Insulation and Integration: Balancing Withdrawing From, and Navigating Within, Society

It's a tremendous privilege for us to welcome the Rav shlita for his shiur this morning sponsored by torahweb.org. I don't think it's exaggeration to say that the Rav shlita is the Rebbe of all of us sitting here, some of us formally, many of us informally, and though by extension I think pretty much a tremendous segment of Klal Yisrael are privileged over the past decades to be talmidim in so many ways as the Rav shlita has served as a leader in Klal Yisrael in terms of his shiurim, in terms of his hashkafa, in terms of the role model and on a personal note I have had the privilege being able to sit under the Rav shlita over many, many years in Yeshiva, many years together in the summers with the Kollel, with the Rav in the Beis Medrash setting, in the Kashrus settings also and to just be able to watch and to be really in the presence of such a Gadol is something which is humbling for myself and I'm sure for everyone here as well. So it's really a tremendous, tremendous Kavod to have the Rav shlita with us here and to give this shiur with his Hadracha and Hashkafa as the Torah relates to so many different nuances in this particular modern world and the modern challenges that we all face as Bnai Torah. Really it's a tremendous Kavod to welcome the Rav shlita. Thank you very much, reshus haRav Moshe and the tzibbur. Either the breakfast wasn't as lavish as it was supposed to be or I came late. I prefer to opt for the first interpretation, but I leave it to the ulam, those who take the second one, my apologies. It's a truism that in contemporary times we live surrounded by an immoral society which is in many respects inimical to our faith, masora, thereby posing a threat to the Torah worldview and way of life. The challenge posed by that reality is exponentially compounded by the militancy of that immorality. At times one justly feels that we don't live in an age of kfiya datit but of kfiya kfranit. So what in these trying times is the correct modus vivendi? Is total withdrawal and insularity the answer? Are they an answer, one of many valid responses? So at first glance one can propound a cogent and even compelling argument in favor of withdrawal and total insularity. Navigating within society involves very real nisyonos. With nisyonos comes the possibility of being nichshal, of failure. And haven't Chazal cautioned us לעולם אל יביא אדם עצמו לידי נסיון, that a person shouldn't be looking to engage in nisyonos, in confronting nisyonos, because no less a personage than Dovid Hamelech failed in his nisayon that he sought, that he invited. When we speak of Maybe let's consider a couple of illustrative suggestions or proposals of of what withdrawal and insularity look like, the attempt for total insularity and withdrawal. What should the admissions policy of of our yeshivas be? If we welcome let's say children of baalei teshuva so clearly they they have a certain exposure to the outside broader world than children of non-baalei teshuva because of their relationship with their grandparents and broader families, there is a there is an exposure to the to the world which otherwise perhaps wouldn't be present in the corridors of of the yeshivas. So in looking to raise generations al taharas hakodesh so is is that the correct policy? Another another question to contemplate, not purely the figment of of imagination. Undoubtedly at all seasons, but especially in the spring and summer seasons of the year, the the amount of pritzus that exists say in Manhattan is staggering. So maybe what that warrants is a policy that even for parnassah purposes a person is not allowed to to enter into that borough or south of Washington Heights at anyway. So I think that the first thing before obviously proceeding to articulate what we all intuitively sense, that both of those suggestions are entirely untenable, it's very important to emphasize that when such suggestions are put forward they're done with noble motives and noble aspirations, as untenable as the suggestions themselves are, the they are motivated sincerely by very real and valid concerns. It is a real and valid concern what exposure children, especially children have, all of us but especially children who are so at such a young and formative age. Shmiras einayim, kedushas hamachshava are bedrock foundational values for kedusha. Nevertheless, the suggestions are obviously untenable and because of that wrong, totally wrong. To have a policy that Rachmana litzlan discriminates against Baale teshuvah, that in some way disenfranchises Baale teshuvah, ke’she’le’atzmo is an avla of major, major proportions and beyond that anything which disenfranchises present Baale teshuvah disincentivizes Rachmana litzlan future Baale teshuvah. So obviously that's totally, totally untenable and because of that really unthinkable. In terms of the other illustration we gave, the problem of pritzus and exposure thereto is very real and one that needs to be confronted but unless there's an alternate viable plan for how a group who receives such a directive is going to make hishtadlus for parnassah and how they're not going to be put in a position where it then becomes an overwhelming temptation to cheat and to somehow compensate for lost parnassah opportunities, it's also totally, totally untenable. But where conceptually does that approach of total withdrawal and insularity go wrong? Again, the concerns are very real, the motives and aspiration are noble. So where does it go wrong? And again, Chazal do caution us לעולם אל יביא אדם עצמו לידי נסיון. So the answer clearly is that we need to differentiate between types of nisyonos, yesh v’yesh. On the one hand, לעולם אל יביא אדם עצמו לידי נסיון and on the other hand, as you're all familiar, Ramchal writes at the beginning of Mesillas Yesharim, he says that all of life, in addition, editorial context, in addition to being a continuous series of bracha and opportunity is also a continuous series of nisyonos and challenges. When Chazal caution us against nisyonos, against being in a position where a person has to confront a nisayon, has to navigate his way, Chazal are referring to a self-imposed nisayon, לעולם אל יביא אדם עצמו לידי נסיון, as in the case with Dovid Hamelech who wanted that Shmoneh Esrei should be אלקי אברהם אלקי יצחק אלקי יעקב אלקי דוד also, HaKadosh Baruch Hu told him you haven't earned it, so Dovid Hamelech says so give me a nisayon, give me the chance to earn it. So Dovid Hamelech, Dovid Hamelech made the, Chazal say he made a mistake, Dovid Hamelech made the mistake of inviting, of having a self-imposed nisayon. A self-imposed nisayon a person is never ever supposed to look for, a person is never supposed to gratuitously impose a nisayon. But nisyonos constitute the very fabric of life. All of life is again a continuum of nisyonos. And what happens when a person or a society or a community tries to avoid a nisayon which isn't gratuitous, it isn't self-imposed, but it's part of the very fabric of life is that inevitably in avoiding one nisayon one is going to shortchange or be insensitive to or oblivious to other nisyonos that he's supposed to be confronting. So yes, is it a challenge how to raise children al taharas hakodesh? In today's world, absolutely yes. But the reality given the large numbers of Jews who are not yet religious, and then the fact that obviously we want everyone to enjoy the blessing of Torah and Torah life, so it's not a gratuitous nisayon to figure out how we reconcile the challenge of our children or grandchildren having classmates who are the children of baalei teshuva. That's not a gratuitous nisayon. If it were a gratuitous nisayon, so then avoidance is the answer, retreat is the answer. But when it's a nisayon that's built into the fabric of life, you know, the moshal is, if the tablecloth just covers the table, if you pull it too much in one direction, so then you leave the table exposed in the other direction. And when we choose a nisayon, one nisayon which is part of the fabric of life and look to totally avoid that, to look to try to escape from confronting, knowing how to navigate, not compromise with, but knowing how to navigate that nisayon, so what happens is you pull the tablecloth too much in one direction, the tablecloth is left exposed in the other direction. You know, during the course of the very tragic and terrible on the one hand, and on the other hand heroic past two and a half years, so one of the things I think we've all heard from those who for their community oppose army service, service in Tzahal, is that not only is it necessary for that position to be taught within their community, but also one cannot show hakaras hatov to the chayalim who are literally moser nefesh, because if through that, so then they're going to be held up on a pedestal and then others will look to emulate them. And since again, as this train of thought continues, since that is something which is unacceptable, so then mimaileh, not only does the community have to be taught that army service is anathema, but even the acknowledgment and the appreciation and the hakaras hatov for the incredible and indescribable sacrifice and mesirus nefesh, that has to be withheld also. So without discussing the premise, leaving that aside, not necessarily endorsing the premise, but leaving that aside, so it's another example. Is that a valid concern if someone thinks so ledvarav? Yeah, it is a valid concern. It is a valid concern. It's the kind of rationale that you know, those who engage in taamei hamitzvos explain for the issur of lo tichaneim of לא תתן להם חן. It is true that when you praise someone, that there is a risk of holding that person up as an exemplar and that others may follow suit. There is such a risk, and that's true, and one can sincerely be concerned with that risk. But because of that risk, you know, to pull the tablecloth all the way in one direction and to become kofui tov of התורה תצווה בדרך ארץ, Medinat Yisrael has to have an army. There have to be people who... Hakadosh Baruch Hu performs nissim nistarim. Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't say that we can just sit back. התורה תצווה בדרך ארץ as the Ramban says. It has to be there. It's a vital, indispensable, not only for the safety and security of all those who live in Medinas Yisrael, but for all Jews all over the world with the resurgence of antisemitism, so we all know, we all know that we can continue to live here as long as our passport is up to date. That's the reality with which we live, and that's how we sleep well at night. As long as our passport is up to date, we know that Rachmana Litzlan there is a haven. To not acknowledge that Mesiras Nefesh, the being a Kfoi Tova, the animosity that it creates, the Sinas Achim that it creates. So again, what's the answer? The answer is that this is a Nissayon which is part of the fabric of life, and it never, ever works to try to run away from a Nissayon which is part of the fabric of life because you have to thread the needle. Because if you don't thread the needle, if you just try to go to the opposite extreme, so then there's another value in Torah which is going to be trampled upon. This Yesod is true, Rabbosai, not only in the issue of how we interact with again, the different concentric societal circles around us, that of other Frum Jews who have a different Derech, that of the not yet religious Jews, that of broader society. It's not only true there, it's true in terms of Avodas Hashem in general. So the Rambam juxtaposes the following two Halachos at the end of Perek Beis in Hilchos Deios and the beginning of Perek Gimmel in Hilchos Deios. At the end of Perek Beis, the Rambam quotes from the Mishnah in Avos that הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד מוציאין את האדם מן העולם. A person can lose everything because of those Midos of Kinah and Taivah and Kavod. The end of Perek Beis. Beginning of Perek Gimmel: Shema Yomar Ha'adam, since these are such insidious, potentially destructive Midos, Shema Yomar Ha'adam ארחק עד הקצה האחרון. So I need, because Taivah can be מוציא אדם מן העולם, so I need to subject myself to some kind of Spartan regimen and לא אוכל בשר ולא אשתה יין and drastically limit my intake and Kavod, a person should wear sackcloth, he should wear tattered clothing, not to be paying any attention to his own dignity. So writes the Rambam, no, Hu Nikra Chotei if he does that. The Rambam says we Pasken Hayoshev Betaanis not Nikra Kadosh, but Nikra Chotei. And the Nazir needs Kaparah על שציער עצמו מן היין. What's extraordinary, and this is between the lines in the Rambam, if you look at those two Maamarei Chazal that the Rambam's quoting of הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד מוציאין את האדם מן העולם on the one hand, and that the Nazir is Nikra Chotei על שציער עצמו מן היין on the other hand, it's the same Tanna. They're both Rebbi Elazar Hakappar. The total withdrawal approach to הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד מוציאין את האדם מן העולם is to go to the other extreme, is to go to the opposite extreme. And Rebbi Elazar Hakappar says, but it doesn't work. It doesn't work. And that's why it's the same Rebbi Elazar Hakappar, lest his first Memra be misunderstood, and lest it elicit an imbalanced response, so Rebbi Elazar Hakappar is the same one who says that the Nazir who brings a sin offering על שציער עצמו מן היין. And in the same sense, the famous Agadata in the Gemara in Yoma where the Gemara says that after being granted their Tefillah that the Yeitzer Hara for Avoda Zara... that that should also be eliminated. אמרו הואיל ועת רצון הוא נבעי רחמי איצר דעבירה. So ba'u rachamei, they did, they implored Hakadosh Baruch Hu, ve'imsar beyadaihu, and and they were it was given to them to subjugate the yetzer hara for for arayos. אמר להו חזו דאי קטליתו ליה לההוא כליא עלמא. But then they were warned if you kill the yetzer hara for arayos, the world will not continue, there will be no more pru u'revu, the world will not continue. Chavshuhu tlasa yomei, so they decided to experiment empirically, see what happened. So they imprisoned the yetzer hara for three days, ובעו ביעתא בר יומא בכל ארץ ישראל ולא אשתכח. And even in the animal world without that yetzer hara, the world doesn't continue. So here too is is the yetzer hara of arayos very great. So Chazal tell us there's no there's no generation, there's no society in which people are not nichshal because of that yetzer hara. It is it is a very, very, very powerful yetzer hara that that we have. But m'idach gisa, that's the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world, the tzuras ha'adam is that life again, the blessing and opportunity of life consists of confronting nisyonos, consists of of figuring out how to navigate, how to be mechazek our children that maybe something they heard in school is because their friend's grandparents weren't zocher to to a proper chinuch and they don't know as much as they should yet and because of that they make mistakes. So we have to figure out how to how to how to thread the needle. And in terms of allowing people to make hishtadlus for parnassah, so we have to know when the Gemara in Bava Basra's din of לית ליה דרכא אחרינא is is applicable, when it's it's a person is not at fault for for being exposed to to certain things because there there is no no clear alternative and whatever other safeguards can be put in place. But we have to figure out how to how to how to navigate. But the the insularity and complete withdrawal inevitably leaves the other side, you pull the tablecloth all the way to one side, it leaves the other side exposed. It's also somewhat of an illusion to think that total insularity is is even possible. When when we look at at the world, so we see that no one has figured out how to create a hermetically sealed society. And and even if in some ways it it looks that certain things have been kept at bay, I don't know the problem of over-the-top affluence is one that cuts across all communities. It's not it's not no one community has a monopoly on it or other societal, societally driven problems. But it it is of paramount importance as important as everything else that we've discussed until now, even in rejecting an approach of of withdrawal and total insularity, it's very, very important to learn from it and to be sensitized, reminded that there are very real concerns that we do need to be mindful of and do need to encounter. The alternative to insularity and withdrawal is not saying, okay, what are you going to do? There are problems. No, there has to be, there has to be a profound concern on our part to recognize and to navigate those problems. And the truth is we, as much as we don't agree, I think we owe a tremendous debt and hakarat hatov to those who are highlighting what all the pitfalls are. One can't again totally withdraw, one can't indiscriminately reject everything from the outside world so that even public health directives are not accepted. But one, we do need to be reminded about just how much of in the outside world is something that needs to be filtered out. And even in not accepting that approach, even in recognizing that it's untenable, we do have to be reminded of and sensitized to the concerns that they place front and center. Thank you.