Everything is for the Good
In Megillas Rus, Naomi said (Rus 1:20), אל מאד לי י"שד המר כי מרא לי קראן נעמי לי תקראנה, "Don't call me Naomi (pleasant). Call me Mara, bitter, because Hashem made my life very bitter." The Chasam Sofer zt'l (Drashos vol.2, p.299.) explains that when Naomi returned to Eretz Yisrael, she knew that she would need money to settle down and to survive, and she hoped that her wealthy nephew, Boaz, would support her. However, the Chasam Sofer writes, "It isn't the way of tzanuah women to meet with men. Indeed, we never find Naomi meeting or speaking to Boaz." Instead, Naomi's plan as she returned to Eretz Yisrael was to speak to Boaz's wife. She would talk to Boaz, and Boaz would help her and Rus settle down and live in Eretz Yisrael. But this plan didn't work out because "the day Naomi came to Beis Lechem, the levayah of Boaz's wife took place!" (see Bava Basra 91.). Naomi's dreams and hopes were shattered.
Alternatively, if Boaz's wife wasn't alive, she could speak directly to Boaz and ask him to help them. However, Naomi refused to do so. She wouldn’t speak to Boaz, not now that she didn't have the wife to relay her message. Naomi told the women of Beis Lechem to call her מרא, bitter, and not נעמי, pleasant, because her life was bitter. She said that she came to Eretz Yisrael with a plan of how she would support herself, and now she doesn't have any plan at all, and she doesn't have any source of income.
It was all for her good, though, writes the Chasam Sofer. "The petirah of Boaz's wife was for Naomi's benefit because Rus came and took her place, and from this marriage, Rus bore a child, which Naomi raised as her own. Naomi told the women of Beis Lechem that her life was bitter. She thought Boaz's wife's death was bitter for her. But it was Hashem's plan and for her benefit. Only, at the time, Naomi didn’t realize that."
The roshei teivos of אודמ יל י"דש מרה, "Hashem made it very bitter for me" spells שלמה. This hints that although Naomi thought matters were bitter for her, they were for her good, preparing the way for Shlomo HaMelech to come. This is how it always is. We think something is negative, but it turns out to be positive.
When Hashem gave the Torah on Har Sinai, most people weren't permitted to go up on the mountain. The exceptions were Moshe Rabbeinu, the seventy zekeinim of Sanhedrin, and Aharon HaKohen with his two elder sons, Nadav v'Avihu (see Shemos 24:1). Aharon's younger sons, Elazar v'Isamar weren't permitted to go on the mountain. Elazar and Isamar were greater than the Sanhedrin (see Eiruvin 54:). In fact, they were the Sanhedrin's teachers. Yet the Sanhedrin was allowed to be on the mountain, and they were not.
Most people in this situation would be upset. They would say, "Why can't we go on Har Sinai, while the Sanhedrin that is smaller than us can? Why can our brothers go on Har Sinai and not us?" Also, the situation would generally upset the parents, too. "Why can't our children be on Har Sinai? People less than them go on Har Sinai!" But it was for their benefit. The Tur (on Chumash) teaches that Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders of Sanhedrin were punished because they lacked the proper yiras Shamayim when they stood on Har Sinai. The Midrash (Tanchuma, Behaloscha 16) states, "They were lightheaded when they went up to Har Sinai and saw the Shechinah, as it states (Shemos 24), וישתו ויאכלו האלקים את ויחזו, 'They saw Hashem, and they ate and drank.' ... וישתו ויאכלו is an analogy of a slave who eats his lunch as he serves his master. This was disrespectful, and they deserved to be punished. Hashem didn't want to punish them on the day He gave the Torah to Bnei Yisrael because the day of matan Torah was precious to Hakadosh Baruch Hu..." so their punishments were postponed to a later date.
Nadav and Avihu received their punishment when they entered Ohel Moed with their ketores, and a fire came forth and burnt them, and the seventy elders of Sanhedrin were burned due to the sin of מתאוננים (see Bamidbar 11:1).
So, in retrospect, Elazar and Isamar understood that it was for their benefit that they were prevented from being on the mountain. Had Elazar and Isamar been on the mountain, it is likely that they, too, would die, and Aharon would have been left without children.
Let this be a lesson for us: when something seems negative, it isn't so. The situation is directed by Hashem's hashgachah pratis and is the best for you.
One of the mitzvos of Shavuos is aliyah l'regel – to be in the Beis HaMikdash. Chazal (Pesachim 8) say that only people who own fields must perform the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel. Those who don't own a field don't have this obligation.
What is the logic for this? Why should a mitzvah be dependent on the ownership of a field?
The Chidushei HaRim zt'l explains that the purpose of aliyah l'regel is to increase our emunah in Hashem. Being in the Beis HaMikdash on the holidays improved Yidden's emunah in Hashem. Poor people don't need aliyah l'regel to strengthen their emunah. Their life situation of poverty forces them to continuously place their trust in Hashem. Only those who own property must go to the Beis HaMikdash three times a year to learn that everything is from Hashem because they are at risk of forgetting.
Once again, we discover that something we think is negative is actually positive. Many think poverty is undesirable, but from the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel, we see that poor people benefit greatly. They always remember Hashem. Similarly, we believe many things are negative but are, in fact, for our benefit.
