Friday, November 13, 2015

Mitzva Chicanery חטוף ובריך

 כי בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה

I am currently a chiyuv to say kaddish.  When there is more than one such chiyuv in shul, conflict inevitably arises about who should have the amud, who gets maftir, and so forth.  Many fine poskim say that it's not right to fight, and if the other person insists, it's a bigger zechus to the niftar to be a rodef shalom.  Be mevateir.

I believe that if you were being bullied out of ten thousand dollars, you wouldn't be such a big rodef shalom.  If you believe that the neshamos are is in a matzav of din and they afraid, and hungry for zechusim, and you are the only one that can help them, and it's like you became the parent to your parent, and they are depending on you to comfort and feed them..... why would you be mevateir?  If you cared enough, you wouldn't be mevateir.


But I'm sure the above-referenced poskim are right.  After all, peace is a beautiful thing and it is a great zechus to ensure that peace reigns- indeed, Kaddish itself ends with a tefilla for Shalom.  Still, I don't recall any explicit source in Chazal that supports this psak.  For Kaddish, we have a makor in Maseches Kallah R as brought in the Beis Yosef YD 376 and Rabbeinu Bachaye in Shoftim.  But avoiding machlokes?  Where does it say this is a zechus for the neshama?  Is it possible that the psak really is an application of Meshanin mipnei haShalom rather than the real issues of ke'dimah? Certainly, it is wise to tell this to the the disputants in order to avoid bloodshed in shul so that the less aggressive (better baal middos, bigger mentsch, more feckless and weak-willed, whatever you want,) of the two will be mevateir.


In this week's parsha, we learn about Rachel/Yaakov's subterfuge to ensure that Eisav would not get the brachos and that he, Yaakov, would.  Many mefarshim explain that this was all done with ruach hakodesh.  However, there are those that do not relegate this to inscrutable ruach hakodesh, but instead say that what happened here is an approach of general application, as we will see.  


The Shaarei Teshuva about Boaz is very interesting, and he relates it to Yaakov as well.  I'm bringing it as brought in two sefarim that I think span the discussion, the Titen Emes L'Yaakov, and Pardes Yosef.


The basic idea is that the Shaarei Teshuva brings from an Iggeres Shmuel that when Boaz presented the issue of marrying Rus to Ploni Almoni, he knew with Ruach HaKodesh that Rus was the progenitor of royalty, and he passionately desired to have a share in that glorious future.  So he presented Rus as "That Moavi woman."  "You want to marry this woman from the debased nation of Moav, the giyores from those despicable people?  Go ahead, it's your choice, and have a nice life." This was intended to leave a bad impression on Ploni, and it worked.  Ploni declined, and Boaz swooped in an snatched her. This was a ruse.  It was a subterfuge.  He says the same applies to Yaakov and the Brachos.  Ayyy, this is wrong, this is unethical?  Oh, that's only true by money matters.  When it comes to mitzvos, especially mitzvos that stand be'rumo shel olam, it's every man for himself, chayecha kodmin, and kol d'alim gavar.  


In other words, Yaakov was an איש תם, but he was not a תם מוותר.

(The Iggeres Shmuel: Written by רבי שמואל (די) אוזידא, who lived from 1545 to 1601.  He was among the first talmidim of the Arizal and later of Reb Chaim Vital.  A Rosh Yeshiva in Tzefas, he also produced the anthology Medrash Shmuel on Avos.)


It should be pointed out that this idea, even if it is valid lehalacha, (which I humbly don't think is the case, especially since it's really not in the Iggeres Shmuel,) should be applied with care, because the circumstances very much matter, as follows.

1.  There are Mitzvos that belong to a particular individual, such as a father making a bris, and the shochet doing kisui hadam, or the owner being tovel keilim.  Simply taking away these mizvos is gneiva and is punished with the fine of ten gold coins.
2.  Even in those cases, it appears that the Iggeres Shmuel allows misdirection such that the owner of the mizvos will not want to do them, at which point you can take them.
3.  In other cases, the other person has precedence, but the mitzva does not belong to him.  In such cases, some would allow the interloper to just snatch it away.
4.  Where the other person has no precedence, but is in the process of trying to begin doing the mitzva, he is called עני המהפך בחררה, a poor man who is turning over trash looking for something of value, and he sees something, and wants to pick it up.  In cases of monetary law, if someone else runs over and takes it, he is considered contemptible, and can be called "Rasha" in public.  The question is whether the rule of עני המהפך בחררה applies to mitzvos, and even if you don't agree with the Iggeres Shmuel, there is reason to think this might be muttar.  For example, see the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:5, where he says (off-handedly) that Rabbeinu Tam holds there is no din of מהפך בחררה in Mitzvos and he paskens that way.



Pardeis Yosef:



ובשערי תשובה או"ח סי' תפ"ב סר"א הביא מ"ש באגרת שמואל על רות במ"ש רות לגואל ביום קנית רות המואביה לפי שצפה ברוה"ק שעתיד לצאת מחלצ' שלשלת מלכות בית דוד לכן אמר המואביה כדי שימאן הוא ויקחנה הוא ויזכה לשלשלת גדולה ואף שאסור לרמות חבירו ליקח את שלו זה בדבר שבממון אבל במצות אף שא"א ליקח מיד הזוכה כגון כסוי ומילה וכיוצא מ"מ כל שלא זכה עדיין הם כמדבר המופקר לכל וכל אדם נצטוה להשלים את נפשו ולזכות במצות וזה ענין יעקב בבכורה ובברכות לפי שראה וידע שעשו התמכר לעשות רע והוא היה צריך לזה לשלימות נפשי וכ שעד"ז פירש הכתוב מחמס אחיך יעקב תכסך בושה בעובדיה א' י' שהכוונה שיוכיחו לעשו על פניו מעניני יעקב שלא בא לו בנקל מה שצריך לשלימות על שהוצרך להערים ולעשות בתחבולות וטצדקות דאפשר שנדמה כמו חמס הכניס עצמו בזה לפי צורך שעה לזכות בהם להחיות עצמו חיי עולם ולכן תכסהו בושה לעשו אשר בידו טובו ומאס בטוב ובחר ברע מ"ש והדברים מתוקים מדבש עכ"ל
 והנה נאמן עלי הדין שכ' באגרת שמואל כן אבל אנכי חפשתי בכל הספר ולא מצאתי שום רמז מזה שם וראיתי עוד בשם הג"ר חיים מוולאזשנע ז"ל משל לאב שהי' לו ב' בנים א' ישר הולך וא' שובב והישר סבל הרבה מאחיו השובב והביא תמיד דבתו רע לאביו על אחיו השובב פ"א בא השיבב לאביו עם פצעים שהוכה מאחיו האב תחת לענוש הטוב על הכותו את אחיו עוד נתן מתנת יד לבנו השובב ואנשי הבית הביטו בתמהון על זה וענה האב להם יודע אנכי מזג בני הטוב שאינו מוכשר להכות באגרוף רשע על לא דבר ואם קרה כזאת אני מתאר עד היכן לחץ אותו השובב שהוצרך להניף ישיו עליו הישר באדם וז"פ מחמס אחיך יעקב אם יעקב התם נצרך לשלוח בחמס ידיו זה האות על הלחץ שסיבל מעשו חמס ממנו כל מקורי הפרנסה ואין לו עצה ומוכרח להכשל במעשים מגונים כן יכולים לומר על אותם ההולכים בדרך אשר אינו נכון כל כך כי הגלות ותנאי החיים המרים המה בעוכריהם וה' ירחם

Titein Emmes:

ראיתי חידוש בשערי תשובה או״ח סימן תפ״ב שהביא דברי אגרת שמואל על רות במה שאמר בועז לגואל ביום קגותך מיד רות המואבי׳, לפי שצפה ברוח הקודש שעתיד לצאת מחלצי׳ שלשלת מלכות בית דוד לכך אמר המואבי׳ כדי שימאן הוא ויקחנה הוא ויזכה לשלשלת גדולה ההיא, ואף דאםור לרמות חבירו לקהת את שלו זהו בדבר שבממון אבל במצות אף שא״א ליקה מיד הזוכה בנון כסוי ומילה וכיוצא מ״מ כל שלא זכה עדיין הם כמדבר המופקר לכל וכל אדם נצטוה להשלים את נפשו ולזכות במצוד. וזה ענין יעקב אבינו ע״ה בבכורה וברכות לפי שראה וידע שעשו התמכר לעשות הרע והוא אין צריך לזה והוא הי׳ צריך לזה לשלימות נפשו, ע״כ. ושוב מצאתי במקור חסד על ספר חסידים סי׳ קנ״ה ס״ק י״א שהביא דברי השערי תשובה והוסיף אמנם על כל כזה נאמר ויראת מאלקיך שזהו דבר המסור ללב היודע אם לעקל אם לעקלקלות כי במקום שיתרבה כבוד שמים כשתעשה המצוה על ידי מי שעדיף ממנו ודאי כבוד שמים עדיף ויקבל שכר על הפרישה כמו שמצינו אצל האבות הקדושים איתני עולם במצות הזימון בפסחים קי״ט: אברהם אמר איני מברך וכו׳ עיי״ש. (אמר המלקט דבריו חידוש בעיני כי הרי חייך קודם). ועוד זאת מצאתי בספר הברית (עניני מילד.) דף ק״ע שג״כ הביא השערי תשובה הנ״ל והוסיף וז״ל וכתב בספר ברית אבות ומזה יש ללמוד במי׳ שיודע מחבירו שמחזר אחר אבי הבן שיכבדנו במצות חיתוך או במצות סנדקאות וקידם הוא אצל אבי הבן ולקח המצוה, אין זה בדין עני המהפך בחררה וכו׳ כי זהו דוקא בדבר שבממון אבל בדבר מצוה כל אדם נצטוה להשלים את נפשו ובדין עשה. עכ״ל.
 ועיין עוד בדעת זקנים מבעלי התום׳ בראשית כ״ה ל״ד בשם ר׳ יהודה החסיד, מכאן אתה למד שאם יש ביד רשע ס״ת או מצוה אחרת דמותר לצדיק לרמותו וליטלו ממנו, ע״ב. וחידוש נוסף למדנו מדבריו דמרשע יש לרמות אף במצוה שכבר זכה בו לקחתו ממנו משא״כ אם אינו רשע מותר לרמותו רק אם עדיין לא זכה בה כדברי אגרת שמואל הנ״ל. ולכאורה יש לדמות דברי אגרת שמואל לענין אם רב אחד צריך להתאכסן בעיר אהד ויש לו שם שלשה תלמידים בעיר ההוא וכולם רוצים לזכות במצות הכנסת אורחים, והקדים אחד מהם והזמין הרב להיות אצלו אבל הרב סירב משום איזה סיבה, ונודע דבר ההזמנה לתלמיד שני שמותר לו לומר לשלישי דע לך שפלוני הקדים והזמין הרב להיות אצלו, וכוונתו בזה כדי שחברו התלמיד השלישי כשישמע זה יתיאש מלהזמין הרב בחושבו שנענה להזמנת התלמיד הראשון, ובכך ילך השני ויזכה במצות הכנסת אורחים שעדיין לא זכה בה אחד מהם. אבל שאלתי את הגאון הרב יוסף שלום אלישיב שליט״א ואסר במקרה הזה מכיון שאומר ״פלוני הקדים והזמין״ יש בזה חצי אמת שגם זה שקר, משא״כ אצל בועז לא אמר שום שקר. ועיין עוד גמ׳ יומא כ״ג. בעגין הפיים שהיו עושין בבית המקדש בין הבחנים, ומי שהוציא אנודל הי׳ לוקה מן הממונה, הרי שם רצה לעשות רמאות לזכות במצוה שעדיין לא זכה בה חברו ולמה אסור לפי דברי אנרת שמואל. אמנם י״ל דחי׳ בין הבחנים הסכם מקובל לא לעשות כך דאל״ה לא יהי׳ שום סדר בחלוקת העבודה ומשיה הי׳ אסור אף בשביל לזכות במצוה. או די״ל דשם אם ירמה באצבעותיו לזכות במצוד. זה נחשב למעשה של שקר גמור ולא הותר רק כשאין כאן שקר ממש כדלעיל. ועיין חגיגה יג. במעשה דרב יוסף וסבי דפומבדיתא, אמרו לי׳ ליגמרין מר במעשה מרכבה וכוי. ועיין עוד חלק ב׳ סימן ו׳(נ) דברי שו״ת שמן ראש סי׳ ם״ד.



Let's put it this way: if the gabbai comes over to  you and asks if you're a kohen or a levi, and you can figure out a way of making him think you're a levi when you're not, the Iggeres Shmuel would definitely say you should go ahead.  Maybe "Well, I'm not a Kohen, and my grandson is a Levi, so I'll let you guess what I am....."


I just had an interesting experience, and I'm not sure what to make of it.  As I said, I'm saying kaddish for my mother this year.  At Mincha on Shabbos, a friend came over and said that he wanted to daven for the amud Maariv, because he has yahrtzeit for his father.  I said sure, no problem.  After all, a yahrtzeit has precedence over a regular aveil.  Later, a little before maariv, I asked if he's davening shachris tomorrow morning in this shul, because if he is, I would daven elsewhere.  He said, no, his father's yahrtzeit is not tonight, it is on Tuesday.  So why did he want the amud motzei Shabbos?  Because there is a tiny little nothing of a minhag to daven maariv motzei shabbos when you have yahrtzeit that week.  It is of no halachic standing.  It is basically nothing.  


When I realized that, I arranged for the Rabbi to tell him that I come first.  He was very disappointed, and quickly walked out of shul to look for another minyan.


I don't know if he did it on purpose, but if he did, it would be a very nice application of our discussion.  He said he wanted the amud tonight because he has yahrtzeit.  All true.  But his yahrtzeit is on TUESDAY, not tonight.  A little chicanery in the pursuit of a mitzvah.


Which calls to mind something Senator Barry Goldwater said in his Republican presidential candidate nomination speech.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"



(For another example of Mitzva chicanery, see my post The Purloined Letter.)


BULLETIN:
This just came in the mail, from my son, Reb Moshe.
"......This is תוכחות חיים from רב חיים פאלאגי, in פרשת קדושים- he says that we should learn דרך ארץ from the stones under Yaakovs head, שעשו מריבה לזכות להניח ראש צדיק עליהן. (Really, its a Rashi, but the addition here is that it is דרך ארץ.)

Some of the kollel people were madche the rayeh, that there there was no risk of hurting another's feelings because, after all, they all had hearts of stone. But I think its a rayeh."
וילמד אדם מוסר ודרך ארץ מאבני המקום שלקח עקב אבינו ע"ה כדכתיב סדר ויצא  ויפגע במקום וילן שם כי בא השמש ויקח מאבני המקום וישם מראשותיו ואמרו רז"ל והביאו רש"י בחומש וז"ל וישם מראשותיו עשאן כמין מרזב סביב לראשו שירא מפי חיות רעות התחילו מריבות זו עם זו זאת אומרת עלי יניח צדיק ראשו וזאת אומרת עלי יניח צדיק ראשו עשאן הקב"ה אבן אחת שנאמר ויקח את האבן אשר שם מראשותיו עכ"ל והרי הדברים קל וחומר ומה אבנים שהן אבן דומם שאינן רואות ולא שומעות ולא נצטוו בכבוד תלמיד חכם וצדיק עם כל זה עשו מריבה לזכות להניח ראש צדיק עליהן אנחנו עם בני ישראל שנצטווינו במרה וגם יש לנו הנהגת דרך ארץ איך יתכן להיות במקום אהבה ולבחור בתלמיד חכם לשנאו ולבזותו 
תוכחת חיים לרבי חיים פאלאג"י פ' קדושים עמ' סד 

So you see that Reb Chaim Falaji feels it's a positive thing- it's מוסר ודרך ארץ-  to fight for a zechus and not be mevateir.

Ok, we all know that he was making a point.  If stones have the seichel to fight for the zechus of being mechabeid a tzadik, kal vachomer people should have the seichel to not be mevazeh talmid chacham.  But still, he says that sometimes, meriva can be better than indifference.
On the other hand, we don't see that one stone said to another "Eh, who says he's such a big tzadik, it doesn't matter if he puts his head on you" in order to trick the other stone out of the kibbud.

סוף דבר, for the moment: 
I was talking to Harav Meir Lichtman, Rosh Yeshiva of Meor HaTorah Chicago.  He said that his approach to taking the amud when he was an aveil was that he would struggle.  Not fight, struggle. If there was someone there that would insist on taking the amud and would not give in, he would find a minyan that davened later, even if it involved travel and cost him time.  In most cases, he said, he got what he wanted.  The point is that people have to know how to firmly assert their wishes, but to back off if there is a danger of machlokes.  If you really care, you will make the effort to find an alternative.  Sometimes, וויתור is the right choice.  But the וויתור should stem from a conscious choice, not indifference or impotence.

So:
We discussed two aspects of striving to get a mitzva that someone else might take.  One is the struggle, to not give in readily.  The second is the use of misdirection in order to make the other person abandon the mitzvah.  I think it's fair to say that both may be good when used judiciously.  
If a mitzva is important, then treat it like it is important.  Imagine what you would do if you and your friend were competing for a valuable object, and only one of you could get it.  Then do the same for a mitzvah.
As for misdirection, let's think about the passukim in Mishlei (20:12-14): 
 אזן שמעת, ועין ראה--    יהוה, עשה גם-שניהם.
  אל-תאהב שנה, פן-תורש;    פקח עיניך שבע-לחם.

  רע רע, יאמר הקונה;    ואזל לו, אז יתהלל
The ibn Ezra explains,


אזן, אל, רע -
ג' דבקים. 
כלומר מאזן לשמוע מוסר והעין לראות התוכחת עשה השם, על כן אל תאהב שנה, שלא נברא העין לישן כי אם שעה ידועה, ואחרי כן לראות ולבחור בדרכי המוסר. 

פקח עיניך -

מן השינה, כי אז תשבע לחם, וראה הקונה שיאמר על הממכר רע רע ויבזהו, כדי שיוכל לקנות בזול וכאשר הולך בעצמו עם הממכר, אז יתהלל ויתפאר בעצמו ויאמר שהוא יודע לקנות דבר נחמד ובאמת כן הוא, שיש זהב ופנינים רבים למי שיש לו שפתי דעת, שידע בעסקי סחורה.

When you're buying, you disparage the merchandise.  Oh, it's not so valuable, it's common, it's imperfect, all because you want to push the merchant into selling it for less.  When you have it and you take it home, then you are willing to admit that it's wonderful.  That's how you do business.  Perhaps, to some extent, you could do the same with mitzvos.  But, again, you need the seichel to draw the line between natural rivalry and fraud.


As Refoel J says in the comments, 


Ben Peturah but that discussion concerns a case of a zero sum game, i.e. where there is only enough water available for one of the two people to live. So we pasken like Rabbi Akiva that one should take the water to save his own life, (rather than sharing with his friend, in which case both would die, or giving it all to his friend so that he would live). But what I am trying to say is that in the realm of ruchniyus, in a case where two people are both interested/vying for the same mitzvah, it is not a zero sum game. For Hashem has a ratzon for each of them, does He not? So if they both analyze the situation honestly, make a true cheshbon hanefesh about what Hashem wants from him in this situation (to be mevateir or not), then both will come out at the end "spiritually richer". That means that it is not the case of the loser being mevateir and the winner being the "alim". Rather, both are following Hashem's will, and they are both winning. And if they find that after making this cheshbon hanefesh they are still at odds with each other, then they should take it to a beis din or a rov, and be מבטל their רצון before the psak din that is issued, which reflects the רצון of Hashem.

9 comments:

  1. "I'm sure the above-referenced poskim are right. After all, peace is a beautiful thing and it is a great zechus to ensure that peace reigns."

    I always understood the basis of the psak that the zechus of making shalom was greater than the zechus of saying kaddish, so that in fact you are benefitting the meis of getting the greater zechus of shalom. IIRC, the Mishnah Berurah says something like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if he really means it. If I were a poseik, I too would sacrifice what's right on behalf of what's necessary. What bothers me is when one party is an Az Panim and bully, and although he has no greater right, he makes such a tumul that we invoke "gadol hashalom, machlokes is terrible, etc." The right thing to do would be a goral, or rock/paper/scissor (as I did once,) or just flip a coin. But giving in to chutzpah is a sin in itself. Sometimes, it's kedai to fight.

      Delete
  2. It seems to me that chicanery for the purpose of anything is not proper, and in the case of causing a false impression upon a fellow Jew (especially if it harms or deprives him, whether physically or spiritually) in order to do a mitzvah, the reward is cancelled by the loss, and even more so. Ask yourself a question: can you imagine any of the gedolim resorting to dishonesty or anything less than "full disclosure" because they were hungry to "chap a mitzvah" away from someone else and take it for themselves? In my mind, obviously and absolutely not. After all, are we supposed to look at the mitzvos as opportunities to build personal spiritual wealth, or are we supposed to look at them as opportunities to carry out Hashem's ratzon? If you learn Pirkei Avos, it is obviously the latter, not the former. Moreover, I think that the concept of "every man for himself" in ruchniyus does not even make sense. Because ruchniyus is not a zero sum game, where if I take more of the pie, there is less left over for other people. Exactly the opposite, in fact. In ruchniyus, when we give more to others, then we are increasing the "spiritual pie" for everybody. Whereas when we take from other people in a manner of "kol d'alim gvar", we are decreasing the spiritual pie both for ourselves and for others. So then why did Yaakov take the brachos in the way that he did? I think it must be understood that both Yitzchok and Yaakov had nothing in mind other than to do Hashem's ratzon. However, Yitzchok thought that Hashem wanted him to give the brachos to Eisav, because he saw very powerful raw spiritual potential in Eisav. Yaakov, on the other hand, understood that it was Hashem's ratzon for the brachos to be given to him, because he had the ability to actually use those brachos in avodas Hashem, whereas Eisav did not. (And that is probably was is meant by "להשלים את נפשו"). As it turned out, Yaakov was right and therefore what he did was justified. The same can be explained for Boaz. He was not motivated by selfish reasons, but by the understanding that it was Hashem's ratzon for him to join with Rus to create the royal progeny. But this has no relevance (in my opinion) to a Jew who tricks another Jew in order to fulfill HIS wish and assert HIS will - while not thinking at all about Hashem's ratzon - to daven at the amud (yahrtzeit or not).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right! Right! Right! That is exactly what I wanted to hear. But lemaiseh, we don't pasken like Ben Peturah, do we?

      Delete
    2. We don't pasken like Ben Peturah but that discussion concerns a case of a zero sum game, i.e. where there is only enough water available for one of the two people to live. So we pasken like Rabbi Akiva that one should take the water to save his own life, (rather than sharing with his friend, in which case both would die, or giving it all to his friend so that he would live). But what I am trying to say is that in the realm of ruchniyus, in a case where two people are both interested/vying for the same mitzvah, it is not a zero sum game. For Hashem has a ratzon for each of them, does He not? So if they both analyze the situation honestly, make a true cheshbon hanefesh about what Hashem wants from him in this situation (to be mevateir or not), then both will come out at the end "spiritually richer". That means that it is not the case of the loser being mevateir and the winner being the "alim". Rather, both are following Hashem's will, and they are both winning. And if they find that after making this cheshbon hanefesh they are still at odds with each other, then they should take it to a beis din or a rov, and be מבטל their רצון before the psak din that is issued, which reflects the רצון of Hashem.

      Delete
    3. I agree. Not only is the problematic from a hashkafa perspective, but it is also hard to see how it conforms with the idea of ve'ahavta le'rei'acha kamocha.

      But life is competition, and in business, while we have certainly must be irreproachably honest, we don't have to tell the buyer every chisaron in what we're selling, nor tell the seller our vision for making the property worth ten times more.
      Hypothetical. A phenomenal young woman is in shidduchim. Your really want to go out with her, and you know they'll red you the shidduch, but she was just suggested to a friend. Should you selflessly encourage him? Or should you act parev? Or should you subtly say something that might make your friend think that she might not be perfect for him?

      After all is said and done, though, the Iggeres Shmuel, and even the Aruch HaShulchan, are still surprising.

      Delete
    4. כל דבר המסור ללב נאמר בו "ויראת מאלוקיך" A person should always be motivated by יראת שמים, and not "personal gain", even spiritual personal gain. A shidduch (or mitzvah) that is bashert for a friend is not bashert for you. If so, no matter how "phenomenal" the shidduch looks on paper, it is either meant for you or for your friend. And if you help your friend with finding his bashert, Hashem will help you find yours. That's how I would look at it.

      Delete
    5. I believe that you can lose what's bashert for you by not putting in the proper hishtadlus to get it. The Ribono shel Olam has no patience (kaviyachol, of course,) for batlonim. But I agree that "proper hishtadlus" is defined by ehrlichkeit as well as effort.

      Delete
    6. I agree. In other words, you can lose what's bashert for you by not putting in the proper hishtadlus to get it. And you can also lose what's bashert for you for putting your hishtadlus in trying to get what is actually bashert for someone else.

      Delete