Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi teaches (Avot 2:1) a much-discussed principle—that one should take as much care when fulfilling a light or minor commandment as when performing a heavy or major one. In his own words:
וֶהֱוֵי זָהִיר
בְּמִצְוָה קַלָּה כְּבַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵֽעַ מַתַּן שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל
מִצְוֹת, וֶהֱוֵי מְחַשֵּׁב הֶפְסֵד מִצְוָה כְּנֶֽגֶד שְׂכָרָהּ, וּשְׂכַר
עֲבֵרָה כְּנֶֽגֶד הֶפְסֵדָהּ
Be as careful with a minor mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvot. Consider the cost of a mitzvah against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression against its cost.
We normally take this mishnah as a single lesson in how to
handle God’s commandments and then go off into lengthy discussions of how you
can tell the mitzvot apart in terms of their weightiness. But in reality there
are two separate issues here. The first, as the Sefat Emet points out, is to
take care when performing every mitzvah, regardless of its apparent
magnitude or importance. The second is that it is not for us to assess the significance
of any mitzvah, or the insignificance of any transgression, whatever our
personal feelings on the subject. We simply do not have the data that enables
us to do this.
The Sefat Emet adds that it is the zehirut—the care
taken in performing a mitzvah—that determines the reward for its performance,
along with the effort involved in performing it (here he cites Ben Heh Heh at
Avot 5: 26: “According to the effort, so is the reward”).
But every situation in which a person visits a mourner is
the same, and taking care means tuning in to the needs of the person one is
seeking to comfort. Let me cite a couple of situations where the bounds of zehirut
were not immediately clear, and where they turned out to be quite different.
In the first case I was visiting the late Dayan Isaac Lerner
of the London Beth Din, who was sitting shiva for a sibling. It was a
mid-day visit and, when I arrived, I found that the Dayan, whom I did not know
well, was quite alone, apart from a family member who was preparing food in the
kitchen. I could hardly leave and return later when there were more people
present so I sat down opposite him. I felt quite uncomfortable, but the Dayan
clearly sensed my anxiety and put me at my ease by saying he welcomed the
company. We talked for an hour or so and the time seemed to pass quickly; the
Dayan steered the conversation towards a subject that deeply interested him:
the role of prophecy in the Book of Malachi which I had recently learned and which,
I discovered, he knew by heart. I soon realised that my role in the nichum
avelim, my zehirut, was to concentrate on following his leads, to
show I was following his train of thought and to let him guide the conversation
towards his own lofty ideas on peace between generations and the end of days.
In the second case I was visiting the late Marcus Witztum,
an exuberant, colourful character and restaurateur in North West London. Again
it was a mid-day visit and the avel, who was not well known to me, was
alone. Here the zehirut was quite different. Marcus did not want someone
to talk with; he wanted someone to talk to. In short, he was
lonely and needed an audience rather than words of comfort. Apart from the
occasional nod, smile or gesture, there was really nothing else I could do—but
that was all that was required of me. When I left, Marcus thanked me warmly for
being with him, through I felt I had done nothing.
So, what does zehirut mean in practice? I guess it
take a lifetime to learn.
Comments and discussion of this post can be found on Facebook, here.