qualitative vs quantitative bracha

The Midrash (B"R 60:13) writes that Rivka did not conceive until Yitzchak davened for her lest people say that the blessing that Lavan gave her produced results:

 אֲחֹתֵנוּ אַתְּ הֲיִי לְאַלְפֵי רְבָבָה, רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָה מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִפְקְדָה רִבְקָה עַד שֶׁנִּתְפַּלֵּל עָלֶיהָ יִצְחָק, שֶׁלֹא יִהְיוּ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אוֹמְרִים תְּפִלָּתֵנוּ עָשְׂתָה פֵּרוֹת, אֶלָּא (בראשית כה, כא): וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַה' לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ.

 

The very next line in the Midrash, quoting the same man d'amar, continues as follows:

 

רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר (איוב כט, יג): בִּרְכַּת אֹבֵד עָלַי תָּבֹא, בִּרְכַּת אֹבֵד זֶה לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כו, ה): אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי. עָלַי תָּבֹא זוֹ רִבְקָה, אֲחֹתֵנוּ אַתְּ הֲיִי לְאַלְפֵי רְבָבָה, וְעָמְדוּ מִמֶּנָּהּ אַלּוּפִים מֵעֵשָׂו וּרְבָבָה מִיַּעֲקֹב. אַלּוּפִים מֵעֵשָׂו (בראשית לו, טו): אַלּוּף תֵּימָן אַלּוּף קְנַז. מִיַּעֲקֹב רְבָבָה, דִּכְתִיב (יחזקאל טז, ז): רְבָבָה כְּצֶמַח הַשָּׂדֶה נְתַתִּיךְ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ עָמְדוּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, דִּכְתִיב (במדבר י, לו): וּבְנֻחֹה יֹאמַר שׁוּבָה ה' רִבְבוֹת אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

 

Here the Midrash tells us that the bracha of Lavan did in fact produce results and led to Rivka producing two great nations!

 

This view is echoed in the  gemara (Meg 15a) that tells us that the bracha of an aku"m works:

 

ואמר רבי אלעזר אמר ר' חנינא לעולם אל תהי ברכת הדיוט קלה בעיניך שהרי שני גדולי הדור ברכום שני הדיוטות ונתקיימה בהן ואלו הן דוד ודניאל דוד דברכיה ארונה דכתיב ויאמר ארונה אל המלך וגו' דניאל דברכיה דריוש דכתיב אלהך די אנת פלח ליה בתדירא הוא ישיזבינך

 

R' Gershon Edelstein explained that there is no contradiction here.  He distinguished between a qualitative bracha and a quantitative bracha.  To produce someone of the caliber and quality of a Yaakov Avinu is only possible through the tefilah and bracha of a Yitzchak.  To produce a great quantity of people, enough to form a nation, is a something that can result even from the bracha of a Lavan.   The bracha of an aku"m is limited to what is tangible in olam ha'zeh; anything beyond that is off their radar.  Lavan blessed his sister that her offspring should be great.  You can measure a quantity of greatness by taking a census and seeing that there are a lot of people.  Our version of greatness is, or should be, a little different.  To us, the pnimiyus should matter most.   Lavan's bracha could not change that.  Yitzchak's tefilah was needed to produce a nation that was ; qualitatively great.

 

I think this distinction can help us make sense of Eisav and Yaakov's desire for the bracha of Yitzchak.  Is it not strange that Eisav would be so concerned with receiving a blessing?  Is Eisav the type character we imagine ran to rebbes to receive brachot?  The Beis Yisrael of Ger said that Eisav, with all his faults, is still an einekel of Avraham Avinu, and so something inside him compelled him to seek out his father's bracha.  My thinking is that the bracha Eisav was looking for was maybe not the same blessing that his brother Yaakov wanted.  Eisav understood the idea of a blessing like his uncle Lavan did -- quantitatively more stuff, i.e. more of olam ha'zeh.  Maybe he did not entirely believe in the power of brachos, but it's worth hedging your bets.  Yaakov understood that the bracha of Yitzchak would qualitatively transform his life.  That's a different kind of bracha.

the parameters of "la'laches b'derachav" - did Yitzchak emulate Avraham's faults too?

 וַיְהִ֤י רָעָב֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ מִלְּבַד֙ הָרָעָ֣ב הָרִאשׁ֔וֹן אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָיָ֖ה בִּימֵ֣י אַבְרָהָ֑ם  Many meforshim are bothered by why the Torah links the famine that took place in Yitzchak's lifetime with that which took place in Avraham's lifetime.  Abarbanel writes:

 

השאלה הא׳: באמרו מלבד הרעב הראשון אשר היה בימי אברהם כי מה צורך לומר כן האם אפשר שנחשוב שהיה רעב הזה אותו שהיה בחייו בהיות בין זה לזה כמו מאה שנים. והרמב״ן כתב כמתנבא אולי שלא היה רעב בעולם עד שבא אברהם ולא ידעתי מאין היה לו זה.

 

From the time Avraham settled in the land and there was that first famine until his death, in all those 100 intervening years, there was no other famine or want in Eretz Yisrael. That's an incredible thing.  It's only once Avraham was gone that the regular cycle of lean years and boom years returned.  This was a testimony to the greatness of Avraham.

 

Ramban suggests that the famine in Avraham's time was so great that everyone remembered it years later.  It's like when the stock market crashes and people start drawing comparisons to 1929.  That's the benchmark of disaster by which everything else is measured.  

Ramban then goes on to explain why Yitzchak wanted to go to Egypt to escape the famine, and he says something that may be obvious, but which I think is nonetheless very interesting:

 

כי זה להגיד כי היו זוכרים אותו הרעב הראשון ומספרים עליו, שבעבורו ירד אברהם למצרים ושם עשה לו השם כבוד גדול, ולכן היה יצחק חפץ ללכת בדרך אבותיו לירד שם, עד שנאמר לו: אל תרד מצרימה

 

Why do I think this is such a remarkable line?  Because Ramban in Lech Lecha (12:10) tells us that Avraham did wrong by leaving Eretz Yisrael in time of famine:

 

ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא אשתו הצדקת במכשול עון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו,.... גם יציאתו מן הארץ שנצטוה עליה מתחלה מפני הרעב עון אשר חטא, כי האלהים ברעב יפדנו ממות. ועל המעשה הזה נגזר על זרעו הגלות בארץ מצרים ביד פרעה, במקום המשפט שמה החטא

 

If Avraham did wrong, then why would Yitzchak compound the error by following in his footsteps ולכן היה יצחק חפץ ללכת בדרך אבותיו?! 

 

I think there are two possibilities here.  The obvious answer is that maybe Yitzchak didn't realize that there was anything wrong with what Avraham did.  If Avraham could make such a mistake, who says Yitzchak could not also err in exactly the same way?  I am not very satisfied with this.  It's bad enough to say one of the Avos erred, but to double the problem and say two erred? 

The second possibility is that Yitzchak knew Avraham was in the wrong, but wanted to follow in his footsteps anyway.  This is an equally unpalatable solution.  

 

Maybe we can thread the needle between the two.  Let me put in in contemporary terms.  A person grows up in a rabbinic home; his father is a talmid chacham.  He gets to yeshiva and starts learning halacha and discovers that there is a Mishne Berurah that says black on white the opposite of what he saw his father do. His father is unavailable to ask for whatever reason.  What is this yeshiva bachur to do?  I know what he would do in our times -- he would drop what he saw at home and change his practice to conform to the MB.  But life wasn't always this way.  R' Chaim Soloveitchik, RYBS' son, has a famous essay about this.  What a person saw at home can be just as much a valid source of what normative tradition is than what is in a book.  That's called ללכת בדרך אבותיו. 

 

It's true that Ramban says Avraham got it wrong, but there are many meforshim who think Ramban got it wrong, and there was no problem with Avraham leaving Eretz Yisrael.  It's a point open to debate.  I imagine Yitzchak Avinu much like the yeshiva bachur that you show a MB to and tell him he is doing the wrong thing.  In this case, instead of opening as MB, you come with a Mikraos Gedolos and show him a Ramban.  Are the words on the page enough to trump what he saw his father Avraham Avinu do?  I think this case -- where things are in doubt and open to question -- ללכת בדרך אבותיו carries the day. 

 

Of course it is nonesenical to say that if a person's father was a mechalel shabbos he now has license to be a mechalel shabbos because that is ללכת בדרך אבותיו.  I am trying to contextualize ללכת בדרך אבותיו to the grey areas.  When things can go one way or the other, give previous generations the benefit of the doubt.  There were good Jews  who lived before you in whose footsteps it is safe to walk.

chessed vs rachamim -- the hallmark of Avraham

Last week I quoted the question of the Aderet as to why Hashem touts the fact that Avraham  is charitable וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה׳ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט and declares that as the basis for special reward when tzedakah is a mitzvah sichlit that all humanity is obligated in.  The Aderet answered that Avraham was special because he did chessed and tzedakah because it was the ratzon Hashem, not just because it was a nice thing to do or because he felt bad for the poor.  When I said this question over last week I added another answer that I didn't include in the post.  Avraham did not just wait to do chessed until the Salvation Army or the Red Cross or a poor person knocked on his door to ask for a help.  A Jew has to be "rodef tzedakah va'chessed."  A Jew has to go looking for chessed, not wait for it to come to him.  At the beginning of last weeks's parsha we see that even when Avraham had no one knocking on his door, when it was too hot for visitors to be wandering about, Avraham still went out and went looking for people to help despite the fact that he was ill himself recovering from milah.  Even if a ben Noach is obligated in chessed, I think that's only when the need lands in their lap, when it knocks on their door.  Avraham went above and beyond that standard.

In the sefer Sidduro Shel Shabbos and in the Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the same author) this same point is made in a discussion about our parsha.  He distinguishes between rachamim and chessed.  Rachamim is when the poor person knocks on your door and tells you a story that tugs at your heart strings, as I put it last week.  You feel sympathy and therefore want to give.  A gomeil chessed is someone who doesn't wait for the poor to come to him, but rather he looks for the opportunities to give.  The gemara (Shabbos 104) says that the leg of the letter gimmel sticks out towards the daled that follows because שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹמֵל חֲסָדִים לָרוּץ אַחַר דַּלִּים.  Furthermore, he writes, rachamim stops when the needs of the poor, on some minimal level, are met.  Chessed extends to the rich and the poor alike, and goes beyond meeting bare needs.

 

Rashi in last week's parsha explains why Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt (19:26): אמר לה: תן מעט מלח לאורחים הללו. אמרה לו: אף המנהג הזה הרע אתה בא להנהיג במקום הזה.  Lot's wife was not as bad as the people of Sdom.  She had rachmanus on the angels who came as guests.  She let them into her home.  She was willing to provide them sustenance in the form of plain bread.  However, more than that she was not willing to do.  She was not a gomeles chessed.  To provide salt, to do a little extra so that there would not only be bread, but so that it would be tasty bread and not bland, that she was not willing to do (Oznayim laTorah).  Lot, for all his faults, had the midah of chessed impressed upon him because he spent time living under Avraham's roof.

 

Coming to our parsha, Eliezer's test for Rivka was  וְהָיָ֣ה הַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֹמַ֤ר אֵלֶ֙יהָ֙ הַטִּי־נָ֤א כַדֵּךְ֙ וְאֶשְׁתֶּ֔ה וְאָמְרָ֣ה שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַם־גְּמַלֶּ֖יךָ אַשְׁקֶ֑ה (24:14).  Eliezer only asked Rivka to draw a little water for him, וַיֹּ֕אמֶר הַגְמִיאִ֥ינִי נָ֛א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ.  Notice that he made a point of asking only for מְעַט־מַ֖יִם.  Even by offering him enough to fully quench his thirst, Rivka proved that she was willing to go above and beyond, but she did far more than that.  She offered to water the camels as well.  This was not just rachmanus; this was chessed.  Rivka thus proved that she was fit to be part of Avraham's household.

 

I want to turn to what seems to be a contradiction in the description of what Rivka did.  When Rivka first comes out to the well to draw water, וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל,  Rashi tells us that ראה שעלו המים לקראתה (24:18 See Ramban, Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh what this derash is based on). The waters rose up from the well into Rivka's bucket.  Yet, as Ramban notes, just a few pesukim later (24:20), we read וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתְּעַ֤ר כַּדָּהּ֙ אֶל־הַשֹּׁ֔קֶת, that Rivka had to lower her bucket into the well to draw water.  Did the water rise up to greet Rivka or did they not?

 

I want to share two insights that, although they read the pesukim in almost contradictory fashion, actually I think compliment one each other.

 

The Berdichiver explains as follows: When Rivka first came to the well, the water she drew was for her own sake.  That's why the water rose up to fill her bucket.  However, after Eliezer made his request for a drink, Rivka had to draw more water.  This time, when the water being drawn was for the sake of doing chessed, the water did not rise; she had to stoop down and draw it from the well.  There's no comparison between something you put in effort to accomplish and something done with no effort.  Hashem wanted Rivka to have the opportunity to not just do chessed, but to do a chessed that she put in effort for. That's a qualitatively different mitzvah entirely.

 

You have the same idea in last week's parsha as well, as I wrote about once before.   Rashi tells us that Hashem brought the sun out in full force so that Avraham would not be bothered with entertaining guests while recovering from his bris milah.  Avraham, however, would not be dissuaded from doing his usual hachnasas orchim and went out “’k'chom hayom,” in the middle of the hot day, to look for guests.  Since Avraham would not give up, Hashem sent him the three angels as guests.

 

Why did Hashem have to summon angels to appear as guests?  Why didn’t Hashem just remove the unusual heat wave that He had sent and then guests would come by as usual?

 

The answer is that once Avraham made the effort to do hachnasas orchim in the middle of the heat wave, Hashem wanted to give him the opportunity to do that mitzvah.  Had Hashem removed the heat wave, the mitzvah would have required far less effort.  A mitzvah without effort is a different animal entirely from one done with effort. 

 

The Be'er Mayim Chaim deals with the same basic question, but he frames it a bit differently (he actually has two solutions, one that he offers in Sidduro shel Shabbos 1:4 and one in the Be'er Mayim Chaim. I am presenting the latter one.) He points out that the pasuk ַוַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל is itself a stira minei u'bei, self contradictory.  It starts with the words וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּּ, telling us that Rivka went down to the well to fill her bucket, but then Rashi comments on  וַתָּֽעַל that the water rose to Rivka. You can't have it both ways!?

 

The Be'er Mayim Chaim answers that drawing water for Eliezer alone was rachmanut, not chessed, and for that, Hashem was not about to do a miracle and cause the waters to rise. Rivka had to descend to the water to draw enough for him.  Now came the test -- would Rivka do more than that and prove herself a baalas chessed?  At this point, the yetzer ha'ra and lots of negative forces were working overtime to mess things up, as this moment would determine whether the shidduch with Yitzchak would happen or not.  You can normally be a big baal chessed, but along comes the yetzer ha'ra and gets you angry about something just as a poor person is about to ask you for help, or gets you involved in some other "important" project just as someone needs chessed.  The yetzer ha'ra always is anxious to step in just as something good is about to happen to cause you to stumble.  Here too, as big a baalas chessed as Rivka was, the yetzer ha'ra was going to bring a full court press to try to make her stumble just now when Eliezer is watching. Hashem therefore gave Rivka a hint to point her in the right direction.  Even though she had already filled her bucket, the water continued to rise to her.  This was the signal that one bucket is not enough -- take more, come back for more.  You need more water because you have to bring some to the camels as well.  It's davka after she made the effort on the first bucket that Hashem made things go smoother so she would not stop before finishing her task.

 

Whether you learn that Rivka had to put more effort in when she was doing things l'shem mitzah or whether you learn she had siyata d'Shemaya and things got easier for her, I think the two lessons can go hand in hand.  The Berdichiver is speaking about what we have to put in.  The greater the effort we are prepared to make, the greater the mitzvah.  The Be'er Mayim Chaim is speaking about what we can take out with us.  If you are willing to make the effort, Hashem will help you out along the way.     

 

One of the hallmarks of Klal Yisrael is that we are gomlei chassadim.  The Beis Yisrael says that Avraham insisted on paying full price for me'aras ha'machpeila so that Efron could not claim even one iota of credit for doing him a chessed.  Avraham appreciated just how great the miztvah of chessed is, and so did not want someone unworthy to be able to claim any of its benefits.  Just things of what we earn and can earn though all the chessed we do. I think I've written before that for all those yelling about "tikkun olam," where is their Hatzalah, Chaveirim, Tomchei Shabbos, etc.?  It's davka our community which does all that and more.  Why?  Because Avraham is the beacon that guides us, and because chessed is part of our spiritual DNA.

charity for the right reason

Hashem chose to Avraham that he was going to destroy Sdom because כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה׳ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט (18:19).  The Meshech Chochma sees this pasuk as a d'oraysa source for the mitzvah of chinuch.  Avraham not only did tzedakah and mishpat himself, but he also inculcated these traits in his household. 

The Adere"t asks: Why is this zechus so special and so deserving of reward?  Charity is a "mitzvah sichlis," it is something any rational thinking human being can understand the need for.  In fact, the navi Yechezkel (16:49) highlights lack of charity as the sin that Sdom was culpable for: הִנֵּה־זֶ֣ה הָיָ֔ה עֲוֺ֖ן סְדֹ֣ם אֲחוֹתֵ֑ךְ גָּא֨וֹן שִׂבְעַת־לֶ֜חֶם וְשַׁלְוַ֣ת הַשְׁקֵ֗ט הָ֤יָה לָהּ֙ וְלִבְנוֹתֶ֔יהָ וְיַד־עָנִ֥י וְאֶבְי֖וֹן לֹ֥א הֶחֱזִֽיקָה.  The Chidushei HaRan (Sanhedrin 56b) writes that אלמא דבצדקה נמי מחייבי ואשכחן דמיענש עלה דכתיב ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקו.   Even a ben Noach is chayav in the mitzvah of tzedakah and held accountable for failing to fulfill that obligation.  It's only for various technical reasons that it is not counted among the 7 mitzvos.  Is fulfilling such a basic command, something all humanity is obligated to do, worthy of being put on a pedestal for carrying out?  Is it so noteworthy that in its merit alone לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא ה׳ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו?

 

The Aderet answers with a fundamental yesod in the mitzvah of tzedakah.  When one comes across a poor person and he/she tells you a sob story about their needs and their predicament and it tugs at the heart strings, it's human nature to feel bad and to therefore want to give.  That, says the Aderet, is not the ideal of tzedakah.  When you give under those circumstances, you are not giving for the sake of the poor person.  You are giving for yourself; you are giving to alleviate the pain you feel in response to the poor person's plight. 

 

He quotes the following vort from his father:  נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ  (Devarim 15:10)  Simple pshat is that when you give, you shouldn't feel bad about the $ coming out of you pocket.   Derech derush, the way he explained the pasuk is, "Give to the poor -- but not because not doing so would make you feel bad."  Give because it is the right thing to do.  Give because it's a mitzvah.  The pasuk ends כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ.  If you act for Hashem's sake, to fulfill his commandment, He will guarantee your reward.

 

The Divrei Shaul, R' Yosef Shaul Natahanson, similarly explained the gemara וחנתי את אשר אחון אע"פ שאינו הגון ורחמתי את אשר ארחם אע"פ שאינו הגון (Brachos 7).  To have mercy on those who deserve mercy, who need mercy, is the natural response of any caring and feeling person.  That's faint praise to give Hashem.  Chazal therefore take the pasuk to mean that Hashem shows mercy and kindness even to those who are undeserving of our sympathy and kindness, those who we otherwise might have antipathy for.  Even when it is not the natural emotional response or rational response to have, Hashem still responds with kindness. He expects the same of us.  Show mercy and kindness regardless of whether you are moved to do so or not.

 

The last Rambam in Hil Me'ila writes:

 

הרי נאמר בתורה ושמרתם את כל חקותי ואת כל משפטי ועשיתם אותם. אמרו חכמים ליתן שמירה ועשייה לחוקים כמשפטים. והעשייה ידועה והיא שיעשה החוקים. והשמירה שיזהר בהן ולא ידמה שהן פחותין מן המשפטים. והמשפטים הן המצות שטעמן גלוי וטובת עשייתן בעולם הזה ידועה כגון איסור גזל ושפיכות דמים וכיבוד אב ואם. והחוקים הן המצות שאין טעמן ידוע. ... שבעשיית החוקים והמשפטים זוכין הישרים לחיי העולם הבא. והקדימה תורה ציווי על החוקים. שנאמר ושמרתם את חקותי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם

 

The Rambam uses the linkage between chukim to mishpatim to make the point there that although we may not understand chukim, we should treat them with no less respect than the mishpatim which make sense to us.

 

The Aderet uses the same linkage in the reverse direction.  Just like we do chukim only because G-d commanded so, so too, when we do mishpatim, it should be because G-d commanded so, not just because it makes sense to us and appeals to our reason or emotion.

 

Avraham is praised and deserves reward not just because he is a person who knows לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט.  Every human being has that obligation and should do the same. 

 

Avraham is praised and deserves reward because  וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה׳** לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט**.  His acts of kindness and charity stem from the need to fulfill ratzon Hashem, because Hashem commanded it.

 

Who else would beg G-d to spare the wicked people of Sdom of not someone who does tzedakah l'shem Shamayim alone?  Surely the evil  inhabitants of Sdom were not people who deserved mercy or elicited sympathy. But when you do kindness and feel mercy because it is a mitzvah, not just because you feel sympathy or feel your heart strings tugged on, then you can find it within you to even speak up for Sdom.  That is what was so special about Avraham.

 

Many meforshim comment on the fact that the one example of Avraham's hachnasas orchim which the Torah highlights is an example where the guests really had no need of Avraham's hospitality.  The three visitors who Avraham serves food to at the beginning of the parsha were angels.  They only ate so as to fit in and keep up the pretense of being who they were not.  The lesson here is similar to the point made by the Aderet.  The reason to be hospitable is not just because the other person needs our help.  It's because Hashem commands us to do so.