Learning on Vacation: Advice from My Rosh ha'Yeshiva

Originally published in June of 2007. Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

I decided to reuse an old blog post so that I could take a scenic drive out to the Southeast coast of Oahu
instead of spending the morning writing in Starbucks. Here's a picture from the drive.

Learning on Vacation: Advice from My Rosh ha'Yeshiva

Every summer I visit my grandmother in Hawaii. We're usually here for around ten days or so. Although I try to keep up with some of my chavrusas (learning partners) over the phone during this time, it's not always feasible to do so. Our schedule is erratic, and the time difference can make things difficult. 

When this Hawaii trip first became an annual thing, I used to be in conflict about my augmented learning schedule - especially during my early years in yeshiva, when I'd make a summer learning schedule for myself which was sometimes more rigorous than my schedule during the year!

Thankfully, I heard some secondhand advice from my Rosh ha'Yeshiva about how to resolve this conflict. 

A friend of mine told me that he once asked our Rosh ha'Yeshiva: “How much should a person learn while on vacation?” My Rosh ha'Yeshiva answered, “Enough to bypass the guilt. Learn for a few hours in the morning to get rid of the guilt so that you can enjoy yourself on your vacation for the rest of the day. That’s what Rabbi _____ (a.k.a. my Mishlei Rebbi) and I would do back when we used to go camping in New Hampshire. We would learn for a few hours in the morning and then spend the afternoon hiking.”

What I like about this answer is its honest, realistic attitude towards human nature. While my Rosh ha'Yeshiva's answer might not be appropriate for people like Moshe Rabbeinu, the Rambam, or Rav Moshe Feinstein, it is the perfect answer for people like us (well, at least like me - I can't speak for everyone else). 

To attempt to stick to my usual learning schedule during my stay in Hawaii would be a waste of the vacation. I am human, and I need a break from time to time. I have been given the opportunity to spend some time in Hawaii, and I might as well take advantage of it. 

Not only that, but spending my vacation learning intensively - all cooped-up indoors - would be bad for my learning. I certainly would not be able to concentrate, knowing that the bright sun and beautiful water and mountains are waiting outside. On the other hand, to spend the entire ten days doing nothing but enjoying my vacation would be bad for my learning. Moreover, as my Rosh ha'Yeshiva mentioned, the guilt of not learning would spoil the enjoyment of my vacation.

On a related note, I once heard someone ask my Rosh ha'Yeshiva: “When I go on vacation, should I bring seforim (books)?” My ears perked up when I heard this question, because - at the time - I was in the habit of bringing tons of seforim with me to learn while on vacation. 

My Rosh ha'Yeshiva’s answer, plain and simple, was: “Only bring seforim if you’re going to use them. Otherwise, it’s a waste of space. There are guys who pack tons of seforim and picture themselves learning up a storm on their vacations. When they actually get there, they barely even touch the seforim they brought.” 

Then he added, “Instead of bringing a lot of seforim, bring some good ideas to think about and work on. They don’t take up any space, and you'll have them with you for the entire vacation.”

My Rosh ha'Yeshiva's answer to both questions was essentially: “Be realistic” – a good rule of thumb in any circumstance. We are human beings - not angels.

Keanu Reeves, Free Will, and Results-Oriented Thinking

Keanu Reeves, Free Will, and Results-Oriented Thinking

Keanu Reeves's Misguided Message

On June 16th, 2016 Keanu Reeves posted the following message on Facebook:

My friend's mom has eaten healthy all her life. Never ever consumed alcohol or any "bad" food, exercised every day, very limber, very active, took all supplements suggested by her doctor, never went in the sun without sunscreen and when she did it was for as short a period as possible- so pretty much she protected her health with the utmost that anyone could. She is now 76 and has skin cancer, bone marrow cancer and extreme osteoporosis. 

My friend's father eats bacon on top of bacon, butter on top of butter, fat on top of fat, never and I mean never exercised, was out in the sun burnt to a crisp every summer, he basically took the approach to live life to his fullest and not as others suggest. He is 81 and the doctors says his health is that of a young person. 

People you cannot hide from your poison. It's out there and it will find you so in the words of my friend's still living mother: "if I would have known my life would end this way I would have lived it more to the fullest enjoying everything I was told not to!" 

None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Eat the delicious food. Walk in the sunshine. Jump in the ocean. Say the truth that you’re carrying in your heart like hidden treasure. Be silly. Be kind. Be weird. There’s no time for anything else.

At the present time, this post has been shared over 23,000 times and has 54,000 likes. Clearly, Keanu's words resonated with many people. 

Unfortunately, it is a terribly foolish message.

In this post will examine Keanu's mistake through a variety of sources. 

Chazal and Mishlei

Chazal (the Sages of the Talmud) teach: "ha'kol bi'ydei shamayim chutz mi'yiras shamayim - everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven" (Talmud Bavli: Berachos 33b). This means that the only thing in our control is our bechirah (free will). Everything else is "in the hands of heaven" (i.e. the laws of nature and Divine providence). Practically speaking, this means that the best we can do is to focus our thoughts and energy on the decisions we make, and recognize that the results are not in our hands. [1]

This principle is the foundation on which Shlomo ha'Melech (King Solomon) authored Sefer Mishlei (the Book of Proverbs), since it is the foundation of all decision-making advice. The idea is implicit in every pasuk (verse), but it is also stated in explicit terms throughout. For example: "To man belongs the arrangements [of thoughts] in his heart, but from Hashem comes from Hashem" (Mishlei 16:1); "A horse is readied for the day of war, but salvation belongs to Hashem" (ibid. 20:31); "Man's mind plots his path, but Hashem makes firm his footsteps" (ibid. 16:9). In other words, a person's thoughts, and his preparations, and his plans are within his control, but the results are in God's hands (i.e. the laws of nature and divine providence). 

Shlomo ha'Melech also devotes many verses to those who neglect this principle, to their detriment. He emphasizes time and again that it is the fool who looks at things superficially focuses on the immediate results, whereas the chacham (wise man) focuses on the decision-making process and the long-term results. For example: "Wisdom is in front of the man of understanding, but the eyes of the fool are at the ends of the earth" (ibid. 17:24). In other words, the man of understanding concentrates on applying wisdom to the decision that is before him, whereas the fool neglects this wisdom and is preoccupied with the outcomes that are beyond his reach. 

Epictetus and the Stoics

This principle is also the foundation of Stoicism, and is discussed throughout the writings of Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. For example, Epictetus begins his Enchiridion (The Handbook of Stoicism) with the following:

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.  

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with God and men. 

But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed. 

Epictetus is bringing out another benefit which we haven't yet touched upon. Not only will this way of thinking yield better outcomes in the long run, but it is also the key to attaining peace of mind. To the extent that a person feels he can control of external factors, he will be angry and stressed when things do not go his way. The key to avoiding this type of vexation is to always maintain a clear mental demarcation of what is in our control and what is not.

This fundamental Stoic teaching is expressed in the famous "Serenity Prayer," and popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous and other Twelve-step Programs:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can, 

And wisdom to know the difference.

The wisdom mentioned at the end of the prayer is the key. Without it, a person is doomed to the folly and frustration of trying to change what he cannot change, and the inability to accept his own limitations and the limitations of his circumstances.

Marshall Sutcliffe and Limited Resources

It wasn't until years after I learned about this principle from Chazal, from Shlomo ha'Melech, and from the Stoics that I was introduced to a name for the opposite mentality. That name is Results Oriented Thinking (or R.O.T., for short). I first heard this term by Marshall Sutcliffe in a Magic; the Gathering podcast called Limited Resources (Episodes #137, 226, and more). 

Results Oriented Thinking is the mistake of retrospectively judging one's actions by their results, rather than by the decision-making process itself. The chacham (wise man) will assess each decision on its own terms, irrespective of how it turns out (unless the results reveal a flaw in his decision-making process). He will recognize that there are factors beyond his knowledge and beyond his control, and that it is possible to make a good decision and still get poor results, or make a bad decision and get good results.

In contrast, the fool who is caught up in R.O.T. (or, as Marshall would say, someone "who is ROTty") will feel that if he got bad results, then he must have made a bad decision, and if the results were good, then he must have made a good decision. Instead of attempting to objectively analyze his decision based on the information available to him at the time, he will allow his mind to be clouded by hindsight bias and will read into his decision-making "shoulds" and "shouldn't haves" based exclusively on how things turned out.

Let us examine this fallacious mentality through a hypothetical scenario. I have a 20-sided die. I make a deal with my friend: either he can bet on the number 1, or he can bet on numbers 2-20. My friend is not a mathematician, but he intuitively senses that his odds are better if he bets on 2-20, so that is what he chooses to do.

I roll the die. Lo and behold, it lands on 1. I win the bet and am happy. My friend loses, and is upset.

This is where we reach the critical juncture which separates the fool from the chacham. If my friend follows this loss by thinking to himself, "I knew I should have bet on 1! If I could do it over, I would have chosen differently" then he is a victim of Results Oriented Thinking - a ROTty fool, as it were. But if he is a chacham, then he will think to himself, "Well, it's too bad that I didn't win, but I clearly made the right decision to bet on 2-20, since that bet gave me a 95% chance of winning. If I had the opportunity for a do-over, I would make the same decision."

And if he is on an even higher level - what Epictetus might call a Stoic chaham - then he won't even be perturbed by his loss, since he is satisfied that he made the right decision and knows that his intelligent decision-making will benefit him in the long run. This type of stoic tranquility can be seen in professional Poker players. They know all of the odds and probabilities, and make their decisions based on the math. For this reason, they can lose hand after hand without losing their calm, since they are confident in the correctness of their decision-making, and in their knowledge that they will profit in the end.

Bingo with Grandma

I encountered another example of R.O.T. last week. My brother and I visited my grandmother at her assisted living facility, and decided to join her for an afternoon of Bingo. There were five rounds of Bingo, and three opportunities to win in each round. The first way to win was by making a single line in any direction (a.k.a. a "classic" Bingo). The second way to win was by making a specific formation (e.g. the letter "T,",the letter "C," a "+" sign, etc.). The third way to win was by getting a "blackout" (i.e. covering every single space on the card).

In the first round I won by getting a blackout. In the second round I won by getting a "C." Then, immediately after getting a "C," I won a third time by getting another blackout. The other players were astounded, and the Bingo announcer remarked that he had never anything like that happen before.

This triple victory earned me somewhat of a reputation among the senior citizens. Several theories were proposed for how I managed to win. One person explained that beginners tend to be lucky; several people told me that my card was lucky; one person even implied that my being a grandson was lucky. And after we left I got a phone call from my grandmother asking me for the serial number on my card, since she believed that she would increase her odds of winning of she used my "winning card."

Privately, I found these explanations to be hysterical. If there is any game in which strategy plays absolutely no role, it's Bingo. Bingo is a game of pure chance. The distribution of numbers on the cards, the order in which the numbers are called out, and who gets which card are all completely random and all equally probable - and yet, these women genuinely believed that my victories were due to some factor that was within my control.

That is Results Oriented Thinking at its finest. It is one thing to retroactively label a decision "good" when the results end up being successful, but it is a different level altogether to label it "good" when there was no decision-making involved in the first place!

And yet, people do this every day: a woman gets stuck in an unpredictable traffic jam caused by an accident and she says, "I shouldn't have gone out today." Someone's flight is delayed due to weather and he says, "I should have booked a different flight." Another person wins the lottery and she says, "I just had a feeling that these were the numbers to pick." A punk teenager engages in reckless behavior, emerge unscathed, and he says, "See? This type of thing isn't dangerous at all!"

This brings us to our next point ...

Why Results-Oriented Thinking is So Addictive

There are a number of reasons why we fall so easily into the trap of R.O.T. For one thing, our brains are evolutionarily hard-wired to look for patterns in the results of our decisions and to modify future behavior on the basis of those results. This is how animals learn to survive in the wild. If a monkey wanders into the lion's den and is nearly mauled to death by a lion, he instinctively learns that "lion's den = death by mauling." Similarly, when he discovers that delicious bananas can be found when the banana peel is removed, he concludes "peeling bananas = tasty treat." Both of these examples of rudimentary learning are made possible by Results Oriented Thinking. Without R.O.T., survival would be impossible.

But while this type of decision-making might be sufficient for animals in the wild, "normal human life" is not that simple. Human decisions involve factors which are far more numerous and complicated. The scenarios are more varied, the benefits and detriments occur on a much longer timeline, and the uniquely human ability to engage in abstract thinking, scientific reasoning, and strategic planning for the future adds layer upon layer of complexity to our decision-making. R.O.T. may be responsible for the learning we do in the first couple years of life, but it quickly becomes obsolete, and detrimental to our survival.

Another reason is that Results Oriented Thinking appeals to our naive, infantile, egocentric world-view. When we do actions which bring about good results, it is easy to feel, "Yes sir! That was all my doing! Look how magnificent, successful, and intelligent I am!" - without analyzing the cause-and-effect relationship between our actions and the result. This reinforces our belief in our own greatness, our sense of entitlement, and the pleasing notion that the world revolves around our desires and rewards us for our brilliance (real or imaginary).

Likewise, there is a sneakily counter-intuitive form of ego-gratification in blaming a bad outcome on one's own poor decision-making, even when one was not actually at fault. Blindly attributing bad results to oneself allows us to maintain the egocentric fantasy of being totally in control, while nurturing the belief that we are guaranteed success next time if we simply do something different. (Of course, this egocentric trend competes with a number of other defense mechanisms - such as rationalization, displacement, projection, denial, etc. - which attempt to shield the ego from taking any blame whatsoever; but in the logic-defying world of the unconscious, it is possible for contradictory trends to be at play simultaneously.)

Lastly, Results Oriented Thinking caters to the superstitious, religious, mystical tendencies in man. We saw how quickly the senior citizens ignored the scientific cause-and-effect of randomly selected Bingo numbers, preferring instead to attribute my success to "a lucky card" or some other supernatural cause. We see how quick certain religious people are to neglect the analysis of their decisions and prefer to content themselves with "explanations" such as, "It was meant to be!" "It was God's will!" "Bashert!" ("It was predetermined/destiny!"). Many occult and supernatural explanations are forms of R.O.T. in disguise, since they negate the world of lawful cause-and-effect and chalk up the outcomes of complex decisions to simplistic single factors which are retroactively labeled "good" and "bad" based exclusively on the results.

I'm sure this doesn't exhaust the list of reasons why R.O.T. is so pervasive and hard to escape, but I hope it provides some insight into the strength of the factors at play here.

The Moral of the Story

We will conclude this post by returning to Keanu Reeves and his Facebook message. While I sympathize with the plight of his friend's mother, and I agree that a person should make every effort to enjoy life and appreciate what one has, this does not mean that person who made healthy choices and ended up with poor results was "wrong," nor does it mean that a person who made unhealthy choices and ended up with good results was "right." Both assessments are the product of Results-Oriented Thinking. His friend's mother's self-castigation of her healthy lifestyle is just as erroneous as his friend's father's self-congratulation over his unhealthy lifestyle.

Keanu's concluding message of "please stop treating yourself like an after thought" would best be served by ignoring his advice. The way to treat yourself right is to devote your thoughts, your energy, and your happiness into your decision-making process, and to let go of the results, which are not in your hands.

[1] See Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Responsa #436: Letter to Ovadiah, the Proselyte

How to Deal with an Uncontrollable Yetzer

Originally posted in July 2013.

Artwork: Lose Calm, by Justin A. Engle

How to Deal with an Uncontrollable Yetzer

Elai ha'Zaken's Statement

One of the most astounding Gemaras can be found in Kiddushin 40a:

Rebbi Elai ha'Zaken said: "If a person sees that his yetzer (inclination) is overpowering him, he should go to a place where they don’t recognize him, put on black clothes and cover himself in black, and do what his heart desires, and not cause a chillul shem shamayim b'farhesya (public desecration of God's Name)."

[The Gemara asks:] Is this true? Wasn't it taught in a Braisa: “If a person does not have mercy on the glory of his Creator, he’d be better off not being born”? To whom does this refer? Rabbah says: "to a person who stares at a rainbow." Rav Yosef says: "to a person who transgresses in private." [According to Rav Yosef, this Braisa contradicts Elai’s statement!]

This is not a contradiction: [the Braisa refers to a situation] in which it is possible for him to control his yetzer, whereas [Elai’s statement refers to a situation] in which it is not possible for him to control his yetzer.

The same statement of Elai ha'Zaken can be found in Chagigah 16a:

[As] Rebbi Yitzchak said: "If a person transgresses in private, it is as if he trips the legs of the shechinah, as it is stated, 'Thus said Hashem: The heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool' (Yeshaya 66:1)." 

Is this true? Didn't Rebbi Elai ha'Zaken say: "If a person sees that his yetzer is overpowering him, he should go to a place where they don't recognize him, put on black clothes and wrap himself in black, and do what his heart desires, and not cause a chillul shem shamayim b'farhesya"?

This is not a contradiction: [Rebbi Yitzchak's statement referred to a situation] in which it is possible for him to control his yetzer, whereas [Elai's statement refers to a situation] in which it is not possible for him to control his yetzer. 

There is one major problem with Elai ha'Zaken's statement: How can he encourage someone to intentionally sin?

Understanding Elai ha'Zaken's Statement

The Rishonim address this question in their interpretations of the Gemara. The most conservative approach is that of Rabbeinu Chananel, which is cited by the Baalei Tosafos (Chagigah 16a d"h v'yaaseh mah she'libo chafetz) as follows:

God forbid that [Elai ha'Zaken] would permit a person to commit an aveirah (transgression)! Rather, this is what he is saying: he should don black clothes and go to another place, since the wearing of black clothes and lodging [in different locations] will break his heart, and he will not come to transgress, and from that point and on he can do what his heart desires, for [at this point] his yetzer will certainly not overpower him!

The version of Rabbeinu Chananel printed in our version of the Gemara is quite different:

God forbid that Elai ha'Zaken permitted the transgression of any aveirah at all! Rather, this is what he said: If a person sees that his yetzer is overpowering him with regards to eating, drinking, and partying, and he fears that he will become drunk and come to transgress, [Elai] permitted him to go to another location and to dress in black - all in order to break his yetzer, since the heart of a traveler is broken ... Once he does this, his heart will be broken and he will automatically refrain [from sinning]. But to transgress an aveirah, or even to drink wine amid music which brings one to simchah - this is prohibited! And all the more so to do what is worse than this. All of this (i.e. Elai's advice) only applies to a situation in which he isn't able to control his yetzer ... and only where there is no aveirah.

In spite of these differences, both versions of Rabbeinu Chananel's opinion reflect his view that (a) Elai ha'Zaken was not talking about about doing an aveirah, and (b) he intended his advice to be deterrent, rather than permissive.

The Baalei Tosafos (ibid.) maintain that Rabbeinu Chananel's reading is forced and incorrect. They interpret the Gemara in the most straightforward manner possible:

"and do what his heart desires" completely, which implies that it is better for a person to carry out his desires in private than in public - not like Rabbeinu Chananel. 

Rashi's view (Kiddushin 40a d"h yilbash shchorim) is somewhat of a hybrid of the two interpretations. He writes:

"he should don black clothes" so that he doesn't view himself with dignity - perhaps this will cause his heart to become softened; furthermore, if he does sin, people won't pay attention to him since he will not appear distinguished in their eyes; therefore, he should wear black. 

In his comments on the Gemara in Chagigah, he simply writes:

"in which it is not possible for him to control his yetzer" it is better for him [to sin] in private than in public. 

In other words, Rashi learns that Elai's advice was intended as both a deterrent and as a form of damage control, in the event that the deterrent fails. Like Rabbeinu Chananel, Rashi learns that wearing black and going to a different location is likely to subdue the person's inclination, causing him to lose his resolve to sin. Like Tosafos, and unlike Rabbeinu Chananel, Rashi maintains that Elai is talking about a case involving a temptation to do an actual aveirah, and is recommending that the sinner opt for the lesser of two evils.

Implications of Elai ha'Zaken's Statement

This Gemara has some eye-opening implications, which I'd like to point out in a concise form:

Implication #1: Chazal held that some urges cannot be controlled.

We see from this Gemara that there are two states of hisgabrus ha'yetzer (being overpowered by one's inclination): one in which the person can control himself, and another in which he can't. This goes against the opinion of the many frum Jews out there who believe that we all have the ability to control our yetzer ha'ra in every situation, or that God wouldn't give you a desire that you can't control. Elai ha'Zaken would beg to differ.

Implication #2: Not every "overpowering urge" is actually uncontrollable.

We are expected to be able to tell the difference between the two states of hisgabrus ha'yetzer. There are many people who minimize or ignore this distinction, especially the Jews who are born and raised in American-galus. They point to people who are challenged by their instinctual urges, saying, "What do you expect these people to do? They can't help themselves!" Elai ha'Zaken would disagree: just because a person is overpowered by his yetzer doesn't necessarily mean that he can't control himself. It is entirely possible to be faced with an overwhelming urge, and to resist its demands. Addicts who are in recovery manage to do this every day.

Implication #3: A person who is overcome by an uncontrollable urge still has free will.

To my mind, the most amazing implication of Elai ha'Zaken's statement is this: even when a person finds himself in the grip of an uncontrollable yetzer, and he is definitely going to sin, the Torah still expects him to be able to exercise enough self-control to travel to a different location and put on black clothing before he indulges. In other words, "uncontrollable" just refers to the fact the need to act on one's urge; he is still expected to be able to control how he acts on it. This is the premise of Elai ha'Zaken's statement.

Implication #4: Chazal had a realistic view of the challenges of the yetzer.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, Chazal were realistic! They know that "There is no man on earth who is a tzadik who does [only] good and does not sin" (Koheles 7:20). We are human beings. We are not perfect, and we can't always live up to the ideal. Some of us will consider this point to be obvious, but, as we mentioned before, there are those who claim that the Torah doesn't make any demands of a person which he can't handle. Elai ha'Zaken definitely would not agree. 

Implication #5: The Torah still has advice for those who are going to transgress its laws

Chazal use the term "lifnim mi'shuras ha'din" (a.k.a. "beyond the letter of the law") to describe actions which go beyond the demands of the halacha, and are in line with the Torah's ultimate objectives. The term "shuras ha'din" (a.k.a. "the letter of the law") refers to the minimal requirements of halacha. 

I'd like to coin a new term: "me'achorei shuras ha'din" ("behind the letter of the law"). This refers to a person who, for whatever reason, must violate halacha, but wishes to do so in accordance with the Torah's principles to the greatest extent possible. This category is a very important one to keep in mind, especially when dealing with individuals who (for whatever reason) feel they must compromise the observance of halacha. 

There are so many Jews who have an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to halachic observance. This is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong: from a philosophical, halachic, and metaphysical standpoint, Torah is an "all or nothing" system. You can't pick and choose which halachos to keep. At the same time, realistically speaking, not every person is able to keep every halacha in every case. But the Torah has advice even for these people. The Torah doesn't just say, "To hell with you. Do whatever you want. See if I care." 

This is highlighted very clearly in Elai ha'Zaken's teaching. He is essentially telling this person: "I understand. You can't control yourself in this case. Your own observance of this halacha will be compromised. But there is still the consideration of chillul shem shamayim, and you should at least retain that consideration as a priority." 

I once taught a group of "rebellious teenage boys" at a Modern Orthodox Jewish high school. They refused to daven, and had done so for years. I asked my rebbi what I should do. My rebbi asked me if I was sure that they weren't going to daven, and I answered in the affirmative. He then asked, "What if you told them just to say the Shema and daven shemoneh esrei - could you get them to do that?" I told him that I think I have a way. Guess what? It worked! For the rest of the year (at least), they said shema and davened shemoneh esrei every day. 

Some would look at this and say, "How dare you deviate from Chazal's prescribed tefilos! You have no right!" But to view it this way would be to miss the point entirely. There were two options here: continue to face the problem of these boys not davening at all, or at least get them to fulfill their de'oraisa obligations. To choose the former over the latter is to mix up one's priorities. That was my rebbi's cheshbone (calculation), and I agree with him. I believe Elai ha'Zaken's would also approve. 

Disclaimers

Needless to say, this Gemara is not a halachic matir (license) for a person to indulge whenever he wants. I wouldn't even consider this to be a matir, even according to Tosafos, since it is meta-halachic, rather than halachic. In other words, the Gemara isn't saying, "It is mutar (permissible) for such a person to go and fulfill his heart's desire." Rather, the Gemara is saying, "It is definitely assur (prohibited) for a person to go and fulfill his heart's desire, but in this case, that is what he should do in order to minimize chilul shem shamayim."

Moreover, the Gemara is clearly talking about an isolated instance of being overpowered by his yetzer. If a person finds himself scheduling regular "yetzer ha'ra indulgence" weekends, then I'd question whether such a person is actually "overcome by an uncontrollable yetzer" or whether he's just faking himself out.

I've seen some people mistakenly claim that this Gemara is talking about a case of oneis (i.e. being compelled against one's will to transgress halacha). I don't think that's the case. According to Tosafos, the person that Elai ha'Zaken is talking about is still committing an aveirah b'meizid (intentionally), and the aveirah still "counts" and he still needs to do teshuvah. This isn't a "freebie." 

Obviously, if a person found himself in a situation of an uncontrollable yetzer and decided to follow Elai ha'Zaken's advice, he should do so in a practical, cautious, intelligent way - unlike so many public figures. This goes hand in hand with the "you still have free will" point: just because you can't control yourself with regards to one instinctual urge doesn't mean you should throw caution to the wind and behave like a Mishleic fool. 

I'm sure there's a lot more to say about this Gemara. Although I am interested in your questions, insights, and critiques on all of my posts, I am particularly interested in what you have to say about this Gemara.

What to Do When You Are Lost in the Woods

This is a combination of two old blog posts: How to Cope with Panic (April 2012) and On Being Lost in the Woods (February 2012). The two posts belong together, so why not unite them? I still approve of my original decision to write exclusively about the nigleh and not the nistar, since the former is valuable in its own right, and the latter is something that each person must grapple with on his or her own.

What to Do When You Are Lost in the Woods

One highlight of my recent cabin retreat was the opportunity to revisit the highly enjoyable Complete Book of Camping, by Leonard Miracle and Maurice H. Decker. Take a gander:

As you can tell from its cover, this book is not written in recent times. The hardcover edition at the cabin was published in 1961, and the age shows in the writing style. I discovered the book sitting on one of the shelves covered with a thin layer of dust on my first trip to The Cabin. I initially picked it up just to flip through the table of contents, but I soon found myself engrossed in its pages. Since then, I've read through much of it several times, and I am always delighted by the gems I find.

For the record: I am by no means an outdoorsman. I have never been camping "for real" (i.e. without such luxuries as electricity and running water), nor do I foresee myself doing so in the near future. Nevertheless, I gain a tremendous amount of pleasure and benefit from reading what the frontiersman authors of this book have to say about the multifaceted art of camping.

Have a look at the authors and their bios and you'll get a better sense of who we're dealing with: 

The authors of this book are eminently practical men. Their writing reflects the same quality of craftsman's artful simplicity that I admire so much in Bruce Lee, only with a more rugged edge. Take, for instance, the opening paragraphs of Chapter 3 "On Bedding":

It should be established at once that it is the ignoramus, not the expert, who says that he will merely roll up in a blanket and spend the night under the stars. You will never hear such talk from men who know. 

The experienced camper knows that, to get a good night's sleep that will keep him healthy and efficient, he must have a bed that is warm, dry, level, and reasonably well padded.  

Youngsters and other novice campers get misleading ideas about outdoor sleeping from many Hollywood movies. Movie cowboys, for example, often doze off on the bare ground, their heads on their saddles. They sleep in their clothes, with a slicker or a saddle blanket as their only covering. At dawn they stand up refreshed and virile - ready to wrestle steers or bad men. But - make no mistake about it - such sleeping habits work only in the movies.  

Such professional outdoorsmen as forest rangers, big-game guides, and western sheepherders use air matresses, down-filled sleeping bags, and canvas ground cloths. The make their beds under a tent or some kind of waterproof roof when there is the slightest chance of rain or snow. Many of the wiser and more grizzled heads rest on pillows plump with waterfowl down. They are as finicky as rich brides about each item of camp bedding.

This excerpt exemplifies a theme that runs through the entire book: slapping some horse sense into the minds of young whippersnappers and city slickers who have been deluded by motion pictures into a highly romanticized view of the great outdoors. Almost every chapter begins with a refutation of commonly held notions which, after the fact, are clearly childish. For example, here is the opening of the section entitled "Choosing a Pack-Trip Horse":

Many novices given the chance to choose their own mount from a string of gentle saddle horses make the mistake of selecting by color. Fiction of one kind and another has spread the belief that a white horse, for example, will be of pure and dauntless spirit and of gentler nature than the coal-black steed. The strawberry roan is supposed to be wild and woolly. A buckskin horse is tough and durable. The palomino and the pinto are thought to have special virtue because of their unusual color. 

All this is pure fancy. Color by itself is no indication of a horse's speed, temperament, or any other ability. Disregard color, and choose a compact, short-backed horse with clean-cut legs and head. An excess of speed and spirit can be a hazard in a horse that will be ridden at a walk over rough, narrow trails with steep drop-offs. Leave the jumpy, highstrung mounts for flatland riders, and choose a horse that is alert but calm. Pass up the round-backed, big-bellied horse. It is awkward to straddle and possibly soft and lazy, and a saddle turns too easily on that balloon-shaped torso. The gaunt, long-legged horse is also a poor choice as a rule. It may be a poor rustler of feed in mountain meadows and is likely to be nervous and jumpy, lacking the steady power and stamina a trail horse needs.

See what I mean? No nonsense. Nothing but practicality.

Okay, enough about the authors and their general style. On to the topic at hand.

Artwork: Lost in the Woods, by Matt Stewart

My favorite chapter in the book is the chapter entitled "Plan to Get Lost." As you may have guessed, this chapter is about what to do when you get lost in the wilderness. The chapter begins with a vivid depiction of the scenario:

Thus, the cautious and meticulous route planner, trail marker, and compass checker rarely gets lost. His pessimistic caution, however, is foreign to the nature of most campers, so we deal now with the exuberant majority - the people who never think of back trails and compass bearings while the breeze is fresh and the sun is warm and the vale ahead full of promise. 

The crucial moment with 90 per cent of all persons lost in the woods comes in that instant when they first realize they are lost. One minute the wanderer is merely puzzled, perhaps irritated at the delay in locating a trail or landmark. A second later the words "I'm lost!" flash through the mind - and they panic the novice beyond all reason. This is the point where intelligent thought can be swamped. There is an irrational urge to run after the missing trail as if it were a live thing that must be recaptured by headlong pursuit. The friendly forest is abruptly full of stalking phantoms, and flight is your only escape. The fresh breeze is a cold wind now, the yellow sun paler and plummeting toward dusk and darkness. Walk faster, faster! Run! 

You will feel this panic the first time you are lost in big woods. Perhaps it sounds improbable as you read about it in your own living room, but some sense of panic at being lost is as normal as shivering when you are cold. Be prepared to cope with it. 

Although I have never been lost in the woods, this seems like a pretty good description of the state of mind. What would you do if you realized you were lost? I would probably try frantically to retrace my steps. I might use what little knowledge I have about how to find my bearings, such as the North Star or the thing about moss growing on the north side of trees (which, apparently, isn't always true). Maybe I would start shouting for help, depending on how desperate I was.

But this is not the approach advised by our authors. No sir. There is a reason why they begin with a description of the "I'm lost!" state of mind: in their expert opinion, the state of mind is the root of the problem. Thus, their first piece of advice:

Stop traveling the instant those words, "I'm lost" take shape in your thinking. If you are standing, sit down. If you smoke, light up. If you wear a pack, take it off. Get out a sandwich or candy bar if you have one. All of these are simple tricks to keep you rooted where you are until that urgent hurry, hurry mood passes. If you feel you are in serious trouble, build a fire. Nothing will calm and reassure you more quickly than to get a cheerful blaze going. The work involved keeps your mind from spinning aimlessly, and the fire gives you an established base. With the fire going, you have a camp right where you are, and the only problem now is to plan the best route back to the camp or trail you left in the beginning. In a sense you are not lost any more: that urgent need to escape is gone. 

The first step is to address the mental state of panic. Only then should you focus on regaining your bearings. The authors continue by providing some suggestions on how to do this, all while continuing to reassure the mind of the lost camper:

You are now in shape to use your head rather than your feet. Where were you last definitely on the right track? Think back step by step. Chances are your mistake will come to mind as vividly as the sudden realization that you were lost. You took the wrong fork in the trail, perhaps, or turned down the wrong slope of the ridge. Maybe camp is upriver, and you clung to the notion it was downstream from the point where you hiked out of the brush. The man who sits down and calms himself with familiar distractions such as pipe loading, eating, and fire building can nearly always think himself back to base camp.  

When the solution is immediately and positively clear to you, put out your fire, gather up your gear, and be on your way. You are not lost at all. If you have the slightest doubt, however, mark your trail as you go so you can easily find your way back to the point where you stopped to collect your wits and directions. That is the closest spot to camp or trail that you know for sure.  

Unless you see your mistake at once, do not move from the little camp you have established. Get out your map and compass. The map will show that horseshoe bend in the river below you. That tallest peak beyond the river bend is due west, your compass shows. The peak is on the map, too, and so is the road you are aiming for. It is about a mile south of the peak and river bend. You are just on the wrong side of the ridge. Climb to the saddle 200 yards south of you, and you will see the road in the valley beyond. Pack up and go there. 

Lacking map and compass, try drawing a map of all you can remember in the dirt with a twig, with pencil and paper if you have them. No help? Climb the little butte to your right, marking a foolproof trail as you go, and look for something familiar from that vantage point. Listen for any sound in a known direction - say, the noon whistle of the sawmill in the valley to the east, the rumble of the ore train from the mine where your car is parked.  

Still no luck? Well, you will now have to settle down to being lost overnight. 

The authors then go on to recommend procedures for how to set up an impromptu camp and how to send emergency signals. At the very end of the chapter - a subsection entitled, "Why Worry?" - the authors reiterate their fundamental insight:

The first and final thing to remember about being lost is that 99 per cent of the real danger is from panic - unreasonable fear that causes intelligent people to injure or deplete themselves in their own foolish stampedes ... 

There is considerable danger to anyone lost in such extreme climates as Death Valley or the Arctic. Even those formidable areas can be mastered by the standard traveler who calmly rigs a good shelter and uses emergency signals efficiently.  

The great majority of people who get lost are out in temperate climates and only a few miles from a good road or trail. With calm planning, this garden variety of "lostness" is no more than an inconvenience.  

As the following chapter will explain, the average man can get by without most of the things he considers necessities in his everyday life. The city-pampered gourmet will eat a rabbit raw after two hungry weeks in the wilds. The man who considers two flights of stairs a hardship can carry a pack over a mountain pass if he has to. And the fellow who shivers each time his home furnace falters can survive in a lean-to in weather far below freezing. There is a tough and adaptable animal just beneath the pampered skin of modern man.

And that, in short, is a sound approach on how to cope with the panic of getting lost in the woods. Let's summarize the steps:

1. Calm your panicked state of mind; recognize that your hope lies in a calm state of mind.
2. Mentally retrace your steps to see where and how you deviated from the proper course.
3. Once you have a clear idea of how you lost your way, start retracing your steps - but mark your trail so you can find your way back.
4. Map your route to the best of your ability, use all of the tools at your disposal, and stick to the most certain knowledge available - all while maintaining a keen awareness of your surroundings in order to pick up any clues that might help you to find your way.
5. Remember that you have the ability to adapt, and be prepared to do so. 

Pretty sound advice, right? Now for a real challenge: see if you can apply this to the nistar application as well. Rather than spell it out, I will leave you with a poetic bridge from the nigleh to the nistar in the form of an excerpt from "Walden" (1854), by Henry James Thoreau:

It is a surprising and memorable, as well as valuable experience, to be lost in the woods any time. Often in a snow storm, even by day, one will come out upon a well-known road, and yet find it impossible to tell which way leads to the village. Though he knows that he has traveled it a thousand times, he cannot recognize a feature in it, but it is as strange to him as if it were a road in Siberia. By night, of course, the perplexity is infinitely greater. In our most trivial walks, we are constantly, though unconsciously, steering like pilots by certain well-known beacons and headlands, and if we go beyond our usual course we still carry in our minds the bearing of some neighboring cape; and not till we are completely lost, or turned round -- for a man needs only to be turned round once with his eyes shut in this world to be lost -- do we appreciate the vastness and strangeness of nature. Every man has to learn the points of compass again as often as be awakes, whether from sleep or any abstraction. Not till we are lost, in other words not till we have lost the world, do we begin to find ourselves, and realize where we are and the infinite extent of our relations.

I hope that if you someday become lost, that you will be able to cope with the panic, and that you emerge as a found person. 

Mishlei 24:27 - Short-term Long-term Planning

משלי כד:כז

הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ:

Mishlei 24:27

Prepare your work outside and ready yourself in the field; then build your house.

Major Questions / Difficulties

1. Why does the pasuk focus on "preparing your work" instead of "doing your work"? 
2. What type of "preparation" is it talking about? Likewise, what does it mean to "ready yourself in the field"?
3. Why the emphasis on "outside"? Obviously, if you're working in the field, then you'll be doing your work outside! 
4. What does it mean by "building your house"? Is it talking about the physical construction of the walls, or the income needed to run the household, or starting a family, or something else?
5. What are the consequences of building your house before "preparing your work" and "readying yourself in the field"? Usually Shlomo ha'Melech gives us some inkling of what happens to those who ignore his advice. 

Methodology Tips: 

• When approaching pesukim like this, it is tempting to immediately dive into metaphor. But we must remember a cardinal rule of our approach to Mishlei: always take the pasuk as literally as possible unless you are compelled to interpret it otherwise.
• It is often helpful to ask the question: To whom is this pasuk addressed? For example, we can assume that the person to whom this pasuk is addressed has enough money to "build his house" before "preparing his work outside" and "readying himself in the field" - and that is why Shlomo ha'Melech is telling him to do the opposite. 

Four-sentence Summary of the Main Idea

When a person settles in a new location, it is tempting to prioritize building a house, which is the ultimate source of emotional and physical security. However, if a person desires real security, he will prioritize his livelihood over everything else, making sure that he has the ability to earn a steady income, for without an income, his house will not provide the security he seeks. This is a subtle crossroads, since the person who builds his house will be able to claim that he is engaged in “long-term planning.” In truth, he is seeking security in that which is immediate and concrete, rather than what will actually ensure his long-term survival; he engaged in short-term long-term planning. 

Parashas Mattos/Masei: Seduced by Particulars

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Horizon Canopy, by Michael Komarck

Parashas Mattos/Masei: Seduced by Particulars

Bnei Yisrael had just vanquished the Midianites and were preparing to finally enter Eretz Yisrael. However, not everyone is so keen about settling in Eretz Yisrael proper. The Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven approach Moshe Rabbeinu with a request: they would like to settle outside of Eretz Yisrael, across the Yarden, where the land is ideal for their abundant livestock.

They said, "If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants as a heritage; do not bring us across the Yarden" (Bamidbar 32:5).

How does Moshe take this? Not very well. He condemns the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven in no uncertain terms, even going so far as to compare them to the sinful generation of the Meraglim who angered Hashem and caused Bnei Yisrael to wander in the Wilderness for 40 years:

Moshe said to the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven, "Shall your brothers go out to battle while you settle here? Why do you dissuade the heart of Bnei Yisrael from crossing to the Land that Hashem has given them? This is what your fathers did, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the Land. They went up to the valley of Eshcol and saw the Land and they dissuaded the heart of Bnei Yisrael not to come to the Land that Hashem has given them. The wrath of Hashem burned on that day, and He swore saying, 'If these men who came up from Egypt - from the age of twenty years and above - will see the ground that I swore to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov ... for they have not followed Me fully ... The wrath of Hashem burned against Israel and He made them wander in the Wilderness for forty years, until the end of the entire generation that did evil in the eyes of Hashem. Behold! - you have risen up in place of your fathers, a society of sinful people, to add more to the burning wrath of Hashem against Israel. For if you will turn away from after Him, He will again let it rest in the Wilderness, and you will destroy this entire people (ibid. 32:6-15)

To an impartial reader, this might seem like an overreaction. Was the request made by Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven really as bad as Moshe makes it seem? Moreover, what are we supposed to learn from their cheit? 

As usual, the Ralbag provides a unique perspective on this cheit. He writes:

[From here we learn] a lesson in middos, namely, that it is not proper for a person to be seduced by the particulars to choose one thing over another, except after great deliberation. We see that because Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven had abundant livestock, they were seduced into choosing the land to the east, over the Yarden, since that was a good location for cattle. However, this caused them to later regret [their decision] after the land had been conquered, for they saw that this might cause their descendants to stray away from Hashem. This, in turn, caused them to build an [illegal] altar, as it is stated at the end of Sefer Yehoshua (Chapter 22) [which led to major problems for them]. Additionally, they would be more vulnerable to Israel's enemies. For this reason you will find that the first people to be exiled by the king of Assyria were these tribes. Moreover, the Moabites - whose land we took over from Sichon - were continually like a thorn which afflicted Israel, as we see from the events of Yiftach, the Giladi. 

According to the Ralbag, the main take-away from the cheit of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven is not about the particular decision to settle outside of Eretz Yisrael per se, but rather, it is an insight about decision-making in general. Their mistake was allowing themselves to be "seduced by the particulars" in their decision about where to settle. As a result of that seduction, they were blind to the harm they would be causing to themselves, their brethren, and their future descendants.

Some might find this lesson to be too obvious for the Ralbag to highlight. Indeed, according to Saadia Gaon, the entire Sefer Mishlei may be viewed as a guidebook to avoid making this very mistake. Shlomo ha'Melech sums up this idea himself, saying: "There is a path which is straight before a man, but at its end are paths of death" (Mishlei 14:12). Then again, Saadia Gaon would also say that although this idea might be clear and obvious "in the eyes of the intellect," that is not the case "in the eyes of the emotions." We are all prone to being blinded by our emotions and being "seduced by the particulars." It is for this reason that we need to review and reinforce this lesson as much as possible.

But it is important to note that the error of the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven did not occur on a personal level of decision-making, but on a societal level. It would seem that they had the best interests of their tribes and families in mind. They just weren't "thinking fourth-dimensionally" - that is to say, they weren't thinking about how their actions would affect future generations of Gadites and Reubenites. It is difficult enough guarding yourself against "seduction by the particulars" in your own lifetime, but it is even more difficult to do so when thinking about future generations. 

"Gad! Reuven! You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!"

This isn't the only instance where the Ralbag draws our attention to a poor decision made by a group of people to settle in a bad location. The Ralbag learns that this is the very reason why Hashem scattered the Dor ha'Haflagah (Generation of the Dispersion) by mixing up their language. The pesukim state:

The whole earth was of one language and of common principles. And it came to pass, when they migrated from the east, they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there (Bereishis 11:1-2). 

The mainstream view is that Hashem intervened because the society of the Dor ha'Haflagah was evil and corrupt, in one way or another. The Ralbag takes a radically different approach. He learns that Hashem intervened to save the human race from potential devastation. Ralbag writes:

Hashem saw that for all of mankind to be gathered in a single location would be detrimental for the continuity of the human species, for it is possible that a catastrophe would occur in that location - whether an earthquake that originated in the bowels of the earth, or a tornado that smashed mountains and broke stones, or by a meteor shower, or a flood, or other such catastrophes. If the entire human species were located in a single location on earth, there is a chance that they would be wiped out if that portion of the earth were destroyed. For this reason, it was necessary for mankind to be scattered throughout all parts of the earth, so that the species would last, and that if a disaster happened to one part, the species would be preserved through the other.

Thus, according to the Ralbag, the error of the Dor ha'Haflagah was similar to the error of Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven: both groups were "seduced by the particulars" when choosing a location to make their home, and both groups were blind to the danger they posed to their offspring - a physical danger to the entire human race in one case, and a spiritual (and physical) danger to their tribes in the other case. 

At this point you might be wondering why I have chosen these two seemingly disparate incidents in Chumash as my focus in this blog post. Well, it just so happens that I was confronted with a similar situation in my own life this week. An article entitled The Really Big One was published a few days ago in The New Yorker. The article is an exposé on what is known as "the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami" - a seismic event of epic proportions which will inevitably happen sometime in the near future. Here is the picture painted by the author:

When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the west—losing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater ... The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.” 

In the Pacific Northwest, everything west of Interstate 5 covers some hundred and forty thousand square miles, including Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Eugene, Salem (the capital city of Oregon), Olympia (the capital of Washington), and some seven million people. When the next full-margin rupture happens, that region will suffer the worst natural disaster in the history of North America. Roughly three thousand people died in San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. Almost two thousand died in Hurricane Katrina. Almost three hundred died in Hurricane Sandy.FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured, and the agency expects that it will need to provide shelter for a million displaced people, and food and water for another two and a half million. “This is one time that I’m hoping all the science is wrong, and it won’t happen for another thousand years,” Murphy says.

Later on in the article, the author reports that "the odds of the big Cascadia earthquake happening in the next fifty years are roughly one in three. The odds of the very big one are roughly one in ten." Those odds are not good, to say the least. 

As you can imagine, this article caused somewhat of a commotion on the West Coast. Judging by the other articles I skimmed, some people accepted these predictions at face value; other experts reported that the science was correct, but said that the disaster scenarios weren't nearly as bad in all areas as this author made it out to be; others preferred to believe that this disaster was still along ways off - too far off to worry.

This article hit my emotions on a very personal level. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest. My family and many of my friends still live there. I, myself, have seriously considered moving there when I'm ready to settle down. That being said, you can imagine the conflict I felt upon reading this article. 

I immediately began thinking about these findings from a practical standpoint. I found this to be much trickier than I expected. As we go through life, we become more and more adept at making cost-benefit analyses and weighing the various pros and cons. But every once in a while, we are thrown a curve-ball consideration - such as this one - which is so unique that it becomes difficult to factor into our long-term planning. 

Shortly after reading this article, my mind went to the two excerpts from the Ralbag cited in this blog post. I wondered: Am I being seduced by the wonderful particulars of the Pacific Northwest? Am I rationalizing my desire to one day move here? Am I making the same mistake that the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven made when they thought that it was a good decision to settle on the other side of the Yarden? Am I exposing myself and my future progeny to physical danger in the same way as the Dor ha'Haflagah? 

For now, I believe that more investigation is in order before making any dramatic decisions. Nevertheless, I learned a valuable lesson from thinking about this article during the same week I thought about Bnei Gad, Bnei Reuven, and the Dor ha'Haflagah, namely, it is very difficult not to be seduced by the particulars when contemplating very long-term consequences which may or may not even come to pass during one's lifetime. Reading the Ralbag's lesson was one thing, but relating to it by considering this local, personal issue made that lesson much more real to me. 

This, in turn, made me realize how many of the problems facing the Jewish community are plagued by this same cheit of decision-making. Whether it's problems from within (e.g. the Jewish Day School tuition, the Shidduch crisis, the polarization of Jews to the extreme right or the extreme left) or the problems from without (e.g. U.S. relations, the Palestinians, Iran), it seems that "seduction by the particulars" inevitably exerts its sinister influence. And like the examples in Chumash, the problem is magnified by the fact we are forced to make decisions which affect us, but also shape the lives of future generations. 

I don't know what the solution is, but being the first step is always to recognize the problem, as the Ralbag did in his analysis of the events in our parashah. That is one of the many things I like about the Ralbag's approach to Torah she'bi'Chsav: not only does he bring out deep and lofty ideas in Torah and metaphysics, but he also extracts the humble practical lessons from the narrative. By contemplating and reviewing these lessons as they appear in Torah she'bi'Chsav, we can - with God's help become more adept at applying them to our everyday lives.