Kindness Personified: Boaz and the True Definition of Toras Chesed

Shavuos

Kindness Personified

וְכִי־יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ וְנִמְכַּר־לָךְ לֹא־תַעֲבֹד בּוֹ עֲבֹדַת עָבֶד

מִי הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֶסֶד, זֶה בּוֹעַז עִם רוּת

There is a series of Pessukim in Parshas Behar that speak about various Halachas that are in the category of בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, mostly in the realm of financial dealings. One of the Pessukim that we find there speaks about how to treat one who falls on hard time: וְכִי־יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ וְנִמְכַּר־לָךְ לֹא־תַעֲבֹד בּוֹ עֲבֹדַת עָבֶד. The Medrash, there, takes the opportunity to speak about Chesed, bringing sevral Drashos that teach vital lessons about this Mitzvah.

Among these Drashos is a lengthy section which discusses the reward one receives for doing Chesed—or punishment for not doing Chesed—whether it is warranted or not. First, the Medrash speaks about Avrohom Avinu, who was rewarded for the Chesed he did of the Malachaim, even though they did not really need it. This trype of Chesed is is described as עָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין. The second example brought by the Medrash is very different: Amon and Moav are blamed for not showing Chesed when Bnei Yisroel passed through their lands, even though our needs were taken care of by HKBH, placing us in the category of us מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין. The third example is Yisro, who did Chesed for Moshe Rabbeinu but was in the category of מִי הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁחַיָּב לוֹ because Moshe had helped his daughters, but was rewarded for his Chesed, nonetheless.

The final example brought by the Medrash is perhaps the most understandable: מִי הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֶסֶד, one who does Chesed for a person that needs it. The paradigm of this type of Chesed is identified as Boaz, who did Chesed for Rus in her time of need. The Medrash continues, explaining how Boaz's Chesed is evident in the Pesukim. For example, when Boaz noticed Rus, he said גּשִׁי הֲלֹם, calling her close so that she would not have to sit among the Aniyim. Then, he told her to eat from the לֶּחֶם שֶׁל קוֹצְרִים, which was of better quality, and allowed her to dip it in vinegar, which would make her less thirsty.

It is obvious that the category of מִי הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֶסֶד is the highest level of Chesed, providing for those who need it most, and the Medrash points to Boaz as having excelled in this area. One of the latter Memros in this Medrash is therefore somewhat surprising.

The Medrash tells us that when a person does a Mitzvah he should do it בְּלֵב שָׂמֵחַ, with complete happiness, and then says: אִלּוּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בֹּעַז שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו: וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָלִי, עֲגָלִים פְּטוּמִים הָיָה מַאֲכִילָהּ. If Boaz had known that the Torah would speak about his Chesed and that he had given Rus dried grains, he would instead have given her fattened cows.

The implication of the Medrash is that Boaz did not have his heart fully in the Chesed that he was doing it, that he was not acting בְּלֵב שָׂמֵחַ, and he therefore only gave Rus קָלִי. If he had known that the Pessukim were to speak about his Chesed, however, he would hav acted differently. How can we understand this? The earlier Medrash speaks about the care and concern that Boaz showed for Rus each step of the way—how are we to understand that his gift of קָלִי was not given with a full heart? Further, if the Chesed of Boaz was not complete, why is he identified as the prime example of מִי הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֶסֶד?

Also, how can we understand the words אִלּוּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בֹּעַז שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו? Was Boaz acting for the sake of adulation or recognition? Was his Chesed done only so that others would know what he did? Why does the Medrash suppose that he would have given Rus עֲגָלִים פְּטוּמִים if he had only known that the Pessukim were to retell of his actions? What does the Medrash mean to tell us with these words?

These questions become even stronger based on two related Mamarei Chazel, the first of which appears just before this statement.

In explaining the words of the Passuk which describe the Chesed of Boaz, the Medrash explains the words וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָלִי

as follows: קָלֵיל זְעֵיר בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו נָתַן לָהּ, he gave her a small amount of grain from the tips of his fingers. Rus would not have taken the grain on her own, and Boaz therefore handed it to her, and he gave her the smallest amount of grain so that it would not seem that he had designs upon her.

According to this Memrah, the act of וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָלִי done with precise Cheshbon and the utmost concern for Rus—why then does R’ Yitzchok point to this as an indication that Boaz did not act with a לֵב שָׂמֵחַ? How do these two Memros resolve with one another?

There is a statement made in the Medrash Rus Rabba that calls this statement into question as well.

The Medrash, there, points out that Megilas Rus is only a story: מְגִלָּה זוֹ אֵין בָּהּ לֹא טֻמְאָה, וְלֹא טָהֳרָה, וְלֹא אִסּוּר, וְלֹא הֶתֵּר and we do not learn any Halachos from its Pessukim. Why then is it written? Explains the Medrash: לְלַמֶּדְךָ כַּמָּה שָׂכָר טוֹב לְגוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים, to teach us the great Schar of those who do Chesed.

As we know, Boaz did so much Chesed for Rus and Naami, but he was richly rewarded, as we learn in the closing Pessukim of the Meggilah: וּבֹעַז הוֹלִיד אֶת־עוֹבֵד וְעֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת יִשָׁי וְיִשַׁי הוֹלִיד אֶת דָּוִד. This Medrash is telling us that the entire purpose of Megillas Rus is to show us that Boaz, the ultimate Ba’al Chesed, was rewarded for his actions. How does this fit with the Memrah of R’ Yitzchok: Boaz was the model of Chesed, to the point that an entire Sefer in Tanach is dedicated to his acts of Chesed as the reward that it earned him—how can we understand that he did this Chesed with anything than a לֵב שָׂמֵחַ, and would have acted differently if only he knew שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו?

We can perhaps develop an approach to the questions based on a Medrash that answers an important question.

The Yom Tov of Shavuos does not have many Mitzvos or even Minhagim, other then Kriah of Megillas Rus. There is not, however, a clear connection between the Yom Tov and the Megillah—leading the Medrash Lekach Tov to ask a simple question: לָמָּה קוֹרִין מְגַלֶּה זוֹ בַּחַג שָׁבוּעוֹת. The Medrash answers: מְגִלָּה זוֹ כֻּלָּהּ חֶסֶד וְהַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ חֶסֶד. It is precisely because of the lessons of Chesed that are found in Meggilas Rus, and the connection between the Torah and Chesed, that we lein it on Shavuos, the Yom Tov of Mattan Torah.

Perhaps if we can understand the relationship between the Torah and Chesed, and how it is highlighted in Megillas Rus, we can better explain the words of R’ Yitzchok .

The Medrash brings a Passuk to illustrate the connection between the Torah and Chesed: פִּיהָ פָּתְחָה בְחׇכְמָה וְתוֹרַת חֶסֶד עַל־לְשׁוֹנָהּ. This Passuk speaks about a תוֹרַת חֶסֶד , but does not explain what that means. As always, we cannot fully understand its meaning without Chazal.

The Gemara in Sukkah brings this Passuk and asks a question: וְכִי יֵשׁ תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד וְיֵשׁ תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד? By referring to a תוֹרַת חֶסֶד, the Passuk implies that there is a תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד —what does this mean? The Gemara answers:  תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד. If one learns תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ he is engaged in תוֹרַת חֶסֶד, but if not, his is a תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד.

This Gemara asks a relatively simple question, but provides a somewhat cryptic answer. How is Torah that is learned לִשְׁמָהּ a תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד ? How does learning Torah for its own sake—a higher level of learning—relate to Chesed? What is the Gemara teaching us?

It is clear that the Gemara understand the words תוֹרַת חֶסֶד differently than we might—how can we explain these words?

The Passuk in Mishlei says גֹּמֵל נַפְשׁוֹ אִישׁ חָסֶד, and the Medrash in Parshas Behar, also on the words וְכִי־יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ , identifies Hillel HaZaken as one who personified this role. The Medrash brings a story to illustrate how this was true: when Hillel was taking leave of his Talmidim, they accompanied him and asked where he was going. On some occasions, he answered: לִגְמֹל חֶסֶד עִם הָדֵין אַכְסַנְיָא בְּגוֹ בֵּיתָא, explaining that he was off to do a Chesed with his guest. The Talmidim eventually wondered about the identity of this guest, asking כָּל יוֹם אִית לָךְ אַכְסַנְיָא, do you have a guest each day? Hillel HaZaken answered: וְהָדֵין נַפְשָׁא עֲלוּבְתָּא לָאו אַכְסַנְיָא הוּא בְּגוֹ גוּפָא, is not my Neshama a guest inside my body?

R' Shlomo Kluger, in Chochmas HaTorah on Parshas Terumah, brings this Medrash, explaining the cryptic answer of the Hillel HaZaken.

We understand Chesed as providing for a person’s physical needs—ensuring that they have a roof over their head, food to eat, and clothing to wear—but this is not the ultimate definition of Chesed. The true אִישׁ חָסֶד is one who is גֹּמֵל נַפְשׁוֹ, who provides in Ruchnias. Hillel HaZaken was telling his Talmidim that if they wish to truly perform Chesed, they must be concerned with the needs of the נַפְשָׁא עֲלוּבְתָּא , the Neshama that is a guest in the Guf.

R’ Shlmo explains that this Medrash helps us understand the words  תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד based on the Gemara in Shabbos teaches that there are two groups of people with respect to Torah: לַמַּיְימִינִין בָּהּ and לַמַּשְׂמְאִילִים בָּהּ. Rashi, there, explains that the מַּיְימִינִין learn תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ and the מַּשְׂמְאִילִים do not, and the Gemara concludes that only the מַּיְימִינִין are truly Zoche to עוֹלָם הַבָּאָה.

Accordingly, explains R’ Shlomo, when one learns תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ , he is doing the greatest Chesed for himself, because he is earning Nitzchius—his is truly a תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד . If we understand that the real אִישׁ חָסֶד is one who cares for his נַפְשָׁא עֲלוּבְתָּא than we can understand why תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד, for it is this level of Torah that earns a person עוֹלָם הַבָּאָה, ensuring that the אַכְסַנְיָא בְּגוֹ בֵּיתָא is well taken care of.

Perhaps we can understand the actions of Boaz through this lens.

When Boaz saw Rus, and had compassion on her, he helped her reflexively, without consideration for the Schar he may achieve—his Chesed towards Rus was truly לִשְׁמָהּ . This is why he was able to help her in such an impressive manner—it was only her needs that were important to him.

After speaking about these acts of Chesed, the Medrash makes it clear that the needs of Rus were at the forefront of his mind: אִלּוּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בֹּעַז שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַכְתִּיב עָלָיו: וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָלִי, עֲגָלִים פְּטוּמִים הָיָה מַאֲכִילָהּ. If Boaz had realized the greatness of his acts, that his Chesed was so pure that the Torah would write about it, that the entire Megillas Rus would exist only to extoll his Chesed and Shcar, and that Chazal would identify him as the prime example of מִי הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֶסֶד , then Boaz would have done even more.

As a true אִישׁ חָסֶד, Boaz was surely most concerned about the אַכְסַנְיָא בְּגוֹ בֵּיתָא, eager to ensure that his נַפְשָׁא עֲלוּבְתָּא was taken care of, but he saw his own actions towards Rus as so simple that he did not consider the Schar he might achieve as a result. The Medrash is not criticizing the actions of Boaz—it is highlighting that as concerned as he was for Rus, he would have gladly taken the opportunity to enhance his own Chelek in עוֹלָם הַבָּאָה by serving her עֲגָלִים פְּטוּמִים , for the true אִישׁ חָסֶד is one who is first and foremost גֹּמֵל נַפְשׁוֹ.

This is the reason we read Megillas Rus on Shavuos: its lessons teach us the value and definition of true Chesed. By learning about Boaz, a true אִישׁ חָסֶד, we are reminded that תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד. On this Yom Tov we received the greatest gift—the ability to provide for our אַכְסַנְיָא בְּגוֹ בֵּיתָא, ensuring that the נַפְשָׁא עֲלוּבְתָּא is well fed and cared for so that we may earn our rightful Chelek in עוֹלָם הַבָּאָה.