Community Magazine August 2016

18 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE Dedicated in memory of the pure neshamot of the Sassoon children Fixtures Faucets Hardware accessories 1663 coney island avenue Brooklyn NY 11230 Monday–wednesday 9am–5:30pm thursday 9am–7pm sunday 11am–5pm Valet Parking appointments welcome 718.787.1000 www.homeandstone.com Home & stone that “lo hochihu zeh et zeh” – the people did not give one another criticism. The Jews of the time felt content looking after their own religious observance, and felt no responsibility to correct others who acted improperly. We do not believe that other people’s conduct is “none of our business.” All Jews are responsible for one another, as the famous rabbinic adage teaches – “Kol Yisrael arevim zeh lazeh.” This is why the confessional prayer – vidui – is written in the plural form, as we confess collectively, as a nation. We bear responsibility not only for our own conduct, but also for the conduct of our fellow Jews. And so the Torah commands us to rebuke each other when necessary, to ensure that we all follow the Torah’s laws as we should. It was the Jews’ failure in this regard, their neglecting to give each other criticism, that the Mikdash was destroyed. Many readers likely found the previous paragraph surprising – and for very good reason. Already the sages in the Talmud, in a separate context, noted the extreme difficulty in properly fulfilling this mitzvah of rebuke, which is subject to numerous conditions. For one thing, criticism may be given only if there is a reasonable chance that it would be accepted and effective. If a person knows that his words would fall upon deaf ears, then there is no obligation at all to attempt to offer constructive criticism. This already makes this obligation very rarely applicable. After all, most people resent criticism, even when it is spoken gently and sincerely. Our natural tendency is to defend ourselves at all costs, and to avoid admission of guilt. How often can a person feel assured that his criticismwill be effective, or even has a good chance of being effective? What’s more, every word of criticism that one speaks must be truly constructive. If it is expressedwith snarky, condescension or insults, it is not valid. Each word must be pristinely sincere and well-intentioned. And, the criticism must not cause the person any humiliation. If one embarrasses somebody in an effort to correct his behavior, then even if this is done sincerely, the mitzvah is not fulfilled, and the one who expressed the criticism has in fact transgressed a grave Torah prohibition. In light of all these specifications, the Gemara’s comment becomes very puzzling. Can the failure to criticize really have been one of the sins for which Jerusalem was destroyed? Considering how rarely this mitzvah actually applies, how could the lack of criticism have caused the destruction? It All Starts at Home The answer to both these questions can be found in two words written by the Maharsha (Rav Shmuel Eidels, 1555-1631), one of the classic commentators to the Talmud. In his comments to the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, the Maharsha succinctly writes, “ Av ubeno – Father and son.” Kamtza and Bar Kamtza were father and son. Indeed, the word “ bar ” means “son,” and it thus stands to reason that Bar Kamtza was Kamtza’s son. Kamtza, the father, was supposed to be invited to the party, but the invitation was mistakenly delivered to his son, Bar Kamtza, instead.