all have to ask
ourselves the question when the time comes
What will be our answer then? More
importantly, what is our answer today?
Reflected Light
Though the contemporary need to act must be
desperately felt by every Jew, one who attempts to reach out may become dejected
if these attempts fail to yield apparent results.
There are those who recognize the importance of this
endeavor but are turned off by failure, feeling that they have not done any
good, that their words have been rejected or dismissed. In truth, while this
mindset is understandable, it is often unjustified. One never knows when his or
her words may impact another; moreover, these words may impact the speaker,
without his or her notice.
Two Chasidic teachings
may help us deal with this form of discouragement. First is the teaching
regarding the beginning of Shema. The Torah (Devarim 6:6) states:
And these matters shall be on (al) your heart." On your heart seems to
be an odd choice of phrasing; why not the more intimate in your heart? The
Chasidic masters explain that essentially, all a teacher can hope to accomplish
is to let his words reach the surface of the heart, as it were. They may be met
with fierce opposition, and the words may not succeed in penetrating the heart.
However, by putting the words on ones heart, one ensures that the second
something happens which causes the heart to open, the words will be right there
to enter immediately.
Secondly, there is also a
great benefit in speaking to others about deep spiritual concepts with the aim
of influencing them. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov writes (Likkutei Moharan
184):
When people speak about
religion, both direct light and reflected light are generated. When you discuss
Godliness with a friend, the information that he receives from you is direct
light. What you gain (from your own words) through him is reflected light.
Sometimes you can speak
to a person about Godliness, and your words aren't accepted. Still, you yourself
can be motivated by your own words. Your words literally bounce off from your
friend, and are reflected to you. This is very much like a rubber ball. The
reason why a ball bounces from a stone wall is because it cannot penetrate it.
Similarly, when the other person refuses to accept what you tell him, your words
are reflected to you. You yourself can then be influenced by your own words.
These same words may not have had any effect at all on you if you had spoken
them to yourself. But when you express them to someone else, and he is not
influenced, they are reflected to you. You can then be motivated by your own
words.
As a person who is the child of two baalei
teshuva, two individuals who were influenced by kiruv rechokim, I can
attest to you that a few nice, caring words offered by individuals who were
reaching out helped bring about a transformation in my parents lives, in turn
setting the stage for this little lesson being written today. Thank you!
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!