[Avodah] Nekudas haBechirah (by RDK)

[Micha Berger]

This is from a former chavrusah, but still chaver. There is no URL yet,
so I'm posting in full.

The topic is the nequdas habechirah, temptation, addiction, and what I
would call the need for perishus. If the temptation isn't at my
nequdas habekhirah, so that I'm likely to fail, deciding to avoid the
situation still is.

-micha



Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

"And you will also take this one from before me and a [deadly]
accident will happen to him, and you will bring my gray hairs down,
with wickedness, to the grave." This is how Yehudah described the
conversation when Yaakov was resistant to letting his youngest son,
Binyamin, accompany his ten older brothers down to Egypt (Beraishis
44:29). Yet, just two verses later (44:31), when Yehudah describes what
will happen if they return home without Binyamin, he says, "and it will
be when he sees that the lad is not [with us], and he will die, and your
servants will bring the gray hairs of your servant our father down,
with sorrow, to the grave." Why did Yehudah change the wording from
"with wickedness" to "with sorrow"?

I have previously written about Rav Eliyahu Dessler's concept of
"nekudas habechira," literally "the point at which free will operates"
(see www.aishdas.org/ta/5768/yomKippur.pdf). "Free will" refers
to our ability to make choices, and, from a religious perspective,
having the ability to choose between "right" and "wrong" (or "truth"
and "falsehood," see Michtav Me'Eliyahu I, pgs. 113-116). An addict
may not be able to "choose" not to feed his addiction, and someone who
keeps kosher meticulously may not even consider eating a cheeseburger,
so doesn't have to "choose" not to. They will have other internal "right
vs. wrong" battles, but these aren't among them.

In the case of the addict, the battle will not be whether or not to smoke
the cigarette in his pocket or whether or not to take a drink in a bar,
but whether or not to carry the cigarettes around, or whether or not to
enter the bar (and/or whether or not to get treatment). The battle is
waged where there is still a possibility of winning and losing, not when
already in a situation where winning is next to impossible. Choosing to
avoid situations that are difficult to overcome (or that present battles
we might not win) is the key, and whether or not we avoid them is the
primary battleground of "free will."

When Yaakov was talking to his sons about the possibility of sending
Binyamin down to Egypt with them (putting him in a dangerous situation),
the word used to describe the result was "wickedness," as making a
poor decision that allows for bad consequences is where the "evil"
lies. However, when Yehudah tells Yosef what will happen if Binyamin
does not return home, he uses the word "sorrow" because by that point,
although it is unfortunate that what they had feared would happen indeed
happened, the "evil" aspect had already occurred, i.e. making the decision
that allowed it to happen.

This discussion came up (in a different context) at work recently,
regarding an athlete who made headlines not (just) in the sports section,
but also on the front page. Temptation can be very hard to resist,
and my co-workers agreed that in order to maintain a strong marriage,
they have to avoid situations where temptations may arise.

Unfortunately, our community is not immune from these types of
headlines. As individuals, and as a community, we must be diligent in
avoiding situations that allow weaknesses to manifest themselves. If
someone loves children in a way other than just wanting to help
educate them, they shouldn't be in education (no matter how talented
an educator they are). The "evil" choice is not just giving in to
temptation, or being in a situation where it becomes possible to give in
to temptation (because it's too easy to be tempted to put oneself into
such a situation). A different vocation must be found. And the onus isn't
only on the individual to be strong enough to remove him or herself from
the picture. Every school should have a zero tolerance policy regarding
teacher/student relationships, and every organization should have a zero
tolerance policy for their staff members as well. If no student is ever
allowed to be alone with a teacher (no closed doors, no unsupervised
private tutoring), they can never be victimized -- neither the student,
nor the teacher (through false accusations). If a Rav never locks
the door of his office when he's inside, if he always makes sure that
there's someone else to vouch for his not being alone with a congregant
(whether by having a glass door or by having that person knock and enter
at regular intervals), he can't be accused of doing anything untoward,
and the congregant will not be in danger of being taken advantage of. It
is up to the community to insist that these procedures be put in place
in order to protect all involved.

This idea is not limited to these types of situations either. Any
individual that is ever tempted to put the funds of others to personal
use should not choose a profession where he is entrusted with public or
private funds. Anybody who is entrusted with the funds of others needs to
provide absolute transparency (as Moshe did when he gave a full accounting
of the materials collected for the Mishkan even before it was completed),
and we, as a community, must insist on that transparency.

By switching from the word "wickedness" when discussing the
decision-making process to the word "sorrow" when discussing the possible
result of that process, Yehudah was teaching us where the main battle
between "good" and "evil" is -- not when we are faced with temptation,
as by then it may be too late, but when we have the chance to avoid
being tempted in the first place.