Parsha’s Re’eh -We have the parsha of tzedakah,
כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחַד אַחֶיךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ
Devarim 15:7
When there’s a poor person, you have an obligation. And what is your obligation? You’d think it would say to give him tzedakka. But that’s not what the passuk says at first. It says לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת יָדְךָ מֵאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן — you should not withhold from giving him. This needs hesber, because you'd expect the lav to come after the asseh: first פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ, and then lo sikpotz. Why does the Torah lead with the lo sa’aseh?
The passuk continues with
נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ:
Devarim 15:10
The Ramban in his hagahos counts “v’lo yeira l’vavcha” as a lav — even if you give, but you give without a full heart, you're over an issur. This is astonishing. Nowhere else do the hilchos lishma and middos tovos rise to the level of a lo sa'aseh. If a person takes a lulav without cheishek, or davens without kavana, he's chaser, yes — but that's a mussar shmuess, not a lav. Only here is the attitude, the middos that go into the act, counted as part of the etzem mitzvah. Why?
The Smak is masbir the issur of v'lo yeira levavcha as “im chosheiv: אם אתן יהא קרני חסרה ומוטב שלא אתן — if I give, I'll be lacking, better I shouldn't give. There’s two parts of this machshava: the second half of the machshava — "better not to give" — is clearly bad. But the first half of the machshava – that giving a hundred dollars leaves me with a hundred less — of course it does! That's simply metzius. Yes, there are havtachos of brachos — beautiful, beseder. But at the level of the etzem mitzva, how can the Torah forbid me from thinking that I'm losing money? Am I supposed to be blind to it?
Furthermore the passuk gives a reason for v'lo yeira levavcha: כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ. And Chazal say גַּלְגַּל הוּא הַחוֹזֵר בָּעוֹלָם — it’s a cycle built into the world: today a person is an ani, tomorrow an ashir. Is this the correct hashkafa? If I ask someone to help sick people and he refuses, and I answer, "It's not a tzedaka, it's health insurance — today Reuven Hacholeh benefits, but tomorrow you will" — it sounds like a veiled threat. You never know, you may want to protect yourself. So he’s not motivated by the giving, he’s motivated on how it protects him. It’s a way of purchasing aniyus insurance. Give tzedakah so that you won’t be an Ani. Is that the correct hashkafa? Where is the rachavus halev, the goodheartedness?
The passuk continues: הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל. The word בְּלִיַּעַל appears only two places in the Torah — both in our parsha. One is here. The other is by the meisis u'madiach: יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ. What is the common denominator? To just say "both are bad" is too vague. Where is the tzad hashaveh?
Rashi explains beliya'al as b'li ol — one who has thrown off the ol malchus shamayim. But Rabbeinu Bachya gives another peirush: beliya'al means b'li aliya. Somebody who has no aliya. And he's masbir it in a kabbalistic lashon – I’ll read the words:
שהיא מידת הדין מתוחה כנגדו. דע כי העני מחלק מידת הדין.
והעשיר שאיתו ברכה הוא מחלק מידת רחמים ודמיון השמש המאיר על הלבנה והלבנה מקבלת אורה מן השמש.
כן הנותן צדקה מאיר עיניו של עני ומקבל חסד ממנו.
And that's why the Torah was mazhir a person שיאחז במידת רחמנות שיתן מברכתו צדקה לעני.
ובעשותו זה ישתף מידת רחמים במידת הדין שהשיתוף ההוא הוא קיום העולם ואי אפשר שיתקיים בלאו ידי שניהם.
Rabbeinu Bachya, Devarim 15:9
Let's be misameik a little, because tzedaka has a shoresh that is very deep, mitzad etzem habriah itself.
Chazal say that when HKBH created the world, His initial intent was a world of din, but the world wouldn’t have a kiyum as such, so He brought the middas harachamim into the world.
The world of din and rachamim are radically different worlds. The world of din is a world of laws and boundaries, and limitations. One of the fundamental law of physics is the conservation energy. The world is a fixed, finite sum. Nothing new can come into this world, nothing can leave this world. Everything is produced at the expense of something else.
And this is also true in techunos ha’adam. A person doesn’t want to receive a matnas chinam. A person is embarrassed to take nahama d'kisufa. A person wants to feel that what he has, he earned b’din.
The world of Rachamim is very different. It’s a world beyond boundaries. It’s a world where HKBH is simply giving, kulo mashpia, no g’vul or limit to His hashpa'a. And in techunos adam, a person also wants to be a giver, as much as he can.
But obviously, we can’t have both of these. Because if the giver simply gives without the input of the recipient, then it’s nahama d’kisufa, which the recipient doesn’t want. But on the other hand, if everything is gotten b’din, then the nosein doesn’t feel like a nosein anymore. He was compelled to give b’din. There needs to be a shittuf.
Like giving to a child — if you give and give with no regard for din, you're machriv the child by making him a spoiled brat who never had to develop himself as an independent entity. But if you treat him purely as a hired worker who must pay his own room and board, that’s also machriv the child, because there’s no sense of the parent’s love – the child had to earn everything. We need a shituf where the child feels the ha’aras panim of the giver, but also senses he has developed himself. When the child does his measure, yet receives more than he put in — then you have a true shittuf of mekabel and nosen. The mekabel was mekabel partly b’din but also got more than his measure with a sense of the rachamim. and the nosen was nosen partly b’din but also more than the measure with rachamim.
The hanhagos of Din & Rachamim are most pronounced by the Ani & Ashir respectively. The ani is the metzius of din in the world — b'etzem we have nothing; nothing to give, and nothing to receive. Standing before Hakadosh Baruch Hu we are dalim v'reikim, tefilla l'ani ki ya'atof. Leis lei mi'garmei klum.
The ashir is the metzius of hashpa'a, of the yesh me'ayin of HKBH’s bracha. The ashir could’ve worked hard, but what does it mean you worked hard and therefore you have millions and millions of dollars? That's not the return on your work. The Ashir is somebody where the quantity that flows through him is be-etzem from beyond him, it’s not shayach to him.
Because the Ani is coming with nothing, dalim v’reikim, any hashpa’a that HKBH sends him is not b’din, but b’rachamim. This is the critical role the Ashir plays. The Ashir’s giving needs to accurately convey HKBH’s middas ha’rachamim. This does not mean that the ashir has to give a bli g’vul amount of tzedakah, but it does mean that the Ashir needs to convey the bli g’vul yad of HKBH.
All the questions we raised above revolve around this Nekuda:
We asked about the Smak who illustrated the issur of v'lo yeira levavcha as “im chosheiv: אם אתן יהא קרני חסרה ומוטב שלא אתן — if I give, I'll be lacking, better I shouldn't give. We noted the first half of the machshava is true! Of course, giving a hundred dollars leaves me with less. That’s the metzius. What’s wrong with that thought?
The teretz is that machshava comes from the world of din. Where there’s limitations, where anything has to come at the expenses of something else. If I give, I’m losing out. That’s a middas HaDin perspective which is the opposite of HKBH’s middas HaRachamim that has no loss or limitations. The Ashir needs to align with that even before he gives!
We also asked why does the lav of “lo sakpotz yadcha” come before the obligation to give? The teretz is exactly that – The Ashir needs to align with HKBH’s middas Ha’rachamim even before he gives! Don’t think you’ll lose out. There’s no loss or limitation that comes from HKBH’s hashpa’ah.
We asked why is v'lo yeira levavcha part of the etzem chiyuv? Everywhere else, a chisaron in kavana is not an issur. So why here? The answer is “ain Hachi nami” the kavanos are not essential to the other mitzvos, but here, even before you give, the mitzvah is for the giver to align with HKBH’s hashpa’a, and not view the giving, nor the ani, thru the lens of din. We need to accurately convey that giving comes from HKBH’s ha’aras panim, with no losses or limitations.
We also asked about biglal hadavar hazeh. Chazal say it’s a galgal ha’chozer ba'olam. Where’s the generosity in that? The answer is this cycle in the world demonstrates that your assets are not yours. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not a gazlan, chas v'shalom. If the money were intrinsically yours, b’din, He would never take it from you — אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַפֵּחַ שְׂכַר כָּל בְּרִיָּה. The very fact that the roles can reverse — ani today, ashir tomorrow — is itself demonstrating that your money wasn’t yours, but rather also came thru HKBH’s hatava and hashpa’a. It’s not a veiled threat, and you’re not buying ani’us insurance. You’re reminding yourself that HKBH created roles in this world, and you’re role now is to accurately convey HKBH’s benevolence to the world.
This is the nekuda beliya'al. Bli Aliya – meaning I am prevented from seeing a higher world because of my crooked perspective. HKBH is being mashpi’a on the briya, and I prevent someone from seeing and feeling that? This is the kilkul of Avodah Zara just as it’s the kilkul in kfitzas yad. My perspective was limited, it was din, and therefore I was prevented, and I prevented others from feeling HKBH’s hashpa’a.
In Navi, we find Naval was also called bli’ya’al. When Dovid Hamelech was fleeing and begged for food, Naval answered “No way!” אֶת לַחְמִי וְאֶת מֵימַי — to give from my bread and my water!? As someone put it, Naval was the quintessential American: "I worked, I built it, it's mine — why should I give it to you?" The ashir's avoda is to be tofes his ashiros as a gift of HKBH’s hashpa’a. Yes, the X amount of crops from plowing the field are a yesh mi'yesh, — but the millions that flow through him? That is birkas Hashem, that has no claim m’din. It isn't lachmi, it isn't meimi — it’s mayim and lechem, and I am no more than a gabbai tzedaka passing it along.
…
Now let's take this into a tchum that's nogei'a to us — because none of us, to the best of my knowledge, are billionaires waiting to give out millions.
We have time. Someone makes a demand on your time. A meshulach knocks, and it irritates me, because someone is taking my time when I don't want to give it. "What right have you to intrude on my time." The tochen of tzedaka is that when the knock comes, the reaction is הנני. My job is to provide the correct sense of HKBH’s hatava in the briya. Hakadosh Baruch Hu put time into the world. Did I decide how much time I'd have? HKBH gave me the time to begin with.
Of course there are halachos — how much I must give, priorities, whether I'm learning or resting; Time isn't hefker, there's a cheshbon. But when you don’t have those cheshbonos, but you’re simply not in the mood — where’s the ha’aras panim?
The same with the person you'd rather not sit with — the lonely one who isn't terribly interesting, but for whom twenty minutes of being listened to is a whole world of belonging. It scarcely costs you a thing. What bothers you is only that someone is taking your time. But since when is it yours?
This is nogei'a in every tchum of life — anywhere our sense of possession collides with our sense of giving. For whatever it is a person is chayav to give — he does not have it. He holds it only as a shliach, to give. Whether it's time, effort, energy, or a dollar bill — that is the hargasha. And when a person lives this way, then when he himself stands at the Yemei HaDin v'Rachamim, he can legitimately claim that k’shem that he brought HKBH’s rachamim and ha’aras panim into the world, so too, may HKBH bentch him with his middah of Rachamim and ha’aras panim.
כי בגלל הדבר הזה יברכך ה
Good Shabbos!