True to the Heart and Tokho Ke-varo
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav
Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #26: True to the Heart and Tokho Ke-varo
The Goal of Character Development
In last weeks lesson, we saw how the Torahs
prohibitions of geneiva and gezeila are not limited to actual acts
of stealing and robbery; they are aimed at ensuring that every Jew leads a life
of holiness, devoid of any deception.
The commentators explain how the prohibition of geneiva applies
even when violated to benefit another and possibly even when to retrieve ones
own object, if on done so in a deceitful, secretive manner. The verses also indicate that one
little act of geneiva can lead, through the domino effect, to various
other crimes of dishonesty.
What may be the clearest expression of the Torahs
battle against a life of deception is the prohibition of geneivat daat,
misrepresentation. An analysis of
this unique form of geneiva and its sources will make it clear how far
the Torah goes in educating us towards a life of honesty.
Before we can fully appreciate the particulars and
specifics of the prohibitions of misleading, misrepresentation and minor forms
of deception included in the prohibition of geneivat daat, it behooves us
to examine the opposite side of the coin, the positive application of honesty. The prohibition of geneivat daat
is the basis of a series of directives aimed at producing an upright individual,
one who not only lives a life devoid of hypocritical practices, but achieves a
level of integrity that creates a direct link between his actions and his
feelings. Geneivat daat
involves deceptive practices, while the corresponding positive directives
develop the character of the Jew, helping one become honest to the core, inside
and out. We will see that
beyond the directives to the greater society, God puts specific demands upon the
Torah scholar, who must be not only great in wisdom, but lacking in any trace of
a deceptive character.
Echad Be-feh Ve-echad Be-lev:
The Talmud (Pesachim 113b) tells us that
there are three individuals whom God despises.
One of these individuals is he who says one thing with his mouth while
meaning another thing in his heart (echad be-feh ve-echad be-lev).
This refers to the practice of openly
expressing things that are at odds with what one honestly feels in his heart. The Talmud elsewhere (Bava Metzia
49a) entertains the possibility that there is a biblical prohibition to act in
any manipulative or insincere manner, echad be-feh ve-echad be-lev. There, Rabbi Yosei be-Rabbi Yehuda
expounds the verse Vayikra 19:26 to mean that Your yes must be correct
and your no must be correct. As
Abbayei clarifies, This means that one may not speak echad be-feh ve-echad
be-lev.
In context, this passage is dealing with business
practices: one who makes a verbal commitment must be sincere. However, from other sources it is
clear that in all contexts, insincerity is forbidden and dangerous.
A person is not judged merely by what he or she
says. Granted, the Talmud (Nedarim
28a, Kiddushin 49b-50a) tells us: Words of the heart are insignificant,
so that it is only verbally-expressed statements which are definitively binding;
nevertheless, sincerity is of paramount importance. A number of early commentators stress
the importance of sincerity in prayer and the tremendous dangers of
disingenuously approaching God (see Rabbeinu Bachya, Kad Ha-kemach, Yichud
Hashem; Shela, Shaar Ha-otiyot, Lev Tov). For this reason, it is important to
clear ones mind before prayers, ensuring that the words which the individual is
about to say are in line with the feelings in his heart.
The importance of genuineness is expressed in a
fascinating way in Parashat Vayeshev.
The Torah describes that the brothers of Yosef as so upset at Yosef that
they are unable to speak to him peacefully (Bereishit 37:4).
The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 84:9) comments:
R. Ahava b. Zeira said: Through the problematic
actions of the brothers you see their praise
they were unable to speak any
words of peace contrary to their feelings in their hearts.
The Shela explains that the praise of the brothers
lies in their unwillingness to be untruthful to their inner feelings. Though the brothers are taken to task
for their inability to overcome their feelings of hostility towards Yosef, they
are praised for being unable to feign love.
The Shela adds that under certain circumstances, a person who bears
animosity towards another might feel that honesty requires that he constantly
announce his feelings of hatred for the other.
However, the brothers do otherwise; they do not say anything to Yosef. This, on the one hand, shows their
displeasure, but on the other hand, it allows them to avoid expressing their
strong feelings openly. Having
nothing nice to say, they say nothing at all.
Fear of the Insincere
Deceptive individuals are dangerous, and throughout
our tradition we find how the righteous fear them; even the wicked, attuned to
the danger of liars, run away from them.
The Torah describes the prayer of Yaakov after hearing that his brother
Esav is approaching with a force of 400 men.
Yaakov beseeches God:
Save me from my brothers hand, from Esavs hand,
for I am afraid of him, lest he come and strike me.
(Bereishit 32:12)
The commentators are bothered by the dual language,
me from my brothers hand, from Esavs hand. The
Or Ha-chayim (ad loc.) offers an explanation that is very understandable
in light of the dangers of deception.
Yaakov also had in mind that Esav might use the fact
that he was his brother as a trick to attack him, feigning brotherliness, so he
asked God to save him from such machinations.
He also needed Gods help, however, if Esav were to proclaim his
hostility openly.
Often those who feign friendship can cause the most
harm. Jewish history is replete with
examples of friends who hid their enmity towards the Jewish people.
The Jews let their guards down as Trojan
horses entered into their otherwise protected cities, and destruction came in
its wake. The danger of those who
feign brotherhood may be greater than that of those who act openly like Esav.
The Talmud even details a statement of the advice
which the evil king Yannai gave to his wife. The Pharisees or Perushim,
as the adherents of rabbinic Judaism were then known, had a reputation for piety
like Pinechas, but they also had many imitators.
Fear neither the Pharisees nor the non-Pharisees,
but the hypocrites who ape the Pharisees, because their deeds are the deeds of
Zimri, but they expect a reward like Pinechas.
(Sota 22b)
Insincere actions often seem to be very effective
when it comes to getting things from others.
Indeed, the Talmud (ibid. 22b) goes on to describe the ultimate
futility of one who tries to demonstrate insincere outward piety.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: What is hidden is
hidden, and what is revealed is revealed; the Great Tribunal will exact
punishment from those who wrap themselves in cloaks. (fringed with tzitzit
in an insincere display of piety).
Thus, those who wrap themselves in cloaks fringed
with tzitzit in an insincere display of piety require a special session
of the Great Tribunal. For this reason, under certain conditions, it is actually
a mitzva to reveal the hypocrisy of individuals who misrepresent themselves to
others, as this behavior is a defamation of Gods name. Furthermore, when difficult times
befall an individual who is thought to be righteous and really is not, some may
question Gods judgments, not knowing the true, evil ways of this individual.
(See Yoma 86b, Rashi ad loc.) Individuals who practice duplicity in
their interpersonal dealings pose such a danger to society that, at times, their
hypocrisy must be made public.
The greatest danger of deviousness is the harmful
effect that this can have on the perpetrator himself. In our last lesson, we saw that an
act of geneiva can lead one down a slippery slope to a life of
dishonesty. Similarly, insincerity
is dangerous. One who feels
successful in winning friends or extending their influence over others through
disingenuous means sweet-talking and the like begins to lose sight of the
value of honesty and genuine behavior.
Often, the next step is a life of complete hypocrisy. One is liable to lose touch with
ones own feelings, guided by a constant desire to tell others what they want to
hear in order to get ones own way. From
insincere praise and deceiving others, one often continues to self-deception, a
complete and total loss of character.
This is character bankruptcy of the first order.
Rabbeinu Bachya expresses the dual perils of
deception: the harm it can cause to others and the dangers it possesses for
ones spiritual personality.
There are many people who feign friendship towards
their colleagues while hiding hatred in their hearts. They make a pretense of being friends
so that others will not be on guard against them.
Regarding this type of person, Shelomo stated, The hater disguises with
his lips (Mishlei 26:24)
Such a person deceives others by making them think
that he is sincere, but his words are of no benefit
(Kad Ha-kemach, Sinat
Chinnam)
As Rabbeinu Bachya continues, he points out that
this trait is not deleterious only when it comes to dealing with other people;
it makes a genuine relationship with God impossible as well.
Whoever habitually conducts himself in this way
towards his fellow man will ultimately do so towards God, as is written And
they beguiled Him with their mouths and lied to Him with their tongues (Tehillim
78:36). The Sages, who were wise in
ethics, said, One who plants hatred reaps regret.
In future lessons, we will see that some Rishonim
maintain that the prohibition of hating a fellow Jew is only violated when the
hater hides his true feelings.
Though ideally one should obliterate all hatred of other Jews, and one should
certainly not act on it in any case, the essence of hating ones fellow lies in
doing so while pretending to be his friend.
Tokho Ke-varo
The Rambam (Hilkhot Deot 2:6) examines the
phenomenon of echad be-feh ve-echad be-lev in the social context, along
with a host of other directives from our Sages to be sincere rather than
two-faced.
A person is forbidden to act in a smooth-tongued and luring manner. He
should not speak one thing outwardly and think otherwise in his heart. Rather,
his inner self should be like the self which he shows to the world. What he
feels in his heart should be the same as the words on his lips.
It is forbidden to deceive people, even a non-Jew
It is forbidden to utter a single word of deception or fraud. Rather,
one should have truthful speech, an upright spirit and a pure heart, free from
all evil and mischief.
The Rambam introduces us to this concept of tokho
ke-varo (literally: his inside is like his outside), being true to the
core, in the context of sincerity in ones dealing with others. The Rambam does not limit this
directive to specific individuals; he expresses it as an instruction to all
society. The source of this
directive is actually a rather straightforward statement of the Talmud stating
that in order to be a talmid chakham, a Torah scholar, one must exhibit
this quality. In fact, as we shall
see, Rabban Gamliel is of the opinion that anyone who fails to do so should not
be allowed to enter the beit midrash, the study hall. Analyzing the source of this
directive, the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and his detractors, will enlighten us
as to the necessity of this trait; at the same time, it will provide us the way
to view one who strives for this character development but has not reached this
level yet.
The Talmud (Yoma 72b) teaches that the Torah
alludes to the idea of tokho ke-varo in its instructions for the
manufacture of the Aron Ha-kodesh, the Holy Ark. In Parashat Teruma, God
commands Moshe to construct the Tabernacle and its furnishings, beginning with
the Ark. The Ark was made from acacia wood, and both its interior and exterior
were overlaid with gold. This teaches us
the need for sincerity, both inner and outer.
From within and without you shall cover it (Shemot
25:11) Rava said: This teaches us that any Torah scholar whose inside is not
like his outside is not a true Torah scholar.
Abbayei others claim it was Rabba bar Ulla said:
He is called loathsome
The Talmud goes on to chastise the scholar who
studies Torah either without fear of Heaven or without the desire to uphold that
which he learns. In fact, the
continuation of the passage seems to indicate clearly that improper study of the
Torah is much more harmful to the individual than not studying Torah at all, as
the former can poison the student.
As we have noted, the Talmud introduces the
discussion of the detrimental effects of studying Torah improperly with the
metaphor of the Ark and the idea of tokho ke-varo. The Aron, which contained the
Tablets given at Sinai as well as the original Torah scroll, was not just a
symbol of the Tabernacle and the Temple, but at the heart of its purpose (see
Ramban, Shemot 26:33). The
Aron also symbolizes the Torah scholar, who contains the Torah, so-to-speak,
within his being. Just as the Aron was plated with pure gold inside and
out, the Torah scholar must be pure both inside and out tokho ke-varo.
His pious exterior must reflect his true essence.
Understanding the building of the Ark is of extreme
importance for appreciating the importance of the idea of tokho ke-varo. The idea of beautifying the wooden
structure of the Aron with a gold-plated exterior is quite
understandable, but what of the interior of a vessel never meant to be opened? As the Aron demonstrates, in
order to truly bear the Torah, its message, principles and lessons, one must
inculcate its teachings. Ones character
must have the sincerity of an unseen golden interior. The inner, hidden world is just as
significant as the revealed one, and it must be beautified in the same manner. The penetrating, inner world of the
scholar may then shine forth to the outside.
A number of modern commentators question a puzzling
anomaly regarding the Talmuds lesson derived from the building of the Aron. If, indeed, the Aron serves as
a symbol of the Torah scholar, and the two levels of gold plating represent the
need for both exterior and interior piety, then why not require that the Ark be
made entirely of gold? As we have mentioned, the actual substance of the Aron
was wood, and it was only overlaid with gold. If, indeed, the Ark served as a
symbol of purity and Godliness, why was it not made entirely from gold, thus
symbolizing the need for complete and comprehensive piety?
A number of explanations have been given (see Rav
David Silverbergs S.A.L.T. series on
Parashat
Teruma). Rav Yehuda Leib
Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, offers a particularly intriguing one.
He suggests that whereas gold symbolizes
pure spirituality, wood represents the basic human tendencies, the physical and
material drives which all mankind experiences. The
Torah scholar is not expected to consist of pure gold complete spirituality,
bereft of any human qualities. He,
too, should be made of wood, the standard human instincts and drives shared by
everyone else, but those qualities must be overlaid with gold: they must be
channeled toward lofty, spiritual goals and pursuits. Rav Ginsburg applies this approach to
the apparently pragmatic answer of the Tosafists, who explain that the ark could
not have been made entirely of pure gold because the Levites, who were
responsible for transporting the Mishkan and its furnishings during travel,
would be unable to lift such a heavy object. Rav
Ginsburg explains this in light of his approach to the symbolic meaning of the
gold and wood of the ark. A Torah leader who consists entirely of gold, who has
no human qualities, is too "heavy," so to speak, for others to bear. He cannot
guide and lead the laymen under his charge, because his demands will be simply
overbearing.
One might offer another explanation as well. If the Aron were made of pure
gold, then there could be no analogy made to the Torah scholar. By definition, the scholar, beginning
at a young age, is faced with many trials and tribulations. He has character
flaws that need to be corrected, and time is necessary before one can purify
himself like gold. Wood comes from
trees. Each tree begins as a
sapling, and only after long cultivation is it capable of being strong enough to
be used for a vessel. The wood is a
sign of the humanity of man, and his constant growth. Money does not grow on trees but
neither does gold. The gold exterior
and interior reflect the high quality of those who bear the Torah, but nothing,
man or Ark, can bear the Torah without a period of growth. No one can be expected to become
refined inside and out overnight, but that certainly is the goal.
Rabban Gamliels Opinion and its Detractors
With this in mind, let us take a look at the
educational principle of Rabban Gamliel.
Rabban Gamliel was the Nasi, the chief of the Sanhedrin, but after
a series of disputes with Rabbi Yehoshua, he was replaced, at least temporarily. The Talmud (Berakhot 28a)
describes the vast changes that occurred on the day that Rabbi Elazar Ben Azarya
replaced Rabban Gamliel as head of the Sanhedrin and dean of its study hall:
It was taught in a beraita that on this day,
they removed the guard from the door of the study hall and granted permission
for all students to enter. For Rabban
Gamliel had proclaimed, Any student whose inside is not like his outside may
not enter the study hall. On this
day, many benches were added to the study hall [to accommodate the numerous new
students]
[Seeing all these new students,] Rabban Gamliel was
dispirited. He said: Perhaps, God
forbid, I have withheld Torah from Israel, so white pitchers filled with ash
were shown to him in his dream.
Rabban Gamliel had limited entry to the study hall
to sincere students. The sheer
amount of students who entered the hall after he was deposed led him to think:
had he been wrong all this time? The
Maharsha explains the white pitchers filled with ash thusly: just as the
pitchers are beautifully white on the outside, yet on the inside contain
worthless ash, so too the students appeared worthy, but they were not truly so.
The Talmud continues:
However, this was not the case; it was only to put
Rabban Gamliels mind at ease that he was shown this.
The commentators discuss the exact disagreement
between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. After all, Rabban Gamliels push for
sincerity seems to be reasonable. (See
commentaries to the Rambams Hilkhot Talmud Torah 4:1)
The Iyun Yaakov (Ein Yaakov, ad loc.)
explains the difference of opinion beautifully, in a way that can help us along
the path to sincerity. The Iyun
Yaakov offers a homiletic understanding of the entire passage in the Talmud. The background for deposing Rabban
Gamliel and replacing him with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is an intriguing dispute
that the former had with Rabbi Yehoshua as to whether the evening prayer,
Arvit, is obligatory or not. He
explains, that in fact, this disagreement is connected to a fundamental question
regarding religious service: what is the ideal act of worship the preparatory
steps that bring one to successful actions, or the ultimate praiseworthy acts? Is Arvit, the end of ones
day, the ideal, as it is the culmination of the day; or is the beginning the
ideal and Arvit simply a non-binding supplement?
He goes on to argue that this question also lies at
heart of the dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya whether
one should allow insincere students to enter the study hall. Rabban Gamliel, who views Arvit as
obligatory because he always focuses on the culminating act, declares that one
who is not ready to act with complete sincerity cannot be ready to study in the
hall. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryas
disputes not the need for sincerity, but rather its placement in the process. Even one who has not achieved this
lofty level of sincerity should be invited to study, as long as this is his
goal. The deciding factor is ones
goal. This is analogous to Arvit;
its recitation is not binding because the culminating act is merely a result of
the work put into it, and the conclusion of the day does not contain its own
independent significance.
In other words, the real dispute is whether the need
for sincerity applies to one who enters the beit midrash or to one who
leaves it after overlaying the wood of basic humanity with gold inside and out,
tokho ke-varo. All thus agree that sincerity is the necessary goal; the
question is whether it is a prerequisite.
Rabban Gamliel did feel this way, but Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryas opinion
was accepted. Allowances can be made
for one who has not yet reached the level of tokho ke-varo as long as he
is trying to get there, striving towards a life of honesty, devoid of deception. This in fact seems to be the
concluding remark of the passage in Sota quoted above, which explains the
extreme distaste God has for one who is insincere and deceptive.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A person should
always (le-olam) study Torah and perform mitzvot even not for
their own sake, because doing so not for their own sake will lead one to doing
so for their own sake.
The commentators (ad loc.) examine how this
statement is to be understood, as it seemingly contradicts other statements;
regardless, the bottom line is that one should not be afraid to do the right
thing because one is incapable of doing it sincerely.
The goal must be to reach sincerity. One may always start with the goals
of reaching the stage of tokho ke-varo, but one should never be content
with, and certainly not proud of, a deceptive way of living life. Insincerely trying to influence
others and win their friendship is not only disgraceful; as Rabbeinu Bachya
warns, it may lead one to lose any sense of honesty at all.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!