Chesed is never quite disinterested.
Even the tahara (purification) of a deceased person chesed shel emes done without any expectation of reciprocity provides the one performing the mitzvah with a feeling of satisfaction. Part of that satisfaction lies in the feeling that doing chesed is in the category of eino metzuveh v’oseh one who performs without being commanded and that one has therefore gone beyond the call of duty.
Obviously a person who takes great pleasure in doing chesed for others is at a very high level. But there is nevertheless a danger that one will desist when the chesed is difficult or other pleasures beckon. An even higher level therefore is when one acts on behalf of others out of a sense of obligation. Rabbi Aharon Lopiansky offers a moshol to capture the distinction. If one lends someone money he has done an act of chesed. But if one becomes a guarantor for a loan and subsequently has to repay the loan that repayment is not an act of chesed it is obligatory.
That distinction lies at the heart of the Torah’s comparison of Noach and Avraham. Rashi at the beginning of parashas Noach goes to great length to emphasize the contrast. Noach is described as “a righteous man . . . in his generations.” The mention of “his generations” hints according to one rabbinic opinion to the fact that he would have been of little account in the generation of Avraham. In addition we are told that “Noach walked with G-d ” in contradistinction to Avraham Rashi notes who “walked before G-d.”
What is gained by comparing Noach’s level of righteousness to that of Avraham? And if such a comparison is to be made why do so in terms of the generation of Avraham which was not exactly filled with other tzaddikim besides Avraham? Just say Noach was not a great as Avraham.
Create a free account to keep reading.
