Staying Sensitive to Torah Values (also – Chanukah)

וימאן ויאמר אל אשת אדניו הן אדוני לא ידע אתי מה בבית וכל אשר יש לו נתן בידי איננו גדול בבית הזה ממני ולא חשך ממני מאומה כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלוהים.

When Eishes Potiphar initially tries to lure Joseph to sin, so he responds very forcefully, very unequivocally, both on a level that perhaps she can relate to, bein adam lechavero, as well as bein adam lamakom.

ויהי כדברה אל יוסף יום יום ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה להיות עמה ויהי כיום הזה ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו ואין איש מאנשי הבית שם בבית.

Rashi quotes from the Gemara in Sotah, la'asos melachto, Rav and Shmuel, חד אמר מלאכתו ממש, which is what Onkelos says, l'mivdak biksavei chushbenei, וחד אמר לעשות צרכיו עמה. So according to the second opinion amongst Rav and Shmuel, so at this point Yosef Hatzaddik was on the verge of succumbing. So what happened? What happened in the interim that he had this yeridah from the forceful, unequivocal rejection to ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו? Okay, so the simple and obvious answer is she was relentless in her pursuit, ויהי כדבר יוסף יום יום. And that's certainly true, but yitachen that there's an omek to that. When she first approaches him, so he responds again forcefully, unequivocally, ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלוהים. Subsequently the Torah just says lo shama eleha. The impression given, he just ignores her. He doesn't respond. And yitachen that the Torah here according to this opinion within Rav and Shmuel is revealing to us a very, very important facet of human psychology. If we see something once for the first time, something objectively outrageous, maybe it's objectively outrageous, out of bounds religiously, morally, spiritually, so it evokes an appropriately strong reaction on our part. But then if we have prolonged, continuous exposure and even involuntary prolonged continuous exposure, inevitably we begin to become desensitized. We don't associate in our minds and therefore in our reactions, being outrageous and being commonplace is a tarti d'sasri, they're mutually exclusive. Exclusive. What we commonly see and again, even if just as a spectator or an auditor in the literal sense, what we commonly see or hear loses gradually its outrageousness. Because again, what's outrageous is something that that reaction is a reaction of something which is just unheard of, unimaginable, just totally out of bounds. When we see and/or hear it day in, day out, it begins to lose that quality of being outrageous. When we see it once, the first time, so it's unthinkable. But we see and/or hear it day in, day out, so what do you mean it's unthinkable? It becomes very, very much within the realm of of thought. Now that in and of itself is already already a problem. That in and of itself is already a distortion, will create a distortion of a basic hashkafa, but it also erodes the unequivocal and forceful opposition. Because that unequivocal and forceful opposition is linked to the sense of outrageousness and the sense of unthinkability. Almost as if that was a word, but it is now. But Chazal tell us of a similar dynamic on a practical level when they tell us that if a person is choteh once, twice, it's naseh lo keheter. But the chiddush in this parsha is that it happens attitudinally, even without being guilty, rachmana litzlan, of cheit. Even just being again involuntarily exposed to, subjected to, so there is a similar attitudinal dynamic and erosion as well. The same, l'chora, it's the same psychology which is reflected in the halacha that birkas hare'iyah, 30 days have to elapse before you say the same birkas hare'iyah again. Because to have a certain his'orerus, a certain hispa'alus, if I just saw it, I'm not going to have that. If you haven't seen a friend for 30 days, oh, there's a his'orerus, there's a hispa'alus. It's less than 30 days, not the same his'orerus, not the same hispa'alus. You just saw him yesterday, so what do you think? Why doesn't he leave me alone? It's the same dynamic. The same dynamic. And apparently even Yosef HaTzaddik is not immune to that facet of human psychology. L'ma'aseh, you know Chanukah is is a time when we recall the miracle and the salvation from the choshech of Yavan. It's a time to take stock. our relationship with the surrounding culture in which תשע"ד we live and to check and to make a cheshbon hanefesh to see what rachmana litzlan adverse effect if if any it it has upon us. And in on so many levels and with regard to so many things, the bechina of ויהי כדבר אל יוסף יום יום is is true in in the society in which we live. So you go on the subway, on the subway and את חטאי אני מזכיר היום you make the mistake of looking at the advertisements that are above the seats. So they have advertisements for what they call Planned Parenthood. Now part of that is a euphemism for abortion, openly, openly. I don't think there's any secret to to that that it's a euphemism for abortion, which is also a little bit of a euphemism for what the Torah in Parshas Noach calls shfichas damim. So we know that in today's world that shfichas damim is rachmana litzlan is ma'aseh b'chol yom and and not only unfortunately not only in this country and not only on this continent, ממש מעשה בכל יום. But when we see something like that, or we hear any reference to to abortion, so do we react, again, even the question is not if there's anything we can do about it. What can we do about it? But do we react that with all the outrage and and the agitation that an account of shfichas damim should engender? Or nothing, we shrug. It doesn't elicit any reaction because we've become desensitized because ויהי כדבר יום יום. You you can't what's commonplace loses its outrageousness. What's commonplace isn't unthinkable, it's it's staring us in the face on a daily basis. When we see rachmana litzlan chillul Shabbos, is that at any semblance of a reaction of what a terrible tragedy? What a terrible tragedy, a Jew who doesn't know better and rachmana litzlan is being mechallel Shabbos. What a misguided existence, what a tragedy. It's a way of life. Thousands of I don't know whether I don't know if it evokes anything. I don't know if it evokes anything. You know, they tell the story that that the Rav Aharon Kotler zt"l even after he had founded the the yeshiva in Lakewood, still lived on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. And then at a certain point he relocated to Lakewood. So the story goes. And he was asked why, why at this point he was moving. So he said he noticed that the chillul Shabbos that he would see in Manhattan was beginning to bother him a little less. Exactly this yesod that we're talking about. He noticed that the yom yom was having an effect on him. So he went to, so he had to, he had to arrest that erosion. So he went to where he wouldn't see chillul Shabbos. All the talk, much of it vulgar, about mishkav zachar and ish nosei ish and isha niseis l'isha also doesn't have, how strong a reaction again, not a reaction of again, even if there's nothing to do with it, even if a person isn't in a position to do anything with it, even if a person is not in a position to do anything about any of the examples we're mentioning, but there's supposed to be a strong reaction of what a travesty it is, what a distortion of Torah universal morality it is. So the question is lemaiseh what do we do? Lemaiseh what do we do? Again the exposure, okay, so certainly one moral of the story is not to read the ads in the subway, and chataini negdi samid that is one of the morals of the story, but obviously that's not going to solve the entire problem. So lich'ora when Yosef HaTzadik initially said ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלהים it had the effect of not only communicating to Eishes Potifar his refusal, but it had the effect of being mechazek himself as well, of reaffirming, rethinking, reaffirming, recommitting himself. And even if and when there's no need or for that matter there's no one with whom to register our opposition, but for ourselves, just internally, it's not enough lo shama eileha, but when we see it or when we hear it, we have to tell ourselves איך נעשה הרעות הגדולות האלה. When we hear or see a reference to abortion, so we need to take a minute to stop and peel away the linguistic euphemisms of pro-choice and things like that and say shfichas damim, that we live in a society that sanctions shfichas damim. Anything to do with that? I don't know what there is to do with that. Nothing. There's no one to throw stones at, don't throw any stones and don't, it's not that there's nothing to do with it, but even if there's nothing to do with it, it's something that we shouldn't be desensitized to. It's not something that we should be inured to. Rachmana litzlan seeing chillul shabbos, again. If, if, if one is in a position to be mekarev, okay, Mitzva gedola me'od. But, but above and beyond that, just to remind ourselves, just to maintain our own understanding and appreciation of what shabbos is, just to remind ourselves what a tragedy that is. It's not enough lo shama eileha, no, it has to be v'eich esa, or v'eich na'aseh. There has to be that rethinking and and reaffirmation and recommitment. And it's true for whatever the mitzva or the area of Torah of kedusha is the subject of k'dabra yom yom is for ourselves. We have to remind ourselves of what the equivalent of the v'eich esa is. Again, not, not that there's anything actionable, not, not, we're not talking about kano'us, we're talking about not losing one's Torah-dik, religious and and moral sense. Rachmana litzlan one shouldn't have to look to the prospect of of where that erosion even results in in practical consequences. Because even just on the level of of attitude, chillul shabbos may be a fact of life, but it needs to be a tragic fact of life, not a, not a simple fact of life. It needs to be a tragic fact of life. And the same for the other things. They may be facts of life, but they need to be outrageous facts of life, they need to be distortions. Again, not, not, not to, not to call names and not to throw stones. There's no, there's no tachlis in that. There's nothing, nothing is going to come of that. But just in order to retain our own sense of what's right, what's wrong and how wrong things the wrong things are. Ke-medumeh that that thinking about these issues is part of our avoda on Chanuka, to try to identify the areas to which in which we are subjected to the ויהי כדברה יום יום and again and just to be mechazek ourselves in each of those areas.