Thank you very much Mr. Feldman, reshus ha'rav Feldman, mori ve'rabbosai, shavua tov. Mori ve'rabbosai, I have to begin with an apology. The apology is not because I intend Rachmana litzlan saying anything offensive. To the best of my knowledge, what I hope to share with you this morning are inoffensive divrei Torah yotzim min halev to be nichnasim el halev. But the apology is leshe'avar not leha'ba. But if I haven't said anything yet, what is there to apologize leshe'avar? So as a little bit of a hint, the apology is intended especially for the linguistic purists among us this morning. I don't want to give away the ending of the drasha just yet, but one thing is clear that if 'we is better than them' it isn't that we speaks English more grammatically than they speaks English, because the title should have read we're better than they, aren't we? The Gemara in Shabbos says that לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שלא הוכיחו זה את זה
that the reason Yerushalayim, the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed was because we didn't, literally translate, we didn't give each other tochacha. The Meshech Chochma in a very very beautiful comment explains what's the difference between the idiom in Lashon HaKodesh whether or not one speaks of tochacha followed by the lamed, the prepositional lamed, lehochiah le, to give rebuke to, or whether it's הוכיחו זה את זה which is in fact the phrase that Chazal employ in that Gemara. And the Meshech Chochma explains that there are two ways of receiving of both imparting and receiving tochacha. One is when you have an individual, the phrase Meir Simcha uses, a person who is a גדול הדור קדוש השם a person who is so much above and beyond us, we don't necessarily relate to him because his greatness is just so overwhelming, but the respect he commands is such that when he gives us divrei mussar, divrei tochacha, so then we take it to heart. And that's one form and one mode of tochacha. There's another form and mode of tochacha where the tochacha isn't necessarily articulated. And here the one who imparts the tochacha, again as the meforshim explain, the root of tochacha is lehochiah, it means to make clear, it means to prove, it means to clarify. Hence by extension it means rebuke as well. But there's another form of tochacha which isn't necessarily articulated and the source of that tochacha comes from people with whom we identify. People who we don't see as being far above us in the stratosphere, but people with whom we can identify. For instance, the Meshech Chochma gives an example. Let's say we know someone and we know that he's struggling to make ends meet. He has bli ayin hara a big family and lots of expenses, not in a very high-paying profession, he's struggling to make ends meet. And nevertheless we see the scrupulousness, we see the honesty when it comes to every penny, not to cut any corners, not to look for any shady or questionable loopholes. So when we see that and we draw edification and inspiration from that, that's an example of הוכיחו זה את זה. The other example Meir Simcha gives is let's say you have a person of marriageable age and the person who by nature is a physically passionate person and hasn't found the shidduch yet. And nevertheless when it comes to the area of tznius he's so careful and so careful about not unnecessarily looking at women. So again precisely because he's one of us, he's not the גדול הדור קדוש השם he's someone with whom we can identify. So when we look to that person and we draw inspiration, that's an example of הוכיחו זה את זה a reciprocal type of tochacha. And he says לא חרבה ירושלים אלא מפני שלא הוכיחו זה את זה,
and that's what Chazal are telling us. What's true amongst individuals in an intra-communal sense is also true between communities in an inter-communal sense. Every community has what to teach and every community also has what to learn from other communities within the frum spectrum. There isn't any monopoly on truth and virtue, there's no one zip code where in that area truth and virtue purely unadulterated are embodied and that it doesn't exist elsewhere. There's no such monopoly. And for that matter the same way there's no monopoly on truth and virtue, there's no monopoly on chesronos also. All of our communities across the spectrum have tremendous ma'alos, tremendous virtues. There are also some chesronos. The paradigm of הוכיחו זה אל זה is to draw again edification and inspiration from each other. The Bnei Yissaschar explains, he quotes the same Gemara in Krisos where the Gemara in Krisos says that כל תענית שאין בה מפושעי ישראל, that whenever Jews gather together on a ta'anis to daven, if there are not poshei Yisrael, if there are not sinners amongst them, so then the ta'anis is not what it's intended to be. And Chazal quote as a proof from that because the chelbenah, which is one of the ingredients of the ketores, the ketores is designed to give off a very wonderful fragrance, the chelbenah taken by itself has an offensive odor. And yet it's mixed into the, it's one of the primary ingredients of the ketores. Says the Bnei Yissaschar, because even something פחות בעצמיותו כשהוא מתערב באגודה כללית הוא מתבטל. Even something which may be in isolation its fragrance is not pleasant, but as part of the mixture it contributes. Or in other words the Bnei Yissaschar is telling us something very profound here. When we approach again, whether on an intra-communal level or an inter-communal level, when we approach with an attitude of הוכיחו זה אל זה, we are validated and elevated by that. If the effect that others have upon us is a positive one, it validates and elevates them. If the effect that we have on others, our own shortcomings notwithstanding, if the effect that we have on others is also uplifting, salutary, inspiring, so then we are thereby validated and elevated because that becomes the dominant and that becomes the most important part and facet of our personality. None of this is to suggest that we whitewash shortcomings that exist whether within the communities in which we live or whether in other communities of which we're aware. On the contrary, I think what we're supposed to be aware again both of our own shortcomings as well as shortcomings in other communities, because as the Chofetz Chaim explains, he says that if one would be speaking again what outwardly, what superficially might seem to be lashon hara, one would be telling a talmid that his rebbi has a certain character flaw and you should be careful not to adopt that, you should be careful not to emulate that, so that's again, it superficially seems to be lashon hara but if that's what motivates it and it's necessary, so then it's not lashon hara. On the contrary, it's a mitzvah. So we certainly should be aware of again chesronos that exist whether When we look within our own dalet amos or whether we're looking outside of our dalet amos and if in fact it's necessary, so one lshem shamayim should identify it and so as to make clear that this isn't a correct form of behavior. But maybe just a word in this context about loshon hora and motzi shem ra in the communal context. Again, as we just mentioned, there are times when things do need to be pointed out, and again, without exaggeration, when one knows that they're true and when the only way to impart the message is to identify a flaw that exists, so then it's not only muttar, it's a mitzvah to do so. Again, provided that we know that it's true, provided that we're not exaggerating, provided that it can't be achieved through any other method, all the other conditions the Chafetz Chaim places, it would be not only muttar but a mitzvah as well. If it's true but unnecessary, so then it's loshon hora. The Chafetz Chaim writes and it's very very sobering, the Chafetz Chaim writes, he says, you know, if Rachmana litzlan, a Jew speaks loshon hora about a fellow Jew, okay, that's not a good thing. I think the Rav in one place, I don't remember whether I heard this or read this, says that the Torah is so harsh about loshon hora, it's almost almost to the point of being brutal in how harshly the Torah condemns the loshon hora. So even loshon hora about an individual, it's not to be taken lightly. But the Chafetz Chaim gives an example. Let's say a person goes to visit in a certain community and let's say he finds in that community, so wherever he happened to davven on Shabbos, whatever, that people weren't especially welcoming. It was a cold, it was very cold, he felt like he got the cold shoulder wherever he turned. And then he comes back to his own community and people ask him, so how was Shabbos in place X Y or Z, and he says it's a very very cold place. He says no one says sholom aleichem, no one extends a greeting. So the Chafetz Chaim says so that's loshon hora times how many people in that community? A hundred, a thousand, ten thousand? It's loshon hora ten thousand times over. And the care with which one needs to speak, so we always need to try to maintain that care. I think they say that Rav Yisrael Salanter used to walk around with the Sefer Chafetz Chaim after it was published. He was an older contemporary of the Chafetz Chaim, but when the Chafetz Chaim first published his sefer of the Chafetz Chaim on hilchos loshon hora, so they say Rav Yisrael Salanter used to walk around with the sefer in his tallis zakko because he might be in the middle of saying something and he would have a safek whether or not it was permissible to finish the sentence, so he used to walk around with the Sefer Chafetz Chaim in his tallis zakko. One assumes, although he would certainly not own up to it, that he probably didn't really need it for himself but probably wanted others to notice that he was doing that and that the story should reach us, but there's no reason to think Rav Yisrael Salanter would own up to that. So the care with which we speak is something that we're supposed to always be on red alert to be speaking carefully and to measure our words when talking about other people. But על אחת כמה וכמה that's true a hundredfold, a thousandfold, ten thousandfold over when one uses some of the stereotypical adjectives and nouns that are used to refer to different segments of the frum community. And then with a broad brush we paint a picture, and there are pictures and there are elements in that picture, even yehei zeh that they're all true. Even let's imagine, let's hope that minimally that at least on one level that minimally they're all true, but if there's anything unnecessary, it's loshon hora multiplied by ten thousand, a hundred thousand, I don't know what the factor is that it's multiplied by. I don't think it's possible to, well, it's virtually impossible to be too careful given what the stakes are. And that, and that is if everything we say is true, and if there's something there that isn't true, if we buy into a report, if we accept indiscriminately a stereotype, so then that's not lashon hara anymore. Then, then we've upped the ante. That's, that's motzi shem ra, as chamur, as severe and as harshly as the Torah relates to lashon hara, so the Torah relates to motzi shem ra even more, even more strictly. I think we all know that whenever we hear or see reports that pertain, again, either whether to us as individuals or to the communities in which we live, so we always see inaccuracies, right? Whenever, whenever there's a report and one has first-hand, intimate knowledge about it, so one sees all kinds of, all kinds of inaccuracies and all kinds of incorrect and inappropriate, again, descriptions. So if we know that first-hand when we hear things that perhaps are said or written about ourselves, there's no reason to assume that reports and stereotypes are any more accurate or precise when the people being subjected to that reporting or stereotyping are people from outside the communities in which we live. So chesronos are all over. No one has, no one has a monopoly either on truth and virtue or chesronos. But we have to be very, very careful not to superficially buy into stereotypes. It's also the case, the fact that a person self-identifies with a certain group in the Orthodox spectrum, let's say I self-identify whatever the, whatever the adjective or the noun will be, and then I behave inappropriately. So that doesn't necessarily reflect on the entire group. The fact that I self-identify as a member of that group and then I do something inappropriate, so that doesn't mean that everyone else is guilty by association. What association? I associated myself, that's my form of self-identification, and maybe, maybe they're as outraged as everyone else is and doubly so because of my self-identifying association. So even when something is undeniably true, but we can't, again, even in our own minds, even if it's not to say anything, even if it's not to articulate anything, but even in our own minds, it's not so simple that just because a person is dressed externally in a certain way, he has a certain type of yarmulke, a certain type of hat, the tzitzis are in, the tzitzis are out, it's long, it's short, it doesn't necessarily mean that if that person rachmana litzlan behaves inappropriately, that that's a reflection on other people who, again, externally look the same, or daven in the same shul, or live in the same neighborhood. And that's even if we're not going to say a word, if there isn't going to be an issue of speaking lashon hara, rachmana litzlan, and motzi shem ra, just in terms of our own understanding, our own impressions. In that vein of hochei'ach zeh zeh, so I think the communities in which we live have a tremendous amount to teach and if others need to learn, they can look to our communities for instruction and inspiration on many, many very fundamental values and issues within Torah life. And we can also train our sights and I think we can also learn from acheinu b'nei Yisrael. It's always more productive to takeh talk about what I need to learn rather than what yenem needs to learn. So he'll figure out what he needs to learn, and let me try to figure out what I need to learn. So he'll figure out what he needs to learn and let me try to figure out what I need to learn. So in that vein, I'd like to mention two or three areas that perhaps again in our communities, bli ayin hara, again, in many ways model exemplary communities, but to mention two or three areas in which in the vein of hochechu zeh zeh we can draw inspiration from our fellow Jews. It's difficult, perhaps impossible to overstate the chashivus, the importance that Torah should have in our life. Every night when we daven Maariv, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו. Divrei Torah are not a part of our life, not even an important part of our life, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו, it is our life. Everything, everything else is a balancing act. Everything else is how, how to live Torah in all these different situations. But ultimately, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו. Our professional lives, our personal lives, all venues in which to live Torah, in which to project Torah, in which to represent Torah, in which to learn Torah, in which to serve Hakadosh Baruch Hu, ki heim chayeinu and specifically Talmud Torah, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו. A husband and wife are both moseir nefesh that after a long day of work and coming home and spending some family time, that the husband goes out to the beis medrash is a very beautiful vision and a very beautiful fulfillment of that credo of כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו. Part of the Torah and Chazal's vision, hainu hach, Chazal articulate the Torah's vision for us. Part of their vision for a life of kedusha provides guidelines for interaction between the genders. And not at the risk, but at the with the inevitability of oversimplifying, in a word, the Torah position is that gratuitous socializing between men and women is inappropriate. That men should socialize with men and that women should socialize with women. That's not anti-men, it's not anti-women, it's part of the Torah's prescription for a life of kedusha. And it's something which again דברים היוצאים מן הלב, I've used that and I have no doubt nichnasim el halev. I'm not sure that we have sufficient sensitivity to that value and to that area of halacha. And baruch Hashem, baruch Hashem we can help rebuild Yerushalayim by being mochechu zeh zeh. We have many many fundamental core values to teach that we embody, and there are also values that we can again draw chizuk and inspiration. And perhaps the third area, each of these areas is really a separate shmooze. The third is our fundamental belief and perspective on life is that life is a bridge. As if we were giving this drasha we could ask him to sing כל העולם כולו גשר צר מאוד, I won't subject you to it though. Life is a bridge. The bridge to Olam Haba. התקן עצמך בפרוזדור כדי שתכנס לטרקלין. And as the as the white hairs proliferate, that reality becomes more becomes increasingly clear. As such, our involvement in the mundane, in the physical, in the material, should be calibrated to what effect it helps contribute to that mission. It should be calibrated to see to what extent it helps propel us along the path, along the bridge, and not rachmana litzlan to what extent it it derails us or impedes our our progress. For for many many summers Baruch Hashem my family and I have been privileged to to go to Eretz Yisrael and participate in the NCSY Kollel. So the past many years the NCSY Kollel is located in Moshav Beit Meir. Moshav Beit Meir is a vacation spot in in Eretz Yisrael. So what is it that that people come for? The the five star Hilton hotel and and and and all the other luxuries and amenities that we're used to? No, there's a little grassy area. There's one or two swings. Grassy area, it's clean air, and it's quiet. And this is a tremendous treat. This is it's a vacation spot. People come on vacation. There's a certain pashtus hachayim, there's a certain simplicity and contentment with simplicity that acheinu bnei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael provide a a shining example for the rest of us to to look at. I think in in order to foster and and develop a mindset of hochicha zeh zeh, we need to understand and be proficient in the art of disagreement. We all know that in in relationships, there's an art to disagree. There's an art to accepting difference, and any successful human relationship is is clearly will reflect that the the people involved have mastered and and and are employing that art. So what are the what are the rules of of engagement for for disagreement on religious issues, on matters of Torah? It's easy enough to figure out how to come up with a modus vivendi, I don't know, should we eat chicken tonight, should we eat steak tonight? Steaks are not so great. So we can eichshehu we can we'll find the we'll find a a modus vivendi. But on religious issues, on Torah issues, what what are the values, what are the rules of of disagreement that that Chazal give us? So one of the most famous passages, you're all familiar with it. The Gemara's the context of the Gemara is is the famous dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel about the status of a tzorat erva. That according to Beis Hillel an erva is let's say one brother marries his niece, he marries his brother's daughter. And then that brother dies rachmana litzlan without children, so there is no mitzvas yibum for the surviving brother to marry his daughter. The Torah doesn't have a mitzvas yibum in such a case. What happens if the deceased brother had two wives? Before Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom, what happens if the deceased brother had two wives, one was his niece, the surviving brother's daughter, and the other was a non-relative? So what's her status? Is there a mitzvas yibum there or or not? So Beis Shammai says there is a mitzvas yibum and Beis Hillel says no, there's no mitzvas yibum. What's at stake here? So according to Beis Shammai one would be neglecting a mitzvah. According to Beis Hillel the The ervah of marrying a sister-in-law is intact, and if one marries a sister-in-law, the children will be mamzerim. So the stakes are great here. There're not too many areas in halacha that we take as seriously as yuchsin. Chazal have extra chumros in yuchsin that we don't have in every areas of halacha. And Beis Shammai, at least prior to the Bas Kol, whatever happened subsequently, so Beis Shammai stuck to their guns, Beis Hillel stuck to their guns, and Chazal say, and they were נהגו אהבה ואחוה זה בזה. And there was mutual love and respect between the two. So somehow or other Chazal are telling us that if that adam gadol is as entitled to an opinion as the adam gadol who in our community, in the community that we live in, that we follow, if the leaders of the community are who who who are the trailblazers who blaze the path to follow, if they're equally entitled to an opinion, so no matter, no matter how serious the disagreement is, but one has to acknowledge again that the same way the adam gadol past and present to whom we look for guidance and whose guidance validates our lifestyle, the same way he's entitled to an opinion, so too the gedolim to whom people in other communities look to, they're also entitled to an opinion and it validates what they do as well. And a lot of the differences, not all the differences, but a lot of the differences that exist on an inter-communal level can be traced back to this. It can be traced back to again differences of opinion amongst the gedolim who respectively are the lodestars for different communities, each of whom was is uncontestably entitled to an opinion. And then no matter how great, mamzeirus is not a, not a trifling matter, it's nothing trivial about questions of mamzeirus. And Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai had tremendous mutual respect and love for each other because each one acknowledged that the other one was entitled to his opinion. You know, whenever one is involved in a disagreement, again whether it's a disagreement in that we follow this adam gadol because his positions resonate with us or maybe because we were born into that community for whatever reason, and others follow a different adam gadol again for the same possible range of reasons, whenever involved in a disagreement, it always seems like we're right. It's no kuntz to, it's no kuntz to sort of respect the other person's being entitled to an opinion when I'm not sure whether I'm right. No, but we all live, I think, we all live as honestly as possible and we all live doing what we think is true and what we think is right, and by definition, by definition we think that the path that others are following is wrong, by definition, by definition, because otherwise we wouldn't be here, otherwise maybe we'd be straddling, otherwise we'd be more torn, we'd be more conflicted. But if, if the case is that again that that community in which we don't live, that we look at from the outside, that community again is following the guidance of gedolim past and present, so they're as entitled to their opinion as we in following the gedolim who who who set the tone for us are entitled to their opinion. There is a remarkable letter from the, from the Seridei Eish. Seridei Eish wrote a letter to Rav Dov Katz. Rav Dov Katz authored a multi-volume work on Tnuas HaMusar, on the Musar movement. And then the Seridei Eish whose own spiritual roots were in Slabodka, in one of the Musar yeshivos, that's where he was nurtured, that's, that's where he grew to greatness. So then he wrote a letter to Rav Dov Katz and he writes in the letter, he says now that you've finished with the biographical sketches of the gedolei haMusar. and the different branches of Mussar, now you should write a volume about the opponents of Mussar. And he writes, he says, I don't remember the exact lashon, but I think this paraphrase is pretty close. He writes, it's a machla in our day, it's a sickness in our day, that people seek to portray only one opinion on everything. Now again, everything we're talking about, obviously, obviously depends upon knowing how to draw the boundaries and the contours of the Frum community, that's a separate shmooze. But when those boundaries and those contours are correctly and appropriately drawn, so that's what the Sridei Eish writes, it's a machla to think that because someone else is doing something differently, so that automatically pasuls, that automatically disqualifies. Rav Moshe writes in a teshuva, someone was somewhat apologetic in taking issue with one of his piskei halacha. So Rav Moshe Feinstein writes back and says, I don't know what you're apologizing for, he says, that's your responsibility, he says, your responsibility is not to defer to me, your responsibility, again, assuming that he's someone of stature who's entitled to an opinion, your responsibility is to say what you think is correct based on your understanding. And both sides need to acknowledge that fact and accord the mutual respect which follows. But the truth is that when we look outward and we look at other communities, so it's not only differences, valid differences we see, sometimes we see things that are wrong. Again, unequivocally, unqualifiably wrong, and more present in other communities than in our own. There are such things, there are such things. People in other communities have the same experience. But there are such things. But even then, the fact that people have a blind spot, that doesn't disenfranchise, that doesn't disqualify. The Rambam writes in the hakdama to Perek Chelek, he writes, after listing the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, he says, again, it's also a separate shmooze, how we relate to non-Frum Jews, also a separate shmooze, but it's not for this morning. The Rambam writes in Perek Chelek, so after listing the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, so he says, when a Jew genuinely subscribes to these Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, he says, whatever he may be guilty of, you should know that all the mitzvos of loving him and all the prerogatives which are accorded to a Jew, so all of those remain in place, whatever else the person may be guilty of. Again, it doesn't exonerate, it doesn't whitewash anything, but the point is, there's a difference between recognizing mistakes, recognizing flaws, recognizing shortcomings, and a sense of peirud, a sense of us and them. It's Kol Yisrael and blind spots, weak spots, flaws, don't disqualify. Okay, we should be aware and we shouldn't adopt those, and adraba, we should try to project, it should be part of our opportunity to teach, but it doesn't pasul. I'll give you a mashal just a couple of more minutes. I'll give you a mashal as follows. Let's say parents have a child, child's a little wild, that's what the parents say, everyone else says the kid's a vilda chaya, but the parents say, he's a lebediker, he's a lebediker. So the parents love him, of course the parents love him. Aye, but he's takeh a lebediker? Okay, okay, but he's my child, he's my child. So how do they love him? They love him because the default position is that you love. Unless something happens which causes that love to be forfeited. There aren't too many things in life that a child can do which causes him or her to forfeit parental love. So by acheinu bnei Yisrael, the truth is, regardless of community, regardless of way of dress, the default position is love. The question is not, what have they done that I should love them? No, the question is, have they done anything rachmana litzlan to forfeit that? But that's the default position. The parent doesn't begin with, why should I love my child? The starting point is, I love my child unless rachmana litzlan again, something really really extreme causes the parent to, and even then, I don't know if the parent stops loving, maybe just suppresses the love. And that's supposed to be the starting position, the default position, again intra-communally and inter-communally as well. One last and sensitive point. How does one deal with theoretically, hypothetically, if one feels that the community in which one lives is on the receiving end of unfair criticism and is disrespected, is not given its due? So is it really a realistic position to say that that notwithstanding we should try to subscribe to the mandate of הוכיח זה את זה or looking to draw inspiration and edification, that we should look to the Dovid HaMelech חבר אני לכל אשר יראוך, basically expressing the same idea as the Rambam did at the conclusion of the yud-gimmel ikkarim? So honestly it's a very real and formidable nisayon. It is. It's very real and it's very formidable. But there really isn't any alternative because if one doesn't meet the challenge, so then one becomes guilty of the same attitude which he's critiquing. So that the way one sort of confronts a challenge and then is able to galvanize the strength to overcome it can be in one of two ways. Sometimes we have an exaggerated notion of what the challenge is. And then all you have to do is cut it down to size and show that it's not so difficult, and then a person is prepared to cope with the challenge. And sometimes the challenge really is formidable and you can't honestly write it off as it is. I think for most people, for most people, human nature being what it is, it is a formidable challenge. It is a formidable nisayon. But the way one galvanizes the strength there is to know just how critical or how imperative it is that we deal with it because the energy and the determination we have is directly linked to and dependent upon just how important the task at hand is. The Chofetz Chaim quotes the medrash on the pasuk in Vezot Haberacha ויהי בישורון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם יחד שבטי ישראל, so Chofetz Chaim quotes that Chazal say that when is it vayehi b'yeshurun melech? When is Hakadosh Baruch Hu melech? When does Hakadosh Baruch Hu, as it were, relate to us? When does Hakadosh Baruch Hu, as it were, want to connect with us? When it's yachad shivtei Yisrael. So halevai, if we can continue to internalize the lessons of הוכיח זה את זה, it should be fulfilled vayehi b'yeshurun melech bimhera beyameinu amein.