The Ashes of Humility

One time a group of young men were traveling with Rav Gershon of Yadnik, Hy”d, when they met with a man who obviously suffered terribly. They stopped to speak to him and he described his excruciating pain. As he finished explaining what he experienced, he commented, “In all six thousand years of creation there has never been a person who suffered as much as I do.”
Rav Gershon comforted him for a long time to the amazement of the bochurim. When he finally went on his way Rav Gershon commented, “Look at the power of arrogance. As if it was not bad enough that he suffers, he is also a ba’al gavah who believes he is unique in all of history!”
The Alter of Kelm, zt”l, explains, “The verse in Mishlei states, 'גאות אדם תשפילנו'—‘A man’s arrogance lowers him.’ Why? Because when we find that a person has arrogance this is a sign that he is on a low spiritual level. Clearly he lacks a desire to better himself spiritually, since if he was longing to attain the next level he would not be filled with arrogance. One who understands that he must advance cannot entertain pride since he knows that he is not complete. This is why one who indulges in this disgusting character trait is lowered. Hashem diminishes him so he should be ashamed of his low level.”
The Maharal, zt”l, explains that this is the lesson of Terumas Hadeshen. “One should never feel that if he removes his arrogance and makes himself as דשן, ash, by humbling himself he is lowered. Quite the contrary, he is uplifted. As the verse states, 'והרים את הדשן'.
“The rule is that one who humbles himself is uplifted while one who is arrogant is lowered. If one nullifies his arrogance and is nothing in his eyes like ash, he ascends on high and is one with Hashem.”

The Power of the Community

Our sages teach a fascinating parable: “A king was angry at his beloved friend. Because of his love, he minimized his friend’s wrongdoing.” Rashi explains that this beloved friend is the tzibbur. The Maharal explains that a tzibbur is not rendered unworthy of Hashem’s regard by sin in the same way that an individual is. One reason a tzibbur is cherished is because when they work together, they can perfect themselves with relative ease. The bigger the tzibbur, the easier the change—if there is a sincere desire and unity among them.
The Alter of Kelm, zt”l, stressed the advantage of working on one’s defects together with a tzibbur over working alone. “The foundation of working on our middos is to repair our congenital moral weaknesses. To do this, we must know the truth of how our negative traits fool and us influence our actions. Since by nature we all tend to overlook our inherent weaknesses, we are much better off working together with like minded-friends, who can offer objective views of our challenges and responses. Without friends to help us see the truth, we could easily declare a sheretz ritually pure. Left to our own devices, we can invent endless rationalizations.
“Just as Hashem imbued the world with the principle of interdependence—every person both contributes and receives from others materially—the same is true in spiritual matters. It is impossible to truly rectify our middos without help from our friends. Here in Kelm everyone works with his friend to help rectify their collective faults. I am very moved and amazed by the vast progress the students have made over time due to this seder. This is exactly what Rav Yisrael Salanter, zt”l, told us to do when we were with him in Kovno. What a pity that it took us so long to follow his instructions and develop a practical program so that we could all work together!”

The Rabbi and the Bible Critic

A certain rabbi once ran into a “freethinker” who considered himself quite a scholar. With hardly a word of introduction, the non-believer declared that he was learning Bible criticism and had spoken to many religious people who were unable to reply to the compelling questions he posed.
The rabbi asked the academic what Rishonim he had learned. The academic was obviously taken aback and his halting reply showed that he had never studied rishonim at all. He defended himself with the statement, “Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.
“Anyone who thinks so has not learned it carefully,” replied the rabbi. “For example, the verse tells us, ‘and you shall slaughter of your cattle...as I have commanded you,’ yet nowhere in the rest of the Torah do we find instructions as to how we are meant to slaughter animals. Obviously, the accompanying instruction was transmitted orally—the oral Torah of the rabbis that you find superfluous.”
The academic was flustered for only a moment before blurted out his ignorant response, “There is no such verse.”
“Try parshas R’ei,” the rabbi replied. “And it’s not just there. Many mitzvos cannot possibly be fulfilled with only the written instructions. We are told to put ‘a sign’ on our arms and ‘a totafos’ between our eyes. What are these? How are we to manufacture the tzitzis that are to be placed on the corners of our garments? The list goes on and on and demonstrates clearly that the written Torah cannot be understood without the oral Torah.”
“But why was there an oral Torah?” asked the academic. “Why not write it all down?”
“Excellent question! The Maharal explains that the Torah is meant for every level, from small children to the deepest minds. It therefore has many levels of oral tradition imbedded into the text. In this manner the chumash relates to everyone since as one advances he learns what he can understand and not more. He also says that because there are so many details of the oral law it would be impossible to write everything down in any event.
“From Rabbi Eliezer in Sanhedrin 68 we see an example of this great abundance of halachos. He said that although he had learned much from his teachers, what he absorbed can be compared to a dog lapping at the sea. He was discussing the many details of each and every law, which cannot possibly be recorded without countless books. Life is complex, so why assume G-d’s word is not?”