Torah From Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen

MOSHE RABBEINU AND PHARAOH - VA’EIRA

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:01:00 +0000

Parshas Va’eira describes in great detail the first seven of the ten plagues that brought Mitzrayim to its knees. A major feature of the Makkos is the behavior of Pharaoh in reaction to the destruction of his nation. When Moshe Rabbeinu and Aaron bring about the first plague of blood, the passuk tells us that Pharaoh was not impressed because his sorcerers could also turn water into blood: “..And Pharaoh hardened his heart and he did not listen to them..” The next passuk states that, “Pharaoh turned and went to his home, and also did not pay attention to this. ” The commentaries ask, what does the Torah refer to when it says that ‘he did not pay attention to this’ - the previous passuk already stated that Pharaoh did not listen to the arguments of Moshe and Aaron. The Netsiv zt”l explains that the second passuk is telling us that Pharaoh was also unmoved by the pain that his people were suffering through the plague, and did not seek out any ways in which he could ease their pain.

‘Dam’ was the only plague in which the Torah alludes to Pharaoh’s indifference to the suffering of his people - why is this the case? The Medrash, HaGadol provides the key to answering this question: “The wicked Pharaoh was not afflicted by the plague of blood. ” The plague of blood was the only one which did not harm Pharaoh. It was in this plague where he was most immune to the suffering that it caused his people because he did not experience the pain himself and so it was this plague where his apathy to the pain of his people was most pronounced.

We see a stark contrast to Pharaoh’s cruel indifference in the reaction of Moshe Rabbeinu to the pain of the Jewish people. Moshe grew up in the home of Pharaoh, separate from his people and unaffected by the slavery. Nonetheless, he went out and looked at the suffering of his brothers and empathized with their pain - he even persuaded Pharaoh to give them a day of rest .

The passukim that describe Moshe’s tremendous concern for his people are preceded by the words, “vayigdal Moshe.” This does not mean that he grew up because an earlier passuk already stated that. Thus, the commentaries explain that it refers to becoming a great person - and the indicator of that greatness was his concern for others . Why does davke this mida of empathy represent ‘gadlus’? Rav Shimon Shkop zt”l explains that a ‘Gadol’ is a person who expands his definition of self to include others - he is not considered a mere individual, rather part of a larger whole, and consequently he himself becomes a ‘bigger’ person . Pharaoh, in contrast, is described by the Gemara as being a very small person . The commentaries there explain that this refers to his spiritual standing - he was on a very low level . Perhaps one aspect of his lowliness was his apathy to the pain of his own people, he only cared about himself, and therefore he did not expand his self-definition beyond his own self and remained a ‘small’ person.

How can a person avoid the apathy of Pharaoh and emulate the concern of Moshe Rabbeinu - it is particularly difficult to empathize with people who are in a situation that does not effect us. When the passuk says that Moshe saw the suffering of his people, Rashi elaborates; “he focused his eyes and heart to feel pain for them. ” My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that first he looked at their faces to see the pain that they were in. He then ’focused his heart’ by trying to relate to their pain, to feel what they were feeling. So too when we hear of a person in difficulty we should first try to notice their facial expressions in order to make real the pain that they are in. Secondly, we should try to feel what it must be like to be in such pain. In a similar vein, Rav Noach Orlowek shlita suggests for example, that when we hear of a terrorist attack in which people are killed, we should take out a few moments to imagine what the victims and their families must be going through. It is not enough to merely sigh and move on - we must strive to avoid becoming immune to other people’s pain.

Such empathy is not restricted to Jews who share the same lifestyle and outlook as us: Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zt”l taught this lesson in his shmussen in Ponevitz throughout the Six Day War. As the war began he told his talmidim, “in a time of war we must feel the danger of our soldiers. The loss of one Jewish soldier, even when measured against the destruction of thousands of our enemies, is incalculable. And for every soldier who arrives home from battle alive our joy must be unbounded.” After the victory he exhorted his talmidim to identify with the people who lost family in the conflict: “Hand-in-hand with our victory another reality was created; thousands of Jewish lives have been lost. How many thousands of families are bereft with a pain that is so great that it cannot now be consoled? How many dear ones have been killed? How much this must weigh upon every Jewish soul. How much must we feel their pain - actually feel it as our own. More than our rejoicing over our enemies we must feel the pain of our grieving brothers and sisters. ”

It is also instructive to make some kind of gesture to show that the suffering of our fellow Jew truly concerns us even if we cannot directly help them. During the Holocaust the Steipler Gaon zt”l undertook to give up smoking as a small token to show that the tremendous suffering of his brethren meant something to him. Whilst Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l was Rav of Brisk half the city was burnt down leaving hundreds of Jews homeless. Rav Chaim promptly moved out of his home and slept on a bench in a beis medrash. When asked why he was doing so he exclaimed, “how can I sleep in a comfortable bed when so many people do not have a roof covering them?! ”

However, we also learn from Moshe Rabbeinu that it is not enough to merely feel bad for those in pain. The Medrash says that Moshe “would pitch in and help each of them, ignoring his rank, he would lighten their burderns while pretending to be helping Pharaoh. ” Similarly we must strive to help those in difficulty in any way that we can. Rav Frand Shlita suggests that the next time we hear that our friend is in a difficult situation we should see if there is any feasible way in which we can help him. If, for example, he lost his job, we can think if we know any contacts that may help him find new employment, or if he is looking for a shidduch then think of any possible matches for him.

Even if we cannot actively solve the person’s problem we can do a great chesed by being there for him and showing him that he is not alone in his pain. Rav Shach zt”l excelled in this area; on one occasion having heard about a widower who was depressed to the point that he had stopped functioning, Rav Shach decided to pay him a visit. Receiving no response to his knock Rav Shach let himself in and found the man lying motionless on the couch. “I know what you’re going through,” he said as he put his arm around the man. “I’m also a widower. My world is also dark and I have no simcha.” The man‘s eyes lit up for the first time in months. Someone understood him. “On Friday I’m going to make cholent and send it over, and on Shabbos I’ll come over and we’ll eat together.” “I can’t possibly allow you to trouble yourself like that,” protested the man. “Well, then you think of something. But either way I’m going to be back tomorrow. We need to spend some time together. ” Rav Shach gave this man hope because Rav Shach showed him that someone else understood the pain that he was going through - this in and of itself is one of the greatest chasadim we can do for someone in pain.

Indifference to the spiritual standing of our fellow man is perhaps even more objectionable than not caring about his physical situation. Rav Frand points out that it is very easy for an observant Jew who lives in an observant community to forget that the vast majority of Jews have no sense of Jewish identity and that every year several thousand are lost through intermarriage. He continues that we cannot say “Shalom aliyich nafshi’ - as long as I have my Torah education and live in a frum community then everything is alright. Rather we must feel that the spiritual Holocaust effects us as much as anyone else and that we must do something about it - whether it be to be in contact with a secular relative, strike up a friendly conversation with a non-observant colleague at work, or having people for Shabbos.

The main characters in the parshios of Yetsias Mitzrayim, Moshe Rabbeinu and Pharaoh, show us how greatness is defined by caring about others and katnus is a reflection of selfishness. May we all strive to emulate Moshe Rabbeinu.

THE PLAGUE OF FROGS - VA'EIRA

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:58:00 +0000

The second of the ten plagues was that of sefardaya, frogs. Rashi cites a Chazal that describes how this plague manifested itself; at first one single frog emerged from the river, and the Mitzrim tried to kill it by striking it. However, instead of harming it, it split into swarms of frogs each time it was struck until the frogs were so numerous that they inundated the land .

The Steipler Gaon zt"l sees a very great difficulty with this Chazal; the Mitzrim surely saw that the first time they hit the frog they did not succeed in destroying it, in fact their hitting had the opposite result, causing more frogs to emerge. Yet they continued to hit the frog many times, only succeeding in filling the whole of Mitzrayim with frogs! Why did they not learn their lesson and refrain from hitting the frog after they saw its disastrous results?

The Steipler answers with a principle about how the destructive midda (trait) of anger causes a person to act. When one is insulted he feels the need to avenge this treatment, therefore he responds in kind to the aggressor. The aggressor returns the insult, and he in turn feels the need to return the insult again, until both are subject to a vicious circle of fruitless retaliation and a full-blown quarrel erupts with harmful consequences for all involved. In a similar vein, when the Mitzrim were faced with this threatening frog, their instinctive reaction was to strike it, however when more frogs swarmed out of the initial frog, their anger was kindled and in response they wanted to avenge the frog by striking it again. When this failed again, they continued in their aggressive manner, continually striking the frog until their anger caused the whole of Mitzrayim to be engulfed with these pests. We learn from this explanation about the damaging nature of anger, and how it causes a person to act in a highly self-destructive manner .

It is instructive to delve deeper into why a person can act in such a seemingly foolish fashion. When a person is first insulted he feels considerable immediate pleasure by reacting in kind to the person who dared speak to him in such a rude way. However, after that immediate satisfaction, he endures a longer-term backlash which results in the negative feelings that are normally generated by arguments. Logically, it would seem that he should learn his lesson, recognize the long-term damage of reacting strongly, and control himself in a similar future scenario However, this does not normally occur, rather he continually falls into the same trap. His problem is that he has habituated himself to focus on the short-term results of his actions rather than its long-term consequences. It requires great effort and self-growth to break out of this damaging mode of behavior.

It seems that this problem of focusing on the immediate results occurs in many areas of Avodas Hashem with damaging results. The Medrash Tanchuma tells us a dramatic example of this phenomenon. There was a righteous man whose father was a hopeless alcoholic. On one occasion, the son saw a different drunkard lying in a sewer on the street. Youngsters around him were hitting him with stones and treating him in a highly degrading manner. When the son saw this pitiful site, he decided to bring his father to the scene in the hope that it would show the father the degradation that alcoholism causes. He brought his father to see the drunkard. What did his father do? He went to the drunkard and asked him which wine house did he drink the wine! The shocked son told his father that he brought him here to see the humiliation that this man was enduring so that his father would see how he appears when he himself was drunk, in the hope that it would cause him to stop drinking. His father replied that his greatest pleasure in life was drinking . It is very likely that the father was intellectually aware of the harm that his drinking caused him, however he was so preoccupied with the immediate pleasure it gave him, that he was blind to its overall damage.

The yetser hara's strategy of blinding a person to the long-term damage of his behavior is a very significant factor in hindering one's Avodas Hashem. Whether it be in the area of destructive responses or addictions, or any number of other areas, it is essential for a person to address this issue if he hopes to fulfill his potential. It seems that the first stage of this process is to develop an intellectual recognition that the mode of action or reaction that he has habituated himself to, is ultimately detrimental. Using the example of anger, a person must recognize that the short-term pleasure he feels after shouting at his wife, child or friend, is an illusionary pleasure created by the yetser hara and in the long-term it only harms his relationships.

The second stage is to anticipate situations of nisyonos (tests) before they occur so that he can intellectually prepare his response without being swept away with emotion b'shaas maaseh (at the time of the occurrence). Thus when he is insulted he can hopefully offset his natural reaction of anger with a calm countenance, based on his recognition that shouting in response will only aggravate the situation. This is no easy task, but in time one can hopefully internalize this intellectual awareness and react in a calm and measured fashion. The plague of the frogs gives us a vital insight into the destructive nature of anger and focusing on short-term results. May we learn the Steipler's lessons and control our reactions for the good.

LEARNING FROM THE FROGS - VA’EIRA

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:56:00 +0000

After the first plague of blood, Moshe Rabbeinu warned Pharaoh that if he continue to refuse Moshe’s request to let the Jewish people leave Egypt, then there would be a new plague: ”And the river will swarm with frogs; they will rise up and go into your homes, your bedrooms; onto your beds; and in the homes of your servants and your people; and into your ovens and your kneading bowls.” After Pharaoh’s refusal, the frogs did indeed swarm all over Egypt, including into the ovens of the Egyptians.

The Gemara tells us that several hundred years later, the actions of the frogs who entered the ovens served as a lesson to three great men; Chanania, Mishael and Azariah. They lived in Babylon under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. He made a decree that everyone must bow to a statue in his image, and the punishment for not doing so was to be thrown into a fire. The law states that one must give up his life rather than worship idols, however, the commentaries explain that bowing to this image did not constitute actual idol worship. Therefore, technically speaking, it was permissible to bow to the image, and most of the Jewish people did so. However, Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learnt from the example of the frogs who went into the ovens in Egypt, that they too should be prepared to be thrown into a fire. They reasoned that the frogs who were not commanded in the Mitzvo of Kiddush HaShem (sanctification of G-d’s name), nonetheless were willing to go into a burning oven for the sake of sanctifying G-d’s name. All the more so (kal v’chomer), they, who, as human beings, were commanded in the Mitzvo of Kiddush HaShem, should be willing to be thrown into the fire.

The Darchei Mussar points out a great difficulty with this Gemara. The three men’s reasoning was based on the fact that the frogs were not commanded to die for the sake of Kiddush HaShem, whilst they were commanded to do so. However, Moshe’s informing of Pharaoh that the frogs would enter their ovens constituted a command for the frogs; accordingly the frogs were commanded to go into the ovens. That being the case, how could Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learn from the frogs that they should allow themselves to be thrown into a fire?!

He explains that whilst HaShem did command the frogs to go into the ovens, He did not restrict the command to ovens – the bedrooms, beds, and kneading bowls were included in the list of the places where the frogs could go to. Therefore, each frog had the choice as to where they would go – he could conceivably decide that he would choose the more comfortable option of going to the bed or kneading bowl. Nonetheless, many frogs did indeed choose to risk their lives in order to ensure that HaShem’s command was fulfilled. Since each individual frog was not commanded to go into the fire and yet many of them still did so, Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learnt that all the more so they should be prepared to be thrown into a fire.
The Darchei Mussar continues that we learn a fundamental lesson from the actions of the brave frogs who went into the ovens. It was possible for them to shift the responsibility onto other frogs, however they declined the comfortable option and as a result, contributed to the enhanced sanctification of G-d’s name. So too, he writes, that when a person is given the opportunity to perform a certain Mitzvo he should not seek to shirk the responsibility placed upon him by hoping that someone else will undertake the Mitzvo. Rather, he should view this as a golden chance to sanctify G-d’s name. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a person to tend to view such opportunities as burdens. This attitude seems to be fundamentally against the Torah outlook. The Torah strongly espouses taking responsibility when things need to be done. The Mishna in Avos states: “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” This applies in both minor daily occurrences and less common but more significant occasions. For example, there may be a general request for people to help in a certain endeavor, it is praiseworthy to assume the responsibility without waiting for others to do so. On a larger scale, there are numerous major problems facing the Jewish world today – instead of waiting for others to take responsibility to rectify these problems, a person should see if there is anything he can do himself. On one occasion, some American Torah students living in Israel discovered that a significant amount of Americans living in Israel were living in extreme poverty but were too ashamed to tell anyone. Rather than merely expressing sympathy for these people, a few men undertook to create a new charity (known as Got Chicken ) aimed at providing basic necessities for people in dire need.

We have seen how praiseworthy it is to take responsibility and avoid waiting for others to do so. If any more incentive is needed, the continuation of the story of the frogs shows what happened to the frogs who went into the ovens. After the plague stopped, the Torah states: “... the frogs died from the houses, from the courtyards and from the fields.” The Baal HaTurim and Daas Zekeinim point out that there is no mention of the deaths of the frogs who were in the ovens. They explain that they were spared as a reward for their self-sacrifice. We see from here that taking responsibility to do G-d’s will brings only good. May we all merit to take responsibility and reap the rewards.

GIVING FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING - SHEMOS

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:50:00 +0000

“God benefited the midwives - and the people increased and became very strong. And it was because the midwives feared God that He made them houses. ”

Yocheved and Miriam risked their lives to save Jewish baby boys from being murdered by the Egyptians. God rewarded them by making them ‘houses’ - Rashi explains that they merited to be the mothers of the lines of Kohanim (Priests), Leviim and Kings. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein asks that if their main reward was these ‘houses’ then why does the clause, “and the people increased and became very strong” interrupt the description of their reward - since the ‘houses’ were the benefit described, it would seem that they should follow immediately afterwards, and the verse should have said, ”God benefited the midwives and made them houses.” He answers that their main reward was not the houses but rather the increase of the people since their true desire and joy was no more than the expansion of the Jewish population. Consequently after the verse states that God benefited them, it immediately mentions the resultant expansion of the Jewish people - that was their main reward, the houses were merely a secondary bonus for their great fear of God .

There can be a number of different reasons why a person performs an act of kindness - it may be because he knows it is a Mitzva to do kindness; it may be because he owes this person a favor, or it may be due to numerous other possible factors. We learn from Rabbi Feinstein’s explanation that the main intention we should have when we help someone (as well as the general intent to do a Mitzva) is that they benefit from our action. Yocheved and Miriam did not care about what reward they would receive for saving Jewish lives - they merely wanted the lives to be saved. God rewarded them by enabling their actions to succeed and the Jewish people grew as a result.

Yocheved’s son, Moses, inherited this same dedication to others. He saw the suffering of his people and risked his life to help them. He persuaded Pharaoh to give them a rest day so that they could observe Shabbos and furthermore he showed great concern for the sheep in his flock. It was in the merit of these actions that God spoke to him at the Burning Bush and made him leader of the Jewish people. He wanted nothing more than to release them from the crushing slavery in Egypt, and his reward was that he merited to be the one to take them out.

This lesson is relevant in many areas of our lives, but perhaps is most important with regard to our careers. Many people are fortunate to be involved in a job which involves helping others. However, it is quite easy to focus primarily on the money that they receive for providing their service. Rabbi Avraham Pam was once being treated by a dentist and he remarked at how much this dentist helped people in his profession. The dentist replied that this was a nice side-benefit to his job, implying that the main reason that he did it was to earn a living. Rav Pam replied that actually the money he earned was the side benefit but the main purpose should be to help people have healthy teeth.

We know that the ultimate reward for Yocheved and Miriam would be in the Next World - the consequence of their pure motives. If a person performs acts of kindness with such motivations then he can assure himself of ample benefit in the Next World. The Atler of Slobodka once noted the self-sacrifice of bakers - in that time the baker would rise very early in the morning in order to provide bread for the community. They were performing an incredible act of kindness by getting up so early in order that people would have this vital commodity. However, he commented that if the baker is doing it solely in order to earn a livelihood then he is losing his main source of reward in the Next World. Performing acts of kindness is a great thing and merits great reward, but let us not lose focus of what our intention should be - to help others. The side benefits will come, but improving the lives of our fellow Jew is ample reward in and of itself.

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:48:00 +0000

SHEMOS – THE PRECISION OF DIVINE JUSTICE
The Parsha describes Moshe Rabbeinu’s actions in defending the Jews from the oppression of the Egyptians. He sees an Egyptian man beating a Jewish man and kills him: "And it was in those days that Moshe grew up and he went out to his brethren, and saw their suffering. He saw an Egyptian man strike a Hebrew from amongst his brethren. He turned this way and that way and he saw that there was no man, so he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” The simple understanding of this incident is, that after seeing the Egyptian’s actions Moshe looked around to see if there were any onlookers, and when he saw that there were none, he killed the Egyptian. Rashi explains that Moshe was looking at something much deeper; “He saw that no future man would descend from him [the Egyptian] in the future, who would convert.” Rashi further adds that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian in an orthodox fashion, rather he used the shem hamefurash (holy name) to kill him.

Two questions arise from Rashi’s explanations; Firstly, why did Moshe choose to kill the Egyptian with the shem hamefurash? Secondly, the commentaries write that Moshe made a legal ruling on what the Egyptian was doing, and he ruled that the Egyptian was punishable by death. They point out that when punishing sinners, the Beis Din (Jewish law court) does not take into account any consequences of the punishment, such as how it would affect other people, including whether the sinner would have any righteous descendants . Accordingly, why did Moshe need to assess the future descendants of this man?!

The Maharil Diskin answers that the sin the Egyptian was committing was one that was only punishable by death bidei Shamayim (in the hands of Heaven), but not bidei adam (in the hands of man) . Therefore, Moshe could not punish him by physically killing him, rather he needed to utilize a method that would require Heavenly assistance; accordingly he killed him using the shem hamefurash. There is a fundamental difference between how punishments that are bidei Shamayim are determined and how those that are bidei adam are enforced. As we said above, when Beis Din punish someone they do not take into account all the possible ramifications of the punishment, such as how it will affect the sinner’s family, friends and his future descendants. However, when HaShem sends the punishment He takes into account all the myriad effects of the retribution. Included amongst these considerations is how this punishment will affect the future descendants. For example, if one is punishable by death bidei Shamayim but righteous descendants are destined to come from him, then HaShem may alter the punishment so as not to prevent their coming into existence. Since Moshe was using this form of punishment he had to take into consideration such factors as the future offspring of the Egyptian.

This explanation brings to light the difference between Heavenly retribution and human punishment. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l discusses this concept at length. He quotes the verse in Tehillim: “The judgments of HaShem are true, they are correct together.” What does it mean that they are correct together? He explains that when human courts mete out punishments they only take into the account the sinner, but ignore his family and friends. This is unavoidable, since a human judge cannot begin to be able to take such factors into account. However, HaShem, in His Infinite wisdom knows exactly how the punishment will affect everyone involved, and passes judgment accordingly. Thus, His judgments are;”correct together” in that they take into account all the people together who stand to be effected by the punishment. In this vein, Rav Shmuelevitz discusses a number of examples in Tanach and in Chazal, where one’s wife is punished because of the sin of the husband. This does not seem fair, but he explains that the one who suffers is certainly being punished for a previous transgression. However, up to this point, HaShem spared her because her husband did not deserve to endure the pain of losing her. Yet, once he sins and is not worthy of this special treatment, then she is no longer protected from her transgression.

We have seen from the Maharil Diskin’s explanation of Moshe’s punishment of the Egyptian, and Rav Shmuelevitz’ discussion of HaShem’s justice, that it is perfectly measured for all the people connected to the person being punished. One key lesson that can be learned from this principle is that tragedies or challenges are not only for the sake of the person most directly involved: Many people understand that when some type of challenge happens to them, that HaShem is somehow communicating with them and they react by trying to improve their deeds. However, the same attitude should be applied when suffering does not inflict the person himself, rather his family or friends, or members of his community. The closer the person is to the one in pain, the more powerful the communication from HaShem. Therefore, it is essential that the person try to view his family member or friend’s suffering as HaShem communicating with him. In this vein, Rav Yissachar Frand shlita, says that when tragedies afflict a community, it is insufficient to merely recite a chapter of Tehillim but otherwise continue our life as if nothing changed. Rather, we should undergo serious contemplation of why this event took place, and how HaShem wants us to grow from it. It is often impossible to exactly know what HaShem is telling us, however, the main point is that we see this as HaShem directly communicating to us and we try to change our ways in some form.

RESPONDING TO DIVINE PROVIDENCE - SHEMOS

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:46:00 +0000

After enslaving the Jewish people, Pharaoh was informed by his astrologers that a baby boy was destined to be born who would redeem Klal Yisroel from their terrible galus (exile). Pharaoh responded with great efforts to prevent this prediction from being fulfilled, including his order that every baby boy born should be thrown into the Nile. The Steipler Gaon zt”l notes the irony of the events that followed Pharaoh’s decree. When Moshe Rabbeinu was born, the Mitzrim seeked to throw him into the Nile, as a result Yocheved placed Moshe in a basket and left him to drift down the river to an unknown fate. His salvation came from none other than Basya the daughter of Pharaoh who drew him out of the water. The young Moshe was then brought up in Pharaoh’s palace by Pharaoh himself. All of Pharaoh’s efforts to alter events failed, but what is more remarkable is that Moshe’s salvation came about because of the very decree to kill the boys! As a result of that decree, Moshe was placed in the Nile and saved by Pharaoh’s daughter! The Steipler Gaon teaches us that from here we learn that if Hashem desires that a certain event take place then it is impossible to change His plans despite the greatest possible efforts . A person may make great hishtadlus (effort) in a specific venture and do well, but the Steipler asserts that he succeeds only because the Hashgacha decrees it. If he were not intended to succeed then no effort could change that reality.

This fundamental lesson assumes great relevance in the financial crisis that is gravely effecting people’s lives throughout the world. Many people who have invested incredible amounts of time and energy into earning a livelihood have suddenly been placed in a very precarious financial situation. How should a person react to this difficult challenge? The Steipler‘s idea can help us answer this question.

The Steipler cites the Chazal that tells us that a person’s year is decreed on Rosh HaShana. Accordingly, there is no amount of hishtadlus in the physical realm that can change the hashgacha decreed upon a person. A natural reaction for one who has suddenly lost a significant amount of money is to strive to find new ways of earning money. This is understandable, however it is important to realize that excessive hishdtadlus will not lead him to earn more money. How can he know how much hishtadlus is appropriate? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita suggests that whatever is considered within the realm of ’normal’ hishtadlus is acceptable, however one should be careful not to go beyond that boundary. Devoting vast amounts of time and energy to earning money to the exclusion of everything else is considered unnecessary hishtadlus and will not produce any fruits. Thus, one lesson derived from the Steipler is that if Hashem decrees a specific event then there is no way to change that decree through physical hishtadlus.

An amusing example of this phenomenon is told over in the name of the Ben Ish Chai zt”l. It is the story of a man who had incredible success in all his business ventures. This man earned so much money that he became deathly afraid of ayin hara that would arouse from the jealousy of others. Consequently, he strived to lose all his money in disastrous business ventures. To his distress, his efforts proved fruitless and all his wild ventures succeeded! He went to a Rav to share his dilemma. The Rav told him that he should stop trying to lose his money because if Hashem decreed that he be wealthy then there is no way that he can change that decree. We see from here that both success and failure in gashmius are completely beyond our control .

There is, however, one way of changing the decree of Rosh HaShana; The Steipler explains that efforts in the spiritual realm can change the decree. The Gemara tells us that tefilla can change a gezar din. It further states that doing teshuva can make the decree pan out in a way that reduces the damage of a negative decree. For example, if a small amount of rain was decreed for the year because of one’s sins, a person’s teshuva can make that rain fall in a propitious fashion. Similarly, it would seem that if a person is decreed a certain amount of money based on his spiritual level at Rosh HaShana, his subsequent teshuva could make it so that that money arrive in a more beneficial fashion and suffice to provide for his needs .

Whilst growing spiritually can help one’s financial situation, it is important to remember that the main benefit of such growth is that it brings a person closer to Hashem. Very often, a loss of money can provide a person with an opportunity to focus more on the spiritual realm. For example, if one’s business suffers to the extent that he has less work, he can react in one of two ways: He can either work harder in a vain attempt to stem the downturn, or he can accept the decline in his wealth and use the opportunity to learn more Torah or be more involved in other spiritual pursuits such as chesed. A striking example of this phenomenon is the story of the beginning of the great Soloveitchik dynasty of talmidei chachamim.

In the time of Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, lived a wealthy, G-d fearing man, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik. He had inherited his wealth from his parents. Since he owned great hardwood forests he went into the lumber business, cutting his trees and selling the wood for a good profit. Because of his busy work schedule, he was not known as a talmid chacham, but he was very generous with his great wealth, giving liberally to tzedoko. Yet the day came when he suddenly lost all his money, leaving him penniless. Everyone who knew him was left wondering how such a great philanthropist could suffer such a terrible fate. Rav Chaim of Volozhin convened a special Beis Din to delve into this question. They examined his account books exhaustively but found nothing amiss. Unable to point to any other cause for his economic collapse, they concluded that he must have transgressed the prohibition of giving more than a fifth of one’s fortune to tzedoko . They reported their conclusion to Rav Chaim, but he rejected their findings. He could not accept that for such a transgression Reb Moshe should be punished so badly, and thus the matter was left unresolved.

In the meantime, now that Reb Moshe had no business to attend to, he turned to the Beis HaMedrash and embarked on a vigorous course of study. Little by little, hidden talents revealed themselves until it became clear that he excelled in Torah study. He advanced steadily, until before long he was counted among the most learned in his town, and he eventually attained the position of Av Beis Din of Kovno. He also encouraged his sons to follow in his footsteps, and they too, took up the challenge and became famous talmidei chachamim. Now, Rav Chaim understood why Reb Moshe lost his fortune so quickly. For his great acts of tzedoko he deserved a tremendous reward; to begin a dynasty of Talmidei Chachamim. Since is very difficult for greatness in Torah to rise from a wealthy house, his wealth was taken away, in order to release himself from worldly involvement and allow him to learn Torah, setting the path for generations of outstanding scholars .

It is very difficult when a person experiences Hashgacha that seems to make his life more difficult, however every challenge is an opportunity to change our life direction. Loss of money may trigger a person to put more effort in this worldly activities, but this is a great shame. We learn from Pharaoh’s fruitless efforts to change a heavenly decree that no amount of physical hishtadlus can change Hashgacha. The only fruitful reaction is to use the extra time gained by less work in to be more involved in ruchnius. May we all merit to respond to Hashem’s decrees in the desired manner.

ACHIEVING SHLEIMUS - VAYECHI

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:35:00 +0000

Sefer Bereishis culminates with the eternal brachos that Yaakov Avinu bestowed on his sons. Each son received a unique bracho which catered exactly to his talents and needs. At the end of the brachos the Torah states that Yaakov blessed them again. What was this new bracho? Rashi explains that with this final bracho Yaakov included every son in each other’s bracho so that, for example Yehuda was blessed with the strength of a lion, but with this final bracho, all the brothers also received this mida of gevura . Rashi’s pshat, however, raises a new problem - if every brother was blessed with what every other brother received in his own personal blessing, then what was the significance of blessing them individually at all?!
The Maharal answers that Yaakov’s final bracho did not make them equal in every area - each one was strongest in the area that he was blessed in - this final bracho gave all of them an aspect of each other’s brachos. Yehuda, for example, was blessed with a higher level of gevura than his brothers however this final bracho gave each of other brothers a certain element of that mida of gevura .

Why did each brother need a certain degree of each bracho? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that a person can specialize in a certain area, however, he must also have some propensity in the other areas. This concept applies in numerous areas, including one’s role in life, midos, and limud haTorah: With regard to one’s role in life there are many roles that each of us must play in our lives - we must be fathers or mothers, husbands or wives, friends, children, teachers, colleagues and so on. A person may wish to pay particular attention on one area such as chinuch - this is a great thing - however he must not overly focus on that area to the exclusion of everything else. It is vital that a person spend time devoting himself to being a good father, however if this is all he does all day then his other roles in life will invariably suffer. We must know how to make a balance between working, spending time with our wives and children, learning Torah, doing chesed and all the other functions that an observant Jew must fulfill. A good indication that one is over-emphasizing one area is that the other areas are suffering, so for example, a person may be spending plenty of time with his family but if he is not able to be kovaya itim in Torah then something is amiss.

This necessity for shleimus also applies in the sphere of midos. For example, most of us have a natural tendency towards chesed or din and we tend to focus the majority of our time and energy on that mida. For example, a natural baal chesed is more likely to emphasize helping others over working on self-discipline. It is natural and correct for a person to focus on his strengths however it seems that a great deal of one’s reward for growth comes in areas that do not come naturally to him. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsy Zt”l notes that the Avos faced their greatest tests in areas that were the opposite of their natural midos. Avraham Avinu, the consummate baal chesed, faced the incredible nisayon in the Akeida, where he had to be covesh his great sense of rachamim and be prepared to kill his son. Yaakov Avinu’s greatest challenges required him to trick reshaim using the mida of sheker, the antithesis of his mida of emes .

The necessity of developing a balance in one’s life is very apparent in the area of limud haTorah. Firstly, the Mishna in Avos says, “If there is no Torah, then there can be no derech eretz, and if there is no derech eretz, then there can be no Torah. ” The Rambam comments that both aspects mashlim the other - one cannot overly focus on learning Torah without any emphasis on tikun hamidos and likewise, one cannot develop one’s midos without learning Torah. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was once asked why he encouraged his talmidim to spend so much time on mussar, consequently sacrificing a higher level of greatness in Torah. He answered by discussing a question in hilchos brachos - if a person has in front of him a shalem piece of food and a larger piece of the same food which is not shalem then it is a question of Gadol versus Shalem - which should a person bless on? The halacho is that one must bless on the shalem even thought it is smaller than the gadol. So too, a person who learns Torah but also works on their midos (a ‘Shalem‘) is on a higher level than someone who is more learned but has a less refined character (a ‘Gadol‘).

This concept also applies within learning Torah with regard to how much emphasis and time we spend in the different areas of Torah learning. It is normal that a person has a preference for one specific type of learning and wants to spend the majority of his time on that area, such as Gemara. However, if he does not devote any time to halacho, for example, then he will not be able to observe the mitzvos properly. Similarly, my Rebbe notes that a person may learn Chumash when he is a young child and never again give it any significant time beyond speeding through Shtayim Mikra v’echad targum. The consequence of this is that a ben Torah who learns Gemara in great depth may have little more than a child’s understanding of the maasim in Chumash! Rav Kamenetsy was once in a forum encouraging avreichim to spend some time teaching unaffiliated Jews. To one avreich who was concerned about the bitul Torah involved in teaching, he answered, “And if you have to learn a little Chumash and Nachi it won’t be such a terrible thing. ”

We learn many lessons from the specific blessings that Yaakov Avinu bestowed on his sons. They also teach us that whilst a person may specialize in a particular sphere, he nevertheless has an obligation to be shalem in all the areas. This is a demanding task, but Yaakov blessed all of Klal Yisroel with the potential to achieve it. May we all reach true shleimus.

THE ROOT OF SIN - VAYECHI

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:32:00 +0000

“Reuven, you are my first-born, my strength and my initial vigor, foremost in rank and foremost in power. Water-like impetuosity - you cannot be foremost, because you mounted your father’s bed; then you desecrated Him who ascended my couch. ”

Sefer Bereishis ends with Yaakov Avinu’s blessings to his sons, however some of these ‘blessings’ consist of harsh rebuke. This is the case with Yaakov’s first-born, Reuven - Yaakov reproves him for his mida of impetuosity that led to his disturbing Yaakov’s bed . The commentaries explain that as the eldest son, Reuven should have received the special privileges of the Kingship, Priesthood and the double portion of the first-born. However, because of his impulsive behavior Yaakov stripped him of all three privileges. Reuven’s severe punishment seems difficult to understand; Chazal greatly praise Reuven for doing teshuva for his aveiro . Indeed, Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev notes that Reuven was not present during the actual seeling of Yosef because he was in isolation wearing sackcloth and fasting for disturbing his father’s bed - this was several years after the incident took place and Reuven was continually repenting for what he had done. Given Reuven’s sincere teshuva, why did Yaakov not accept that he regretted what he had done and that the effects of the sin were wiped away ?!

It seems that the key to answering this question is a Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva. After discussing in great depth how one must repent for his aveiros, the Rambam adds that there is another essential aspect of teshuva. He writes: “And do not say that there is only teshuva for sins that have an action such as immorality, stealing, and theft. Just as one must repent from these, so too he must search for his bad character traits and repent from them; from anger, from hatred, from jealousy… And these sins are harder than those that have an action to them, because when a person is engulfed in them it is hard for him to refrain [from them]. ”

We learn from this Rambam that in addition to repenting for one’s destructive actions, one has to do teshuva for his negative middos (character trait). Moreover, he points out that it is more difficult to repent from bad middos than bad actions. The Vilna Gaon points out that every sin comes about as a result of a bad midda , thus when a person sins, he simultaneously displays a bad character trait. Accordingly, every sin requires two levels of teshuva - one for the action, and one for the midda that was at the root of the sin. It seems that Reuven had effectively repented for the maaseh aveiro (the action of the sin) however he was unable to completely erase the negative character trait that caused him to sin. This answer is supported by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz’ explanation of Yaakov’s rebuke of Reuven. Based on Rashi’s commentary he points out that Yaakov was specifically criticizing on the midda of rashness that caused Reuven to disturb Yaakov’s bed rather than the sin itself. It was this rashness that rendered Reuven unfit for the Kingship and Priesthood .

Rav Shmuelevitz gives a further example of a great person repenting for his actual sin but not the midda embodied by the action: Shaul HaMelech lost the Kingship because he failed to observe Hashem’s command to wipe out all of Amalek. Shmuel HaNavi criticized him for being influenced by the people’s entreaties to have mercy on Amalek - it showed that he possessed a misplaced humility which meant that he was not strong enough to follow his own convictions. However, after Shmuel’s lengthy rebuke of Shaul, the King did admit his mistake and repent. Why, then was he stripped of his Kingship? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that he only did teshuva for his actual sin, but he did not eradicate the midda of misplaced humility from his character. This midda prevented him from being an effective King.

The examples of Reuven and Shaul are highly relevant to our lives. It is highly praiseworthy for a person to genuinely strive to repent from his aveiros, nonetheless if he does not locate the midda that lies at the source of these aveiros then he will be unable to prevent himself from stumbling in the future. The rebuke of Reuven teaches us further that failure to improve one’s middos has another very serious consequence for his spiritual success. Reuven was destined for greatness - he was supposed to represent the Kingship and Priesthood in Klal Yisroel, however his midda of impetuosity prevented him from fulfilling his true potential in these areas. We learn from here that negative middos do not only cause us to sin, but they prevent us from attaining greatness.

Undertaking the difficult task of fixing one’s character traits requires much thought and discussion but the first phase for each person is to gain a recognition of which midda is holding him back. There may be more than one negative trait that harms him, but very often there is one ikar midda which is at the root of much of his negative behavior and is the key factor that holds him back from fulfilling his true potential. Possible ways to help locate and understand this destructive midda include speaking with one’s Rabbi or friends and learning Mussar Sefarim that discuss the various middos. Once a person develops a deeper understanding of himself he can now begin the daunting task of genuinely improving himself.
m gg Elul is normally the time when discussion of teshuva and tikun hamiddos is most prevalent, however if one only works on himself for one month a year then he will never truly improve himself. The only way of avoiding sin and removing the obstacles that hold one back is to constantly work on improving himself in a genuine, deep way. May we all merit to be truly better people.

SURPASSING OUR POTENTIAL - VAYECHI

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:29:00 +0000

In Parshas Vayechi, Yaakov Avinu elevates his two grandsons, Ephraim and Menashe, to the status of Shevatim (tribes). In the course of the process he bestowed on them a blessing that has become the standard blessing by which we bless our sons to this very day. “So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you shall Israel bless, saying; ‘May G-d make you like Ephraim and like Menashe.” The commentaries ask, why did Yaakov instruct the Jewish people to bless our sons to be like Ephraim and Menashe more than anyone else. This question is strengthened by the fact that we bless our daughters to be like the Imahos (Matriarchs). That being the case, it would seem most logical to bless our sons to be like the Avos (Patriarchs).
One of the answers given is that Ephraim and Menashe achieved more than their potential; up to this point, only the sons of Yaakov Avinu merited to be considered among the twelve Tribes. Ephraim and Menashe were not sons of Yaakov, and therefore were not destined to be one of the Tribes. However, because of their greatness , Yaakov elevated them to the status of Shevatim. In this way, they achieved the incredible accomplishment of reaching beyond their potential. Accordingly, we bless our children to emulate Ephraim and Menashe, in that we aspire for them to reach beyond their potential.

The Targum Yonasan writes that Yaakov was saying that one should bless their son to be like Ephraim and Menashe, at the bris mila in particular. It seems that this interpretation fits with the idea that we want our son to emulate Ephraim and Menashe in the area of becoming great. We see this in the prayer that we say at the bris; ‘may this kattan become a gadol’. This doesn’t mean that we want this small boy to grow up into a large man. Rather, ‘gadlus’ in this context refers to spiritual greatness. We bless our child to become truly great, as did Ephraim and Menashe.

This idea teaches a person that he should aspire to surpass his own potential, but it also educates a parent as to his aspirations for his children. He should not suffice in bringing up his child to be an ‘ordinary’ Jew, rather he should aim to facilitate that his child become ‘great’. Moreover, it is insufficient that a parent merely ‘want’ that his child become great, rather he should try to actively facilitate his child’s path to greatness in how he raises him. Rav Yaakov Kamentsky zt”l expresses this idea based on a lesson in Parshas Shemos. When Moshe Rabbeinu as a baby was picked out of the water by Basya, the daughter of Pharaoh, she tried to have the Egyptian women nurse him, but he refused to drink their milk. Rashi explains that this was because, in the future, Moshe “would speak with the shechina”.

Rashi’s explanation has an application in Jewish law. The Rema states that one should not feed a baby with milk from a non-Jewish woman, if possible. The Vilna Gaon comments that the source of the Rema is the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu would not drink from the milk of the Egyptian women. Rav Kamenetsky asks how we can apply Moshe’s case to that of every child. In the case of Moshe, the reason why he wouldn’t drink from their milk was because he would, in the future speak with the Divine Presence, however, that reason is inapplicable to everyone else. He answers, that we learn from here that we must bring up our children as if they could possibly reach the level where they will speak to the Divine Presence. Accordingly, we must raise them in such a way that is congruent with them becoming great people.

Rav Kamenetsky applies this explanation to how careful we should be to bring up our children in the most holy and pure fashion, free from negative influences. This is a most pertinent lesson in today’s environment. A parent may feel that there is little harm in exposing his child to all types of modern technology that infiltrates into every part of daily living. However, such exposure can very easily involve his child being exposed to influences and visions that are not conducive to a person achieving spiritual greatness. Thus, even if they don’t spiritually destroy a child (which they often do), then they will surely hinder him from achieving his true potential, and certainly from overtaking his potential as did Ephraim and Menashe.
We learn from Yaakov’s blessing to his grandsons, that every parent should aspire for his children to reach and even surpass their potential. This aspiration should manifest itself in actions as well as attitude. May we all merit to surpass our own potential and bring up children to exceed all our expectations.

THE FESTIVAL OF HIDUR - CHANUKAH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:19:00 +0000

The gemara in Shabbos tells us that the reason the festival of Chanukah was fixed as a permanent festival was because of the miracle of the single flask of oil lasting 8 days. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l points out that the miracles that enabled the Hasmoneans to overcome the mighty Greek army seem to have been of far more importance than the miracle of the oil. The military victory facilitated the removal of Greek hegemony and the freedom to observe the Torah. The miracle of the oil played no part in this victory, rather it enabled the Menorah to be lit for an extra seven days. Rav Shmuelevitz asks that it would have seemed more understandable to establish the festival of Chanukah because of the military victory rather than that of the oil.

He explains that there are two reasons why Hashem may perform a miracle. One is when there is an absolute necessity for the miracle to take place. For example, the miracle of the manna in the desert was of the utmost necessity in enabling the people to eat whilst living in the desert. However, there are other miracles that are not particularly essential, rather their main function is to show Hashem's particular love for the recipient of the miracle. He proceeds to give a number of examples of such miracles in Tanach.

He cites the incident in which David Hamelech slew Goliath. The Prophet tells us that when Goliath was struck by the stone, he should have fallen backwards, but he unnaturally fell forward. Rashi, quoting a Medrash, explains that Hashem caused a 'miracle' that Goliath would fall forward so as to save David having to walk an extra few meters to cut off Goliath's head. This is clearly a miracle that was not of the utmost necessity, however Hashem performed it to show His love for David.

The Ohr HaChaim points out another, remarkable example of a miracle of 'love'. In Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem instructs Avraham: "Please raise your eyes and see from the place where you are standing, north, south, east and west." Hashem was showing Avraham the land of Israel and promising him that his descendants would own this land for eternity. The Ohr HaChaim notes the seemingly superfluous words, "from where you are standing" - what is this ostensibly obvious phrase coming to add? He explains that Hashem made a tremendous miracle whereby Avraham could see the whole of the land of Israel from all directions from the exact place that he was standing, without even having to turn his body!

Rav Shmuelevitz observes that both of these miracles were of minor importance. Their main significance was as expressions of Hashem's infinite love for those who served Him with such dedication. Indeed, the lesser the necessity of the miracle, the greater the show of love it expressed. He gives an analogy to help further understand this idea. A family loses a very expensive diamond, which was an inheritance from many generations earlier. All the family feels great pain at this loss and search extensively to find the diamond. Eventually, one of the children finds the diamond. In his great joy, his father kisses his son on his head. All the family feel great at finding the diamond, but the boy has the extra joy of the kiss from his father.

In this vein, we can now understand the significance of the miracle of the oil. Of course the miracles of the military victory were essential and the miracle of the oil was of far lesser necessity. However, because of this, it represented a far greater show of love from Hashem. It was an extra show of affection that demonstrated Hashem's love for the Hasmoneans, Hashem's 'kiss on the head'.

The question remains, of why, at this particular instance, did Hashem choose to alter nature for the miracle of the oil? It is clear from the above examples that Hashem only performs 'unnecessary' miracles for people of great righteousness such as Avraham Avinu and David HaMelech. Why did the Hasmoneans merit to experience such a miracle?

It seems that Hashem performed this 'extra' act of love, measure for measure for the actions of the Hasmonean when they returned to the Beis HaMikdosh and found only one flask of pure oil. The commentaries explain that it was technically permissible to have used the impure oil in this situation. Yet they chose to be mehader and perform the mitzvo in the most optimal fashion as a sign of their great love for Hashem. Because they were willing to go beyond the letter of the law, in reward, Hashem also went 'beyond the letter of the law' so-to-speak, and performed a non-vital miracle as a sign of His love for them. This also explains the unique feature of the mitzvo of lighting the Menorah - the concepts of Mehadrin and Mehadrin Min haMehadrin. It is a universal custom that everyone strives to perform the mitzvo to its most optimal fashion, despite the fact that the basic mitzvo is only one candle per person per day. We perform the mitzvo with the maximum hidur both as a remembrance of the Hasmonean's hidurim, and of Hashem's hidur of performing the miracle of the oil.

We have learnt that the uniqueness of the miracle of the oil is the mutual show of love between Hashem and the Jewish people. We learn two vital lessons from here. Firstly, we should remember the great love that Hashem showed for His people, and realize that He has the same love for every Jew. Secondly, we learn that we should strive to emulate the Hasmonean's willingness to perform mitzvos in the optimum fashion as a manifestation of our love for Hashem. May we all merit to apply the lessons of Chanakah to our lives.

HALLEL AND HODAAH - CHANUKAH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:17:00 +0000

Every Chanukah we celebrate the remarkable victory of the Jewish people over the mighty Greek army, and the subsequent miracle of the single flask of oil that lasted eight days. We celebrate these events by lighting a Menorah for eight days and by saying the 'Al HaNissim' prayer and Hallel. The Sifsei Chaim notes that there is a lack of clarity as to exactly which aspect of the Chanakah story is the most significant - that of the military victory or that of the oil:

On the one hand, the Al HaNissim tefilla mainly makes mention of the defeat of the Greeks; it stresses the miraculous nature in which Hashem enabled the Hasmoneans to emerge victorious. "And You in your great mercy, stood by them in their time of distress, You defended their cause, You judged their grievances, You avenged their vengeance. You delivered the mighty into the hands of the weak, the many into the hands of the few, the defiled people into the hands of the undefiled, the wicked into the hands of the righteous, and the insolent [sinners] into the hands of the students of Your torah..." A brief reference is made of the fact that the Hashmoneans kindled the lights in the Beis HaMikdosh and no mention at all is made of the actual miracle of the oil lasting eight days!

In contrast, the gemara places a much greater emphasis on the miracle of the oil than the military victory. The gemara asks, "What is Chanukah?" It answers with a braisa that stresses the miracle of the oil and only makes a fleeting reference to the battle. "On the 25th of Kislev, there are eight days of Chanukah on which one may not eulogize or fast. For when the Greeks entered the sanctuary, they defiled all the oils in the sanctuary and when the Kingdom of the Hasmonean became stronger and overcame them, they searched and could only find one flask of oil that had the seal of the Kohen Gadol. It only had [enough oil] to last for one day, but a miracle took place and they lit from it for eight days. The following year, they fixed these days and made them festive days of praise and thanks."

How can we understand the seeming contradiction as to what was the most important miracle in the Chanukah story? In order to answer this, it is necessary to develop our understanding of miracles. It seems that there are two factors that define the significance of a miracle. One is the necessity of the miracle - the greater the urgency of the situation that led to the miracle, the more important the miracle. For example, the miracle of the splitting of the sea is an extremely important miracle in that it saved the Jewish people from a seemingly desperate situation. However, there is another aspect that helps define the significance of a miracle - that is the extent to which the miracle clearly broke the regular laws of nature. We understand that all of nature is, in effect, 'miraculous', in that it is guided by Hashem's hand. 'Nature' is merely Hashem's mechanism for keeping the world going. It takes no effort for Hashem to break these laws of nature, however in His wisdom, He rarely chooses to do so. This is because open miracles take away the free will of a person in that they make it far it more difficult for him to justify his behavior when it is contrary to Hashem's will. Accordingly, on the rare occasions that He does break the laws of nature, there is a powerful effect on the people who witness the miracle, as there is n way for them to ignore the clear act of Divine Providence. Thus, the degree to which a miracle breaks the laws of nature also plays a key role in defining its significance.

It seems that the miracles of the military victory were more important than the miracle of the oil in one of these factors, and the miracle of the oil was more important in the other. In terms of necessity, the miraculous victory over the Greeks was more vital than that of the oil. The Greek decrees against Torah observance were making it impossible for Torah Judaism to continue. Thus, it was essential that the small Jewish army overcome the mighty Greeks. However, the miracles that enabled this victory to take place were not 'open' miracles, in that they did not overturn the regular laws of nature. Accordingly, it would be possible for an onlooker to ascribe the victory to the superior military prowess of the Hasmoneans or to sheer 'good luck'.

In contrast, the miracle of the oil was not of the greatest necessity - without it, the Jewish people would still be free of the Greek yoke. However, the miracle was remarkable in that it represented a clear overturning of the laws of nature. Such a miracle had a particularly powerful effect on the onlookers, in that it made clear Hashem's involvement in an unmistakable fashion.

With this understanding we can now answer why the gemara focuses on the miracle of the oil, whilst the Al HaNissim tefilla emphasizes the victory over the Greeks . When the gemara asked, "What is Chanukah", Rashi explains that it was asking, "for what miracle did they fix Chanukah [as a permanent festival]." The Sifsei Chaim explains that, initially there were numerous events in which miracles took place, and that each one was made into a kind of Yom Tov where it was forbidden to eulogize and fast However, these events became so abundant that the Rabbis cancelled all these days of celebration with two exceptions - Purim and Chanukah. The Sifsei Chaim explains that the miracles that occurred on these days were the ones that most effected the people. In this vein, he writes that the most outstanding miracle on Chanukah was that of the oil, not of the military victory. Thus, when the gemara asked for which miracle did they fix Chanukah, it was asking which miracle was so outstanding that the Rabbis did not annul the festival of Chanukah in the way that they did almost all of the other festivals. Accordingly, the gemara answered by focusing on the miracle of the oils because that was the miracle that broke the laws of nature and therefore had the greatest effect on the people.

However, when we come to show gratitude to Hashem for the miracles of Chanukah, our main focus is on the most vital miracles, which were those that enabled the Jews to defeat the Greeks. The Al HaNissim tefilla is a prayer of thanks, therefore, the main emphasis is on the military victory, because that is the aspect of the Chanukah story that was of the utmost necessity.

The Sifsei Chaim suggests that the two concepts of Hallel and Hodaah correspond to the two different miracles. The Hallel commemorates the miracle of the oil, whilst the hodaah relates to the military victory. It is possible to add that Hallel, (ie.praise) is more apt for the oil because it showed the most outright demonstration of Hashem's involvement with the Jewish people. Whereas, hodaah is more appropriate with regard to the military victory because our greatest sense of appreciation is for the redemption from the Greek exile.

There are numerous lessons that can be learned from the Sifsei Chaim's differentiation between the two types of miracles. One key lesson he mentions is that through contemplating the open miracle of the oil we can come to a great recognition that all the other events of Chanukah, and, by extension, the other events that happen in our lives, were not chance events, but all were guided by Hashem. This increased recognition of Hashem's hand should bring us to a greater appreciation of Him. Moreover, the Alter of Kelm notes that it is not enough to feel gratitude to Hashem, rather one must also use this gratitude to bring him to a greater sense of obligation in his Avodas Hashem.

YOSEF’S GREATNESS - MIKEITZ

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:02:00 +0000

The Parsha begins with the account of Yosef’s dramatic elevation from servitude in the Egyptian dungeons to the position of Viceroy over all of Mitzrayim. During its account of Yosef’s elevation, the Torah tells us that he had two sons: “And he called the name of the first-born Menashe, for ‘Hashem has caused me to forget (nashani) all my hardship and all my father’s household‘. And the name of the second he called Ephraim for, ‘Hashem has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.’ ” The simple understanding of the naming of Menashe is that Yosef was thankful to Hashem for enabling him to forget the great suffering he had endured in his fathers’ home. However, this pshat seems very problematic. It is not difficult to fathom why Yosef was happy to forget the pain he endured at the hands of his brothers, however it is very hard to understand how he could be glad to forget his grieving father . Accordingly, the Malbim suggests a different way to understand the naming of Menashe. He writes that Yosef was not glad to forget his family, in fact the very opposite was the case; he called his first-born Menashe to symbolize that he was worried that he would forget (nashani) all the suffering that he endured at the hands of his family. The second son was named Ephraim to symbolize that he recognized that Hashem had made him fruitful in the land of his suffering with the emphasis on the fact that even in the time of great success he did not forget the great suffering that he had endured in Mitzrayim.

The Malbim explains in this vein that Yosef made simunim for himself through the names that he gave his sons. He further writes that this demonstrates Yosef’s great righteousness in that he strived to remember the suffering that he had endured even in the times of good. He continues: “This is also the explanation of why we are commanded to eat Matzo together with Maror on Seder night; we should remember the Galus in the time of freedom, because the Galus is the reason for the freedom, and the bad brings the good .” However, the Malbim does not explain why exactly the ‘bad’ is the reason for the subsequent ‘good’. Further clarification is required as to why he considers that remembering the bad in the time of good indicates great righteousness.

A solution to these problems can be found in the Sifsei Chaim’s explanation of part of the ‘Al HaNissim’ prayer. In ‘Al HaNissim’ we thank Hashem for enabling us to defeat the Yavanim: “You placed the strong in the hands of the weak; and the many in the hands of the few; and the impure in the hands of the pure; and the evil in the hands of the righteous; and the guilty in the hands of those who toil in Your Torah.” The Sifsei Chaim asks that the first two of these praises do not seem to be parallel with the following three: The implication of the first two is that Hashem enabled the weak to be victorious even though they faced strong enemies; and the few to win even though they were fighting many. In contrast in the remaining praises the implication is that the pure were successful because their enemies were impure; and that the righteous defeated the Greeks because they were evil.

He explains that in truth, all the praises are parallel in that they all explain why the Hashmonaim defeated the Yavanim. When we say that Hashem placed the strong in the hands of the weak and the many in the hands of the few, we mean that He did so because they were weak and few in number they were successful, not despite that fact. The Sifsei Chaim continues that the Hashmonaim felt their physical weakness and lack of numbers and consequently realized that b’derech hateva they had no chance of overcoming the mighty Yavanim. Thus they fought with a strong sense of bitachon, recognizing that they could only succeed with great siata dishmaya. Because they did not rely on their own power, Hashem did indeed help them and caused them to achieve a miraculous victory .

With this explanation we can now understand why the Malbim stated that the suffering one endures is the very reason for the subsequent good that he experiences. When a person finds himself in a situation of difficulty and helplessness it is much easier for him to recognize that he does not have the ability to succeed. As a result of this recognition he turns to HaShem to save him from his desperate situation. Because of this bitachon, Hashem will likely respond by giving of His unlimited kindness to ensure that the person’s situation drastically improves. In this way the ’bad times’ that one endures can be the very cause of the subsequent ‘good times’. This feeling of helplessness was the key to the success of the Hashmonaim.

We can also now come to an understanding why the Malbim writes that remembering one’s earlier periods of suffering in times of tranquility is considered a sign of righteousness. When a person has everything that he needs he is far more prone to feelings of confidence in his own power and ability to succeed. He may no longer see the need to rely on Hashem, rather he will feel self-reliant. We see this in the second paragraph of Krias Shema: The Torah promises that if we observe the Mitzvos then we will receive abundance. Immediately following this, the Torah warns us about turning away from Hashem - this teaches that the very success that Hashem gives us may be the cause of us turning away from Him. An unfortunate consequence of this attitude of not relying on Hashem may be that Hashem will act measure for measure and desist from giving a person siata dishmaya and as a result he will be at the mercy of derech hateva.

A tzaddik, even in times of abundance, maintains the realization that everything he has is from Hashem and that his only source of success is Hashem’s continuing siata dishmaya. The greatness of Yosef was that even when he found himself in a position of great power, he never allowed himself to forget his previous situation of total helplessness. He strived to maintain the recognition that just as then he was in the hands of Hashem, in the same way he was still totally dependent on Hashem’s beneficence for his success. By feeling the same helplessness in the good times as he felt in the bad, Yosef merited continued siata dishmaya. It is far easier to feel the need to turn to Hashem in times of difficulty We learn from Yosef that even in time of plenty we must remember the more difficult periods of our life to remind us that even now we are totally reliant upon Hashem in every aspect of our lives. By maintaining this recognition at all times we are far more likely to merit that Hashem will continue to protect us at all times.

YOSEF’S STRENGTH - MIKEITZ

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:45:00 +0000

Parshas Mikeitz continues the account of Yosef’s remarkable tenure in Mitzrayim; it relates to how he endured terrible suffering, and yet emerged as the Viceroy of Mitzrayim. Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l speaks in depth about Yosef’s unique role in the development of The Jewish nation. It is instructive to analyze Yosef’s contribution and how it was played out by his actions in Parshas Mikeitz.
Rav Hutner notes that whilst Yosef was one of the twelve Tribes, he also seems to play a more significant role than his brothers in the development of Klal Yisroel (the Jewish nation). For example, each brother was represented by one tribe, whereas Yosef, through his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe was represented by two tribes. Rav Hutner also notes a unique fact about Yosef – his death is mentioned twice; once at the end of Sefer Bereishis , and once in the beginning of Parshas Shemos . In contrast, the deaths of all the other brothers are only mentioned in Shemos. How do we understand the nature of Yosef’s role?

Rav Hutner explains that Yosef is somewhere in between the Avos (Patriarchs) and the Shevatim (tribes). In a certain sense he is close to being an Av, but in other aspects he is like one of the Shevatim. Rav Hutner explains that the status of ‘Av’ is ascribed to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, because each played a defining role in creating the concept of Klal Yisroel, and ensuring that it would last permanently: Avraham was the first ‘convert’ and he thereby created the very existence of a ‘Jew’ as someone who follows the will of HaShem. Yitzchak was the first to be holy from birth, thus providing the Jewish nation with a level of purity and holiness that it would need to last. However, Avraham and Yitzchak’s contributions do not necessarily ensure that the Jewish nation will endure because they both had children who are not considered to be part of the Jewish nation. Thus, it would still be possible for their descendants to be unworthy of being part of Klal Yisroel. Yaakov was the first of whom all his children remained part of the new Jewish nation. In doing this, he created the concept that someone born of a Jewish woman will always be a Jew, regardless of his actions.

However, Rav Hutner points out, that Yaakov’s role of ensuring Jewish continuity is still incomplete, due to the halacha (law) that the child of a non-Jewish woman is a non-Jew, even if the father is Jewish. Because of this halacha, the permanence of Klal Yisroel is still not ensured. It is in this area that Yosef plays a defining role. He, unlike his brothers, was alone in an alien atmosphere and subjected to great temptations, particularly the nisayon (test) involving Potiphar’s wife. Through his ability to withstand such challenges, and to maintain his identity as a ‘Jew’, he infused into all future generations the ability to withstand the future challenges of the exiles in which Jews will be under great pressure to assimilate with the other nations. In this way, Yosef’s contribution acts as a completion of Yaakov’s role in ensuring Jewish continuity. Yaakov created the concept that a person born from a Jewish woman is always a Jew, but Yosef ensured that he have the fortitude to refrain from intermarriage.

With this understanding, we can explain why Yosef’s death is mentioned both at the end of Sefer Bereishis, and at the beginning of Sefer Shemos. The Ramban writes that Sefer Bereishis is the book of the Patriarchs, and Shemos is the book of the ‘children’. The deaths of all of Yaakov’s sons, with the exception of Yosef, are only mentioned in Shemos because that is the book of the children. Yosef is also partly considered one of the tribes therefore his death is also mentioned in Shemos. However, he also plays a role as a kind of half-Patriarch, through is completion of Yaakov’s role. Accordingly, his death is also discussed in Bereishis. Similarly, he merits having two tribes descend from him, because he is something more than a regular tribe. The question remains, how was Yosef able to withstand the great tests of being surrounded by an atmosphere that made it so difficult to maintain one’s allegiance to HaShem. Not only did Yosef succeed in remaining strong himself, but he was also able to bring up children in Mitzrayim who would continue the tradition of the Avos.

In these Parshios, we see a number of examples of Yosef’s behavior that can help explain his remarkable adherence to HaShem. At the beginning of Parshas Mikeitz, Yosef was suddenly taken out of prison and placed in front of Pharaoh, the most powerful man in the world. Pharaoh asked him to interpret his dreams. Even before Pharaoh related the contents of the dreams, Yosef boldly asserted; “This is beyond me, it is HaShem who will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare. ” Every year we read this passuk and give it little thought, but with some reflection we can begin to fathom how incredible Yosef’s words are; he had been imprisoned in a hell-hole for 12 years and was finally given a golden opportunity to attain freedom, if only he could appease Pharaoh, he can have a new start in life. He knew that Pharaoh did not believe in the Jewish G-d, indeed he believed that he himself was a god, and his arrogance was unmatched: What would a person say in such circumstances? Yosef would have been justified in thinking that now was not the right time to attribute everything to G-d and that he would surely be justified in selling himself and his talents as much as possible. Yet Yosef did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable lesson in how to act in an alien environment, a test that all the generations of galus (exile) had to face. One could try to hide his Judaism from the non-Jews, in an effort to hide the differences between them. Sadly, history has proven that this approach generally resulted in assimilation. By removing the barriers between Jews and non-Jews, one opens the way for the loss of his Jewish identity. However, Yosef’s confidence in asserting his beliefs proved to be one of the reasons why he and many in the future generations, were also able to withstand assimilation throughout the long Galus.

After Yosef became Viceroy, he had two sons; he names the second son, Ephraim, “because My G-d made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.” Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita, explains that Yosef was calling Mitzrayim “the land of my suffering” even at his present time of being the Viceroy. Thus, whilst he acknowledged that he had become fruitful in Mitzrayim, nonetheless, it remained as the ‘land of his suffering’. In this way, Yosef avoided the trap of feeling comfortable and at home in Mitzrayim, despite his great success. This provides another reason why Yosef was able to remain steadfast in his adherence to Torah values whilst being surrounded by alien influences. History has proven on many occasions, that once a Jew becomes overly comfortable in galus, then he is far more likely to assimilate into the nation that he lives in. This was the case in Germany when the early Reform Jews called Berlin, ‘the New Jeruslaem”; it also proved to be the case in America, of which numerous Jews saw as the land of opportunity. Sadly, in their efforts to succeed as Americans, untold thousands were lost to the Jewish people forever.

We have seen how Yosef exemplified the ability to maintain his values and identity, in the midst of an atmosphere that was foreign to everything he stood for. In doing, this, he infused the Jewish people with the ability to follow in his footsteps and reject assimilation throughout the long Galus. It is no co-incidence that Psrshas Mikeitz always falls on Chanukah – the lessons of the Parsha relate to Chanukah. In this instance, the connection is clear; the Greek exile was the first in which the disease of assimilation posed a major threat to Jewish continuity. Throughout the previous exiles and suffering, the Jews maintained their sense of identity. However, the Greeks were the first nation to offer a genuinely enticing ideology. Sadly, a significant number of Jews failed to learn from Yosef, and gladly tried to remove all vestiges of their Judaism – they even tried to undo their circumcisions! However, the Hashmonaim and many Jews with them, resisted the attraction of the Greek way of life, and risked their lives to maintain their Jewish identity. Like Yosef’s strength in Mitzrayim, the spiritual victory over the Greeks and the Mityavnim can continue to give us guidance and inspiration to withstand the challenges of Galus to this day.

SERVING MAN OR G-D - MIKEITZ

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:43:00 +0000

The parsha begins with Yosef’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams and his subsequent rise to power in Mitzrayim. On close analysis of the dialogue between Pharaoh and Yosef we can discern fundamental differences in their hashkafas hachaim. Pharaoh was an idol worshipper and in particular he, like all Mitzrim, worshipped the River Nile, their most vital source of sustenance. In describing his dream, Pharaoh says that he was “standing over the River. ” The simple understanding of this passuk is that it is telling us Pharaoh’s physical location with regard to the Nile. However, the Medrash says that it also teaches us about his attitude to his god - the passuk stresses that he was standing over the Nile in a position of superiority, this does not seem to be a respectful way in which to relate to ones god. It symbolizes that Pharaoh’s worship of the Nile was not for the benefit of the Nile, it was for his own gain - he needed the Nile so he appeased it with worship, but ultimately the Nile was serving him, not the other way around. The Mitzrim’s attitude towards their god is even more starkly demonstrated by the behavior of the Pharaoh that lived in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. He used to go out to the river in the early morning in order to fulfill his bodily functions in it , hardly a great show of respect for one’s god! Chazal go even further and say that he believed that he actually created the Nile ! These sources indicate that the Mitzrims’ avoda of their gods stemmed from a desire to get what they needed from them - the Nile was ultimately there to serve them.

Pharaoh’s attitude stands in stark contrast to Yosef Hatzadik. He demonstrates tremendous subservience to Hashem in his response to Pharaoh’s request to interpret the dreams. His first words to Pharaoh are, “this is beyond me, it is Hashem who will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare. ” Every year we read this passuk and give it little thought, but with some reflection we can begin to fathom how incredible Yosef’s words are; he has been imprisoned in a hell-hole for 12 years and is finally given a golden opportunity to attain freedom. If only he can appease Pharaoh he can have a new start in life. He knew that Pharaoh did not believe in the Jewish G-d, he believed that he himself was a god and that his arrogance was unmatched: What would a person say in such circumstances? Yosef would have been justified in thinking that now was not the right time to attribute everything to G-d and that he would surely be justified in selling himself and his talents as much as possible. Yet Yosef did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable display of subservience and bittul atsmo, which stands in stark contrast to the arrogance of Pharaoh with regard to his god. Yosef’s mida of subservience to G-d was inherited from Avraham Avinu. Whilst Pharaoh stood over his god, Hashem says to Avraham, “Go before me. ” The emphasis here is that Avraham placed himself under G-d, not standing over Him. This symbolizes that Avraham was not serving G-d because of a selfish desire to attain what he wanted, rather he nullified his own desires and only wanted to fulfill Ratson Hashem. Consequently, he followed Hashem’s instructions even when he did not understand them, to the extent that when he was commanded to kill his son, he did not hesitate to do so.

This dichotomy of hashkafos is also a strong feature of the clash between the world views of Klal Yisroel and the Greek Empire. The Greeks worshipped many gods but idol-worship was not the central focus of Greek ideology. They most emphasized the concept of the perfection of mankind - they believed in a man-centered universe in which the purpose of the gods was to serve the desires of man. Many Greeks, including Aristotle, propounded the belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe, a reflection of the superiority of mankind. They emphasized the beauty of the human body and the domination of human reason over any other form of wisdom. This philosophy stood at clear loggerheads with Torah - they saw Judaism as the antithesis of their cherished beliefs, because it above all stressed man’s subservience to G-d and his imperfection. This understanding helps us appreciate why they forbade the Jewish people from observing Bris Mila and learning Torah: Bris mila is a reflection of the belief that man’s physicality is not perfect and needs to be harnessed; The Greeks believed that man was created whole and cannot be improved - to cut away part of his body was in their eyes a highly destructive act. Talmud Torah involves man trying to train his mind to understand how G-d looks at the world and to learn to look at the world in the same way. The Greeks in contrast believed that man’s reason alone was the ultimate source of wisdom and that he should not subjugate it to anything else.

The battle of Chanukah was the clash between two ideologies - one placed G-d in the centre and the other put man there. Baruch Hashem we won that war but the same war is being fought again in this generation. The Western world is greatly influenced by the ‘Enlightenment’: In the 17th and 18th centuries there was a very strong reaction against the domination of Christianity; one of the main aspects of this revolution was a rejection of the concepts such as faith and belief which the Christians had distorted. The reaction was a rediscovery and glorification of Greek values, chief amongst them, the primacy of man and his ability to understand everything. The legacy of the Enlightenment today is the prevalent arrogance of man; this includes his belief in his ability to independently solve all the world’s problems; to heal all illnesses, cause world peace and so on. It also includes his rejection of anything that he does not understand or cannot see, including any metaphysical being. Consequently, Western man is pulled by a great wave of social pressure to reject anything ‘religious’ as outdated and primitive.

Even observant Jews are surrounded by the Western world and it’s power can effect us as well. Chanukah is a time when we need to ask ourselves some hard questions to discern where the Greek outlook has crept into our thoughts: When events around us do not seem to make sense we say, ’gum zu letova’ but deep down do we have doubts - feelings that this really does not make sense? When we learn about Torah concepts or halachos that do not make obvious sense do we accept that we cannot understand everything or do we on some level question the validity of such laws? Do we ever feel that we do not really need G-d to succeed in life? When Gedolim say and do things that we do not understand how do we react? All such questions focus on the same issue: Do we totally reject the Greek outlook, the arrogance of man and his wisdom and do we accept the subservience of man to G-d? Avraham Avinu went before G-d, Yosef Hatzadik attributed all his talents to G-d. Chanukah teaches us that this is the only way for a Jew to live and prosper.

STEPPING OUT OF OUR OWN WORLD - VAYEISHEV

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:43:00 +0000

Towards the end of the parsha, Yosef Hatzadik finds himself in a hopeless situation, having been in prison for ten years with no prospect of freedom. At that point othe incident of the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh’s ministers takes place. This begins the process of his meteoric rise to the position of Viceroy over the whole of Mitzrayim. There is one easily overlooked passuk which signals the beginning of the drastic upturn in Yosef’s fortunes. After the two ministers dreamt their respective dreams, they were very distressed because they did not know their meaning. At that point, Yosef sees their unhappy countenances; he asks, “Why do you appear downcast today? ” This seemingly inconsequential question leads to the interpretation of the dreams which eventually results in Yosef’s liberation and incredible rise to power. Had Yosef never asked them why they were upset then they would probably never have confided in him and the golden opportunity for freedom would be lost. Yosef’s small act of thoughtfulness may not seem particularly noteworthy, however in truth it is quite remarkable considering his situation at that time: He had been living in appalling conditions for 10 years with no realistic hope of freedom. He had every right to be totally engrossed in his own situation and not notice the facial expressions of those around him. Moreover he was assigned to serve the two ministers who were very important people in Mitzrayim - they surely treated him as an inferior and gave him absolutely no attention. Yet he overcame all these factors and showed concern at their distressed appearance.

There is a great temptation to go through life so absorbed in our own lives that we do not recognize the needs of others. One of the keys to being a genuine baal chesed is to overcome our own self-absorption and notice the world around us. Sometimes, this even requires that we be mevater on our own needs for the sake of others. The most glaring example of this is found earlier in the parsha when Tamar is being taken to be burnt at the stake. She had every opportunity to save her life by revealing that the items in her possession were those of Yehuda. However she gave greater emphasis to the embarrassment that Yehuda would endure if she did so and therefore remained quiet. The Gemara learns from here that a person must give up his life before embarrassing someone else . Rabbeinu Yonah and Tosefos pasken this way lehalacho! This teaches us that there are occasions where we are obligated to give greater precedence to the feelings of others than even our own.

Gedolim epitomized the ability to negate one’s own needs and focus on the needs of others. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was being taken in a car by a bachur from his yeshiva. As Reb Moshe entered the car the bachur closed the door onto his fingers, yet he remained completely silent as if nothing had happened. A bewildered onlooker asked him why he did not cry out. He answered that the bachur would feel incredible embarrassment about having caused him pain and therefore Reb Moshe controlled himself and kept quiet. This is a well-known story but it deserves thought; Reb Moshe exemplified the ability to ignore his own feelings in order to spare the pain of his fellow Jew.

It is not only in times of pain that we should focus on others. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and his son Rav Shneur zt”l went to Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer (Rav Aharon’s father-in-law) to say goodbye shortly before leaving Eretz Yisroel for Rav Shneur’s chasunah. Rav Isser Zalman stopped in the middle of the stairs on the way down rather than escorting them all the way to the street. They asked him about it and he explained, “Many of the people who live around here have grandchildren who were murdered by the Nazis, yemach shemam. How could I go down to the street and embrace my grandchild, flaunting my joy publicly, when these people can’t do the same?! ”

These superhuman demonstrations of selflessness can be an inspiration to us. There are numerous examples where we can overcome our own self-absorption and show an awareness of the needs of those around us. When we are walking down the street we tend to be involved in our own thoughts but it is worthwhile to be aware of the people around us - there may be someone who is carrying a heavy load and would appreciate a helping hand . There are many occasions when we may not be experiencing great joy or pain but we may still tend to focus on our own dalet amos alone. For example, after hagbaah on Shabbos Shacharis the baal hagbaah is left sitting on a chair holding the Sefer Torah with no Chumash to read the Haftara. People are understandably focused on following the Haftara themselves, but it shows great thoughtfulness to hand him a Chumash so he too can follow along. In Torah Vodaas there were occasions where there were not enough chairs in the room so the bachurim had to bring chairs for themselves from another room. Rav Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz zt”l used to say that a boy who brought just one chair for himself was merely a shlepper, but a boy who brought two, one for himself and one for a friend, was a baal chesed .

There are numerous examples of small acts of thoughtfulness that can light up people’s lives. And we learn from Yosef that we can never be certain of the consequences of one act of chesed. The Alter of Slobodka zt”l says that we can also never know how much reward we receive for a small act of chesed. He discusses the incident in which Yaakov Avinu removes the stone off the mouth of the well so that everyone could drink the water. This small act of kindness would not seem to rank highly amongst the numerous mitzvos that Yaakov performed throughout his life. However, it is in fact the source of great merit for the Jewish people. Every year we recite a special prayer for rain - Tefillas Geshem. In this tefilla we mention some of the great acts of the Avos such as Yaakov’s overcoming of Esav’s malach. Yet we also mention Yaakov’s removal of the stone: “He [Yaakov] dedicated his heart and rolled a stone from the mouth of a well of water - for his sake do not hold back water.” Every act of chesed done with purity of heart is of immeasurable value. May we all learn from our Avos and be true givers.

JOSEPH’S DREAMS - VAYEISHEV

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:40:00 +0000

The Torah Portion begins with an account of the deterioration of the relationship between Joseph and his brothers. Joseph’s two dreams played a very significant part in the increasing resentment of the brothers towards him. Close analysis of the dreams can provide us with more insight into how they caused such a rift amongst the brothers. The Beis HaLevi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soleveitchik notes that the Torah tells us after the first dream that the brothers hated Joseph, whereas after the second dream it does not state that they hated him, rather that they were jealous of him . What is the reason for this difference?

The Beis HaLevi answers this by examining the dreams more carefully. In the first dream Yosef said that he and his brothers were in the field and that their sheaves stood up and bowed down to his sheave; he did not say that the brothers themselves bowed down to him. In contrast in the second dream he compared them to stars and related that they bowed down to him. In this dream the stars represented the brothers and that they themselves bowed directly to Yosef . The

Beis HaLevi explains that the two dreams represented two separate areas in which the brothers would become subservient and inferior to Joseph. The sheaves in the first dream represented Yosef’s future superiority over the brothers in the realm of success in this world (Olam Hazeh). The bowing of their sheaves to his indicated that they would be dependent upon him for their physical sustenance. However, success in the physical realm does not make a person intrinsically superior to others, rather it means that he has more possessions. Accordingly, a wealthy person is not on a higher level than a pauper. Based on this, the Beis HaLevi explains that in the first dream which represented gashmius (physicality), the brothers themselves did not show their subservience to Joseph, rather their physical possessions are shown to be inferior to those of their brother. In contrast the second dream refers to Yosef’s future spiritual superiority over the brothers. Spiritual accomplishments do define the intrinsic greatness of a person. Accordingly, in the second dream, which represented ruchnius (spirituality), the brothers’ themselves bowed to Joseph, indicating his inherent spiritual superiority over them.

With this understanding the Beis HaLevi answers the initial question of why after the first dream the brothers hated Joseph whereas following the second, they were jealous of him. Hatred results when one resents another person’s actions, whereas jealousy arises when one feels inferior to his fellow. The brothers hated Joseph after the first dream because of its implication that they would need him for their sustenance and he would physically rule over them. However they were not jealous of him because the prospect of his greater wealth did not make them feel inferior to him. They saw physical attainment as something external to a person and therefore not worthy of jealousy. In contrast they were jealous of him after the second dream because that implied that he would be spiritually superior to them and this could indeed arouse their jealousy.

There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the Beis HaLevi’s explanation. Firstly, we learn that the material possessions of a person are of no consequence with regard to his true greatness. A wealthy person may be deserving of respect , but one should not envy his wealth because it does not represent a barometer of his real value. Only the spiritual level of a person determines the true greatness of a person and only that is worthy of envy.

It is very possible for a person to view his sense of importance in terms of his material possessions. One possible way of maintaining a correct perspective to material possessions is to look at what defines a great person in the Torah world. Wealth is of no significance in determining who is a ‘Gadol b’Yisroel’ (a term used to describe the greatest Torah scholars), indeed many Gedolim were extremely poor. What is important according to the Torah definition is the intrinsic spiritual greatness that a person attains. Reminding oneself of the qualities of our Gedolim can help us keep an accurate perspective of the insignificance of wealth to one’s true greatness.

One indication that a person that is very attached to his physical belongings is that he looks at them as part of his very being. For example, a person’s home may be so precious to him that any damage to it is equivalent in his eyes to damage to his own body. Another negative consequence of such an attitude is that a person who is so attached to the physical world can become a slave to it to the extent that it dictates his life in a damaging way. This was sadly evident in the years before the Holocaust in Germany. As the situation of the Jewish people in Germany deteriorated many Jews became increasingly aware of the need to escape. However, some of the wealthier Jews found it very difficult to leave their beautiful homes and possessions. Consequently far more poor Jews left Germany than their wealthy counterparts. Their attachment to their physical possessions proved fatally dangerous .

We learn from the dreams of Joseph that the only true measure of greatness is spiritual accomplishment and not material gain. May we all merit to recognize and achieve genuine greatness.

THE WRONG KIND OF JOY - VAYEISHEV

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:37:00 +0000

“And Yosef dreamt a dream, which he told to his brothers, and they hated him even more. And he said to them, ‘please hear the dream that I dreamt: ‘Behold, we were binding sheaves in the middle of the field, when, behold, my sheaf arose and also stood; then behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf.”
The beginning of the Parsha relates the sequence of events that led to the sale of Yosef. The Torah tells us that the brothers hated Yosef because they saw that Yaakov loved him more than all of them. When Yosef related the contents of his first dream to his brothers, their hatred of him increased. The Torah states: “And they hated him more, because of his dreams and because of his words.” The commentaries ask that since the Torah already stated that they hated him because of his dreams, what does the clause, “because of his words”, refer to?

Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita answers this by quoting the Meshech Chachma. The Meshech Chachma writes that three times in Yosef’s account of the dream, he says, ‘Behold!’ ’ He brings a Sifri that when the word’ ’Behold’ is used in the Torah, it is associated with joy. Yosef expressed joy at every stage of the dream, and because of this joy at the events of the dream, the brothers hated him even more. Thus, the clause, “because of his words” does not refer to the actual content of the dream, rather the way in which he told it over to them – with such joy. It still remains unclear why the brothers should hate him for being happy about having success – that would seem to be quite understandable. Rav Sternbuch explains that the brothers perceived that Yosef’s joy was not only because of his own success that was predicted in the dream, rather also the fact that they would not achieve the same success. It was this perceived attitude of joy at their expense that caused them to hate him even more. Rav Sternbuch continues to discuss the Torah approach to this form of joy – joy at the failings of one’s fellow. He writes, “It is a fundamental tenet that when HaKadosh Baruch Hu gives power, wealth, or honor to a person, he should thank HaShem, but if he is only happy because he got it and his fellow did not – this is a forbidden form of joy.”

Whether Yosef really felt this forbidden type of joy is unclear, however, the Netsiv writes that even Yaakov Avinu was susceptible to this challenge: In the episode at the end of Parshas Toldos, Yaakov tricked his father into giving him the blessings. The Netsiv explains that this was a kind of ‘aveiro lishma’ - a sin that was done purely for the right reasons, and thus was the correct way to act in these specific circumstances. The Netsiv notes, however, that Yaakov was punished for the pain that his trickery caused Esav; when Esav heard that Yaakov had taken the blessings, he let out a tremendous cry of pain. Chazal say that measure for measure, Yaakov’s descendant, Mordechai, let out a similar kind of cry when Haman, Esav’s descendant, decreed the destruction of the Jewish people. The Netsiv notes that Yitzchak Avinu also endured great pain when he heard that he had been tricked – he trembled greatly when he realized what had happened. Why, then was Yaakov not punished for the pain he caused Yitzchak, whilst he was punished for that which he inflicted on Esav? He answers that Yaakov had absolutely no pleasure at the pain that he caused Yitzchak in deceiving him, therefore he was not punished for the pain that Yitzchak experienced. However, he felt some small measure of happiness at Esav’s distress. Accordingly, he was punished for that element of joy he felt at Esav’s loss. Thus, we see, according to the Netsiv, that even Yaakov Avinu, on some slight level, was subject to the feeling of joy at success at the expense of someone else.

Rav Sternbuch’s lesson; that joy at someone else’s expense, lies at the very centre of the Torah attitude to interpersonal relationships. It is well-known that the most fundamental Mitzvo in this realm is that of, “Love your neighbor like yourself”. One of the most basic aspects of this Mitzvo is that one should develop a desire for his fellow man to succeed just as much as he wants that for himself.

It seems that an attitude of joy at one’s fellow’s failures represents the antithesis of the essence of the Mitzvo. Indeed, the Rambam seems to express this point in his discussion of this Mitzvo: He ends by saying that a person who feels joy at the failure or degradation of his fellow has no place in the World to Come.
It seems that the secular attitude and the Torah outlook clash greatly in this area. In the secular world, there is a strong emphasis on competition, and the idea of “each man for himself”. Sports, in particular ingrain a desire to “beat” the other person. It is very common for sports fans to be as happy at the defeat of their rival, as they are joyous at their own victory. Moreover, in many areas of life, there is a great stress on succeeding, and this often involves overcoming or defeating others. The Torah outlook also emphasizes succeeding in life, but the Torah’s definition of success does not include ‘defeating’ other people. In fact, a large aspect of a Torah Jew’s success is his ability to work as a unit with his fellow Jews. This is based on a recognition that all Jews are part of one spiritual entity, and therefore the success of one part of that entity, means success for all the other parts as well. This concept is applied to Jewish law. For example, on joyous occasions, the prayer of Tachanun is omitted. This is not limited to one’s own happy occasions, rather if there is a single person in the Minyan who is celebrating a happy event , then the whole Minyan is exempt from Tachanun – this is because his joy is shared by everyone else present. This is even the case, when the other members of the Minyan do not know the person! This teaches us how we should view such events.

We learn from the explanations of the Meshech Chachma and Rav Sternuch that having joy because of the downfall of one’s fellow, is something worthy of disdain. May we all merit to avoid this attitude, and fulfill the Mitzvo to love our neighbor to the fullest extent.

EDUCATION THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT - VAYISHLACH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:03:00 +0000

The Parsha ends with an account of the genealogy of Esav. In the midst of this we are told of the birth of Amalek, the progenitor of the nation that would constantly strive to destroy Klal Yisroel. “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz and Eliphaz gave birth to Amalek.. ” The Gemara in Sanhedrin informs us of the background to this terrible occurrence. “Timna was a Princess, but she wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov [to convert] but they would not accept her . She then became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said that it was better to be a maidservant to this nation rather than be a powerful woman in another nation. [As a result] Amalek, who would cause Yisroel great pain, was born from her. What is the reason [that this incident produced Amalek]? Because they [the Avos] should not have distanced her. ” Rashi explains that the Gemara means that they should have allowed her to convert .

It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature . Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him . It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.

Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’ ” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away .

We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked. ” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.

We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’ . By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.

We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.

THE THREAT OF ESAV - VAYISHLACH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:00:00 +0000

The beginning of the Parsha is dominated by Yaakov’s famous encounter with Esav. On a simple level, the threat that Esav posed was a physical one – that he would destroy Yaakov’s family with his four hundred soldiers. However, the commentaries point out that there was a second, even more pernicious, threat that Esav posed.
The Beis HaLevi discusses this at length. He begins with a novel explanation of Yaakov’s prayer to HaShem before the encounter. “Please save me from the hand of my brother, the hand of Esav.” Why did Yaakov use a repetitive language to describe Esav. He should have said, “save me from Esav”, or “save me from my brother”, what was the significance of both terms? The Beis HaLevi explains that Yaakov was fearful of two different dangers posed by Esav; one was that Esav would act with enmity towards Yaakov and thereby threaten his physical survival. The other danger was that Esav would now act with brotherliness towards Yaakov. Why would he be fearful of Esav’s friendliness? Yaakov did not want Esav to negatively influence Yaakov’s family by the two having friendly relations. Thus, Yaakov had a two-pronged fear – of the physical risk of meeting an antagonistic Esav, and the spiritual danger of encountering Esav as his ‘”brother”. In this vein, the Beis HaLevi explains another repetitive verse in the Parsha; “Yaakov was afraid and distressed…” What do the two similar expressions of fear refer to? The Beis HaLevi writes that Yaakov was afraid of the possibility that Esav may kill him, and was distressed about the risk that Esav would become close to him.

The Malbim continues this theme in his account of Yaakov’s battle with Esav’s Malach (Angel). He writes that Yaakov’s battle with the Malach (angel) was not primarily a physical one, rather it was fought on a spiritual plane that would have repercussions for the future of all of Yaakov’s descendants. In this battle, Yaakov was striving to free himself completely of physicality, and the taivas (desires) connected with it, so that he could totally connect with HaShem. The Malach was trying to prevent him from doing this, by causing him to be bound up in his physicality. He failed in this task, due to the fact that Yaakov had elevated himself to such a high spiritual level. However, the Malach was able to inflict some damage by striking Yaakov’s gid hanasheh . This, the Malbim explains, is because the gid hanasheh is the point of connection to physicality, and even Yaakov was unable to strip himself of that connection. This damage of the gid was the cause of the spiritual weakness in future generations of Jews who would leave Judaism.

We have seen that Esav’s threat to Yaakov was as much, if not more, on the spiritual level than the physical. However, thus far it would seem that Esav’s threat was that he would completely remove Yaakov and his descendants from any connection to G-d and the Torah. The Beis HaLevi brings a Medrash that shows that Esav’s threat was, in fact much more subtle: When the brothers finally met up, Esav’s heart softened towards Yaakov, and he offered for the two of them to travel together. The Medrash elaborates on Esav’s offer: “Esav said to him [Yaakov] that he should make a partnership with him [Esav] of the two worlds – Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba.” The Beis HaLevi explains that Esav was suggesting that they join together by both of them compromising somewhat on their lifestyles. Esav was prepared to accept upon himself the foundations of Torah, and in return Yaakov should give up a little bit of his pure focus on spirituality, and be more involved in this worldly activities for their own sake. Thus, Esav did not necessarily desire to totally uproot Yaakov from Torah, rather, just to dilute his pure devotion to Avodas HaShem.

We see in Yaakov’s earlier words to Esav that he also recognized the more subtle, spiritual threat posed by Esav. He famously tells Esav, “I lived with Lavan, the evil one, and I kept the 613 Mitzvos, and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l points out that the last part of Yaakov’s message, that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways, seems superfluous. Once Yaakov has said that he kept the Mitzvos, it should be unnecessary to say that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways – if he kept the Mitzvos, surely he didn’t learn from Lavan’s evil ways?! The answer is that it is possible to keep the Mitzvos, and yet be influenced by someone like Lavan; a person can ‘keep’ all the Mitzvos and yet have values that are not based on the Torah, rather on those of the outside world. Accordingly, Yaakov was telling Esav that Lavan was completely unable to dilute Yaakov’s Avodas HaShem. So too, Yaakov alluded to Esav that he would also be unable to influence Yaakov.

We learn from Yaakov’s momentous encounter with Esav that the spiritual threat posed by Esav was not limited to destroying Yaakov physically, or to fully diverting him and his descendants away from the Torah. Rather, Esav offered to merely dilute Yaakov’s pure Avodas HaShem with external values. Yaakov’s firm refusal of this offer teaches us that just as one must strive to observe all the Mitzvos, so too he must strive to espouse values that are totally concurrent with Torah do not derive from external influences. This lesson is extremely pertinent today, when the myriad influences of the Western world threaten to greatly affect the outlook and observance of Jews everywhere. For one person, it may mean that whilst he strongly identifies as a Jew, his observance is greatly compromised by the need s to be involved in the secular world, such as the necessity of working on Shabbos or eating in non-kosher establishments. For another, he may consider himself something of a ‘Shabbos Jew’ – someone who keeps Shabbos and some other Mitzvos, but when he is in the workplace, or striving to make money, Torah values take a poor second place to the desire to succeed in his business. For another, the influences may be even more subtle, and he may strive to keep all the Mitzvos, but his true desires are more in line with those of the Western world than those of the Torah. Whatever level we are on, may we all merit to emulate Yaakov Avinu by not learning from Esav’s evil ways.

USING THE YETSER HARA FOR THE GOOD - VAYISHLACH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:57:00 +0000

Upon his return to Eretz Yisroel, Yaakov Avinu sends a peace-making message to his hostile brother, Esav. He begins the message saying, “I lived with Lavan and have lingered here until now. ” Chazal elaborate on Yaakov’s words, “I lived with Lavan and nevertheless I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” The commentaries ask, everything else that Yaakov says to Esav is very conciliatory, but this message seems quite antagonistic - how does it fit in with everything else that Yaakov said? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l answers by interpreting the words of Chazal in a novel fashion; when Yaakov said that he kept the mitzvos but did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways he was criticizing himself. He argued that Esav had nothing to fear from him because, although he had kept mitzvos, he did not keep them with the same zrizus with which Lavan performed his evil acts. When he said that he did not learn from Lavan’s ways, he meant that he did not push himself in his maasim tovim to the same degree that Lavan did in his maasim raaim .

We learn from here that our performance of good deeds is judged in comparison to that of reshaim in committing their aveiros. There is a big kitrug on us if they go about their evil with more zest than we show in doing good. This concept can help explain another difficult Chazal. When Bilaam Harasha set off to curse the Jewish people the Torah tells us that he got up (vayakam) early in the morning. The Medrash Tanchuma says that on seeing this, Hashem exclaimed, “Rasha! Avraham their father already superseded you’ as it says [in the story of the Akeida], “Vayashkem baboker. ” The words ‘vayakam’ and ‘vayashkem’ both mean getting up from sleep, however ‘vayashkem’ implies getting up even earlier than ‘vayakam’, thus Hashem was telling Bilaam that Avraham arose earlier in the morning on the way to the Akeida than Bilaam did on the way to cursing the Jewish people. What is the significance of this Medrash? Rav Chanoch Harris Shlita explains that Bilaam was trying to portray the Jewish people in a negative light by showing that he would act with greater eagerness in his evil than they did in their Avodas Hashem. However, Hashem told him that the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, already demonstrated greater eagerness in doing ratson Hashem than Bilaam did in contradicting it. Consequently, Avraham’s descendants inherited his characteristic of zrizus and possessed enough merit to withstand’s Bilaam’s kitrug.

In the Shema, we say that we must love Hashem with all our hearts . The Gemara darshans from this passuk that we should love Hashem with both our yetsers - our yetser hatov and our yetser hara . One way of utilizing the power of the yetser hara is to observe our zrizus in following its temptations and try to apply that to our yetser hatov. The following true story is an excellent example of the power of the yetser hara. A number of American yeshiva bochrim studying in Eretz Yisroel missed the good food that they enjoyed in America. So they gave $50 each to one bochur and sent him back to America to buy a really good meal from one of the most expensive restaurants there and to come back immediately with the food ! Their love for good food caused them to go to remarkable lengths in order to fulfill their desires. By observing this we can perhaps tap into this drive and transfer it to the realm of ruchnius.

The same applies with regard to people who devote untold hours to try to satisfy their desire for money and honor. People will often endure sleepless nights in order to meet their deadlines - what about doing the same to meet the deadline of learning that we set for ourselves? We too can look into our own lives and find areas in which we feel more excitement and zeal than in Avodas Hashem, whether it be food, work, sport, or something else. We need to try to internalize what we already know - that shemiras hamitzvos provides far more satisfaction than anything else - then we can begin to ‘learn from the evil ways of Lavan and his ilk.’

PERFECTLY IMPERFECT - CHANUKAH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:34:00 +0000

Chanukah is one of the most observed of all the Jewish festivals - everyone enjoys lighting pretty menorahs and eating lots of doughnuts! But beneath the enjoyable remembrance of how the Hasmoneans defeated the powerful Greek army lies a fundamental ideological battle, one that still rages today. These two ideologies represent opposing attitudes towards the purpose of life. There is a Gemara in which a Roman leader asks Rabbi Akiva whose creation is greater, that of Hashem or that of man. Rabbi Akiva surprisingly answers that man’s creation is greater - why? Because Hashem produces inedible produce such as a kernel of wheat which serves of no benefit, whereas man takes this kernel and, through much toil, makes it into bread. The Gemara tells us that Rabbi Akiva knew that the Roman expected him to say that Hashem’s creation was greater, and the Roman was ready to ask that if that is so then why did Hashem create a human being and then man proceeds to perform bris mila, cutting away part of the human body, thus implying that man is improving upon Hashem’s creation. Rabbi Akiva thereby avoided this by stating that man’s creation is indeed greater. How can we understand this Gemara - surely Hashem’s creation is infinitely greater than that of man?

There was a deeper disagreement underlying this discussion. The Roman represented the Greco-Roman philosophy that emphasised the perfection of man. The Greeks idolised the human body and human intellect, man was naturally perfect and the Romans basically represented a continuation of that ideology. Consquently, the Jewish practice of bris mila was particularly abhorrent to them; it represented taking something that was perfect and damaging it. Rabbi Akiva represented the Torah belief - that Hashem deliberately created the world in an imperfect fashion so that man could perfect it himself. That is why Hashem creates a useless kernel of wheat; of course Hashem is infinitely greater than mankind, however, He wants man to go through the process of turning it into something greater. This too is the symbolism of Bris Mila - the idea that man is NOT born perfect - he has much work to do - in particular to harness and control all his powerful drives and use them for the good of growth or improvement. Life is one big opportunity to satisfy all of one’s natural drives.

Given all this, it should be of little surprise that one of the three mitzvas that the Greeks forbade the Jews from keeping was Bris Mila. They sought to uproot the idea that man is NOT made perfect, that life is about developing oneself, striving to remove his negative traits and improve his positive attributes. However, the Jews fought this prohibition with all their might and eventually overcame the Greeks. So too, we have outlived the Romans and all the philosophies that espouse the natural perfection of mankind. However, the battle continues; today we live in a society that places little or no emphasis on the concept of improving one’s character - instead it focuses far more on deriving physical pleasure. We, however know that the only true satisfaction is derived from growing, from becoming a kinder, more spiritual person, a more thoughtful spouse, a more attentive parent, and, most importantly, a better Eved Hashem.

THE DESIRE FOR GREATNESS - VAYEITSEI

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:33:00 +0000

“And Hashem remembered Rachel, and Hashem listened to her, and opened her womb. And she became pregnant and she bore a son, and she said Hashem has gathered in my disgrace. And she called his name Yosef , saying, ‘May Hashem bear me another son. ”

After many years of barrenness, Rachel Imanu finally merits to give birth to a son. She reacts to this joyous event by asking for another child. This reaction seems somewhat surprising - It appears analogous to when a parent gives a child a gift, the child asks for another one instead of thanking the parent ! However, in truth, it seems that Rachel’s desire for more children was not merely a desire for more in the realm of gashmius (physicality), rather it was a result of her great sheifa (desire) to strive in ruchnius (spirituality); for Rachel, having children meant playing a key role in the building of Klal Yisroel. Her request to have more children was a reflection of her own desire to merit to play a greater role in building Klal Yisroel. Thus it was not comparable to a child asking for another gift, rather it was more akin to one who has just completed a piece of learning asking Hashem to help him complete another one; that is not a sign of ingratitude, rather it is an expression of the person’s desire to grow more in ruchnius.

This idea can also help us understand another difficult passage in the Parsha. After Leah gives birth to four sons in quick succession, the Torah tells us that Rachel was jealous of her elder sister . Rashi explains that Rachel was jealous of Leah’s good deeds, because she felt that it was in the merit of her righteousness that Leah was granted so many children. Based on this reasoning, it would seem logical that Rachel strive to improve her own maasim. However, she does not seem to do this, rather she requests from Yaakov Avinu that he pray for her to have children. Why does she not immediately strive to improve her maasim instead of asking Yaakov to help her ? Perhaps we can explain that included among the ‘good deeds’ that Rachel was jealous of was Leah’s intense desire and efforts to have children and thereby play a part in building Klal Yisroel. Consequently, Rachel strived to emulate Leah’s great desire to have children. One way of doing this was to request of a great Tzaddik, Yaakov Avinu, to pray for her to have children - this action in and of itself represented a way of improving her own maasim tovim.

In yet another section in the Torah we learn a further lesson about the power of the desire of the Imahos to build Klal Yisroel. After Leah has four sons, the Torah tells us that she stopped giving birth . Nonetheless she did not stop in her efforts to have more children. She was even willing to give her son’s dudaim to her sister Rachel in exchange for an extra opportunity to have more children. After these intense efforts the Torah writes: “And Hashem heard Leah and she became pregnant, and bore a fifth son to Yaakov. ” The commentaries note that there is no mention of Leah praying to have more children, so why does the Torah say that Hashem heard Leah - she didn’t say anything?! Rashi explains that in this sense, the word ‘vayishma’ refers to ‘perceiving’ - “Hashem perceived that Leah desired and strived to create more tribes and as a result of that desire He granted her another child. ” We learn from here that Hashem responds to an intense desire for spiritual accomplishment which is accompanied by great effort, even when a person does not pray to Hashem.

These examples demonstrate the importance of developing an intense desire to grow in spiritual matters. Without such a desire, a person can not achieve anything of great significance in the spiritual realm. The following story gives a great example of the importance of desire and a willingness to attain great achievements in the spiritual realm. There was once a meeting of many of the Gedolim of the generation and the descendants of the leaders of the previous one, including the Chofetz Chaim zt”l. Rav Yechezkel Sarna zt”l, the great Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron stood up to speak and he surprised everyone, saying that there was one person who had achieved more for Klal Yisroel than everyone present and their illustrious ancestors. Moreover, this person never learnt a daf of Gemara. And he confidently asserted that once he would tell the audience who it was, they would all agree. Who was this great person? It was Sarah Shenirer; she was a seemingly ordinary woman who lived at a time where there was no formal Torah education for Jewish girls. Consequently, young women from observant families were leaving Torah in great numbers. The scale of this tragedy was magnified by the fact that many Torah scholars were unable to find a good shidduch given the lack of suitable women. It is no exaggeration to say that the very future of Yiddishkeit was in great danger. Sarah Shenirer recognised the threat and founded the first network of Torah schools for girls, Bais Yaakov. She faced great opposition at the time but, with guidance of Gedolim such as the Chofetz Chaim and Gerrer Rebbe, she succeeded beyond her wildest expectations and, effectively assured the future of Torah observance. Thus, when Rav Sarna revealed to the audience the identity of this saviour of Klal Yisroel they unanimously agreed with his assertion that she had done more for the Jewish people than anyone else. How did she merit this? Rav Sarna explained that it was because she was willing to cry for the Jewish girls who were being lost to Klal Yisroel . Her pain at the churban that was taking place and her desire to improve the situation was the key in giving her the impetus to save them. Moreover, it seems clear that Hashem ‘heard’ her intense desire to improve the situation and gave her great siyata dishamaya in all her efforts.

A person can live an observant life and, to a certain extent, live on a kind of ‘automatic pilot’- going through the motions of keeping mitzvos but without any great desire to achieve spiritual greatness. We learn from the Imahos that the only way to achieve greatness is to develop great sheifos in ruchnius and to act upon them. May we all merit to emulate the Imahos and attain true greatness.

THE KEY TO MESIRAS NEFESH - VAYEITSEI

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:30:00 +0000

Chazal tell us that when Yaakov Avinu left his parents to go to the home of Lavan, he learnt Torah in the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever for fourteen years. During that time he was so engrossed in his learning that he never once slept ! This poses a difficulty - the Torah tells us that for the previous 63 years of his life Yaakov was a ‘yosheiv ohalim’, he spent all his time learning Torah. However, it does not say that he never slept. What happened that enabled Yaakov to attain such level of mesiras nefesh to forgo sleep in those 14 years that surpassed what he had achieved up till that time? My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Bervkovits Shlita answers that Yaakov knew that he would be faced with great challenges during his time living with the evil Lavan; Lavan would provide great tests to his midos and his spiritual level and he would need to rise to a higher spiritual level in order to be able to withstand being influenced by Lavan. Consequently, he recognized that he had to utilize every available second in these 14 years of Torah learning. There is no doubt that in the previous 63 years of his life, he learnt with great hasmada, but there was a far greater sense of urgency that permeated his learning in the 14 years before he went to live with Lavan. We learn from here that being in a challenging situation can be a great motivating factor in increasing the amount of mesiras nefesh in one’s Avodas Hashem.

This can also help explain an interesting halacho brought by the Rambam. A common tactic in war is to besiege the enemy, thus starving him of vital supplies. The Rambam writes that a Jewish army may not besiege the enemy from all four sides, rather it must leave one side open so that the enemy soldiers have the option of fleeing to safety . This seems like a strange hanhago in the midst of a war! Rav Dovid Dunner Shlita explains that this is indeed a shrewd tactical move; when a person is placed in a highly pressurized situation such as being besieged on four sides he has no option but to find new cochos that can enable him to fight with far greater courage and zeal . Consequently the Torah commands us to leave one side open so that the enemy will not be forced in a situation where it can pose a real threat.

Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita explains that this phenomena was the cause of the incredible mesiras nefesh of Jews who lived through the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. The following story demonstrates how far their mesiras nefesh went. It was forbidden to perform bris mila on babies, but many Jews tried to do so at great risk nonetheless. On one occasion a baby boy had been unwell for the first several months of his life, until finally, aged 10 months the bris was performed. After the bris, the baby’s mother went up to him and kissed him, she then promptly fainted! When she came to she explained to the bewildered onlookers what had led her to faint. When her baby was born she promised herself that he would have bris mila. But she knew that this was no easy task and she feared that she may not have the courage to go through with it. In order to ensure that she would not give up, she swore that she would never kiss or hug her baby until the bris was performed! That is why, after waiting so long, she fainted after kissing her little boy! Rav Frand wonders whether we -who are able to practice our religion with ease and in freedom - could contemplate not kissing or hugging our children for so long for the sake of a mitzvo. We do not live with that same sense of urgency that YaakovAvinu felt as he headed to the house of Lavan,, and we cannot relate to the levels of mesiras nefesh that the Jews in the Soviet Union attained.

But how can we tap into the coach of urgency to help improve our own Avodas Hashem? The Mishna in Avos provides a number of answers: “Rebbi Tarfon says; the day is short; the workload is great; the workers our lazy; the reward is great; and the Baal Habayis is pushing. ” In this Mishna, Rebbi Tarfon is trying to imbue us with that sense of urgency that will motivate us to learn and grow more. He begins that “the day is short.” Life is short, before we know it, it has passed us by and all of that time is lost forever. Moreover, we never know when our life will end - a recognition of this should certainly help motivate us. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l notes that the Mishna does not say that our ‘days’ (in the plural) are short, rather, “the day.” He says that this comes to teach us that each individual day has its own function and potential - if a person wastes one part of one day then he has lost that time forever - when a person recognizes that each moment is passing by and will never return he will surely be more careful with his time .

The Mishna continues that, “the work is great. It is self-evident that every area of Avodas Hashem requires great effort for the workload is endless. This most obviously applies to learning where there is no limit to the depth and breadth that a person can attain. But it also applies to growth - the ladder of Avodas Hamidos is never-ending - there are always more opportunities for character refinement. Moreover, we are also judged as to whether we fulfill our potential - Chazal tell us that there is a heavenly image of each person - this is the image of what he can become if he reaches his full potential. When we proceed to shamayim at the end of our lives, we will be shown that that image and judged as to why we did not fit it.

“The reward is great.” If we were would be more real with how much reward we receive for mitzvos then our Avoda would drastically improve. Other Mishnas in Avos discusses this concept: “Be careful with a light mitzvo just as you are with a serious mitzvo, because you do not know the reward for the mitzvos. ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the reason one should be extremely careful with even the ‘lighter’ mitzvos is because he has no real conception about how great the reward is even for that. Later in Avos, we are told that, “one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Haba is greater than all the pleasure of Olam Hazeh. ” Rav Dessler zt”l goes to great lengths to demonstrate how all the pleasure that was ever experienced in Olam Hazeh cannot match one ‘whiff’ of Olam Haba .

It is understandably, difficult to make this concept real but we can at least act in accordance with an intellectual recognition of this.
Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l suggests a way of doing this; when a person is tired and ready to head off for bed after the Friday night meal, he should try to motivate himself to learn for an extra five minutes and say to himself - “if I could receive $1000 to learn for another five minutes then I would certainly do so. I realize, at least intellectually, that the reward in Olam Haba for doing so is worth infinitely more than that .”

“The Baal Habayis is pushing.” Hashem is expectant of us to do our job and play our role in perfecting the world. The Gemara says that each person should say that “the world was created for me” - this means that responsibility for the world is placed upon me and I must act with that recognition. Hashem expects a great deal from us and we must produce results.

Baruch Hashem, Jews who live in democratic countries can practice our religion with total freedom. However this can lead to a sense of comfort that can prevent us from tapping into the sense of urgency that is needed to motivate ourselves to strengthen our Avodas Hashem. Gedolim became who they were because they did feel this sense of urgency. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt”l was once asked how he became such a great talmid chochom. He answered that he looked at every day of his life as if it could be his last. With such an outlook he was able to push himself to reach incredible heights. May we too find it in ourselves to tap into this tremendous coach.

WAITING - VAYEITSEI

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:25:00 +0000

Soon after coming to work for Lavan, Yaakov Avinu agreed to work for seven years in exchange for Rachel’s hand in marriage. The Torah tells us that this period passed very quickly for Yaakov. “And Yaakov worked seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him a few days because of his love for her.” Many commentaries point out an obvious difficulty. Usually, when a person is eagerly awaiting a specific event, the time in between seems to move very slowly. However, in this case, the Torah states that the seven years of waiting to marry Rachel seemed like a few days. How can this be?

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to understand why, normally, the waiting period does seem to be painfully slow. In most cases, the person is anxiously waiting for a specific event to take place – he views the time in between as a mere impediment to the object of his desires. It is well known that when something is unpleasant or painful, it seems to last a long time. Thus, a person for whom the waiting period is an obstacle, views it as something unpleasant, therefore he feels that it takes a long time to pass by. However, Yaakov Avinu had a very different approach to the seven year waiting period for Rachel. His love for Rachel was not based on lust, rather a deep sense of love, whereby he recognized her greatness, and wanted to be as good a husband as possible. He understood that the time that stood in between his marriage to Rachel was not an obstacle, rather it constituted a great opportunity to improve himself. Therefore, he viewed each moment as a priceless opportunity to further prepare himself for marriage. With such an attitude, the time itself was not viewed with a negative attitude, rather Yaakov saw it in a very positive manner as an opportunity to ready himself for marriage. Since he valued this time, he did not see it as something painful, rather he actually appreciated it. And just as we know that unpleasant situations move slowly, we also know that enjoyable circumstances move very quickly. Therefore, the seven years seemed like a few short days.

Yaakov Avinu demonstrated the correct attitude to waiting for a specific event, however, there is another famous incident in the Torah, where the Jewish people seemed to have stumbled in this very area. In Parshas Ki Sisa, after having received the Ten Commandments, Moshe Rabbeinu spent forty days on Mount Sinai, where he learnt the entire Torah and received the luchos (Tablets) that he would bring down to the people. However, the people miscalculated when the forty days should end and expected Moshe to come down earlier than he said he would. Chazal tell us that the Satan showed them that Moshe was dead. This began the chain of events that resulted in the Sin of the Golden Calf. The question is asked, that it seems unfair that the people should be subject to such a difficult nisayon (test) of seeing a vision of their beloved leader, Moshe, no longer alive – why did they have to be subjected to such a nisayon? The answer is that the Satan could only have the power to effect the people when they showed a lacking in a certain area. The yetser hara only has power when there is a weakness in a person; in such a case he can then expose that weakness. In the case of the build-up to the Golden Calf, it seems that the peoples’ failing was in their impatience for Moshe to return and give them the Torah. This impatience led them to begin to panic when Moshe did not return at the time that they expected. Consequently, the Satan now had an opening which he could exploit.

Thus, we see that the root weakness that began the course of events that led to the Golden Calf, was the incorrect approach to the period of Moshe Rabbeinu being on Mount Sinai. The people’s attitude was that of anxiously waiting for the time to pass, so that they could move on to the next stage in their acceptance of the Torah. They should have viewed that time in the same way as Yaakov used his time waiting to marry Rachel; as an opportunity to work on themselves so that they would be more ready to receive the luchos (Tablets). Had they had such an attitude, they would have been less focused on the end of the waiting period, and more focusesd on utilizing it as much as possible.

We have seen examples in the Torah of the correct and incorrect ways to approach waiting for specific events. It is obvious that the challenge of dealing with waiting periods is one that people constantly face. It may be in the areas of waiting for major events to take place, such as someone dating, eagerly awaiting the time when they find their spouse. Or it may be in daily occurrences such as traffic jams, or frustratingly long lines in the supermarket. Whatever the length of, and reason for, the wait, the underlying principle is the same – that one should not look at these occurrences as mere nuisances that prevent a person from attaining his goal. Rather, one should realize, everything is from HaShem, including annoying or painful periods of waiting. One must make the decision to avoid wasting such time periods, or, even worse, getting frustrated and angry; instead he should recognize that they are G-d given opportunities to grow closer to HaShem. Thus, a person who is waiting to find the right shidduch, should realize that this time period in his life, is not merely a time when life stops until he finds his match. Rather, this is a precious time, when he can work on his character traits to prepare for his future marriage. And, when one finds himself in a line, he could use such time to learn Torah, or for other necessary purposes.

We learn from Yaakov’s attitude during the long seven year wait for Rachel, that waiting periods are opportunities for growth, not burdens to overcome. May we all merit to use such time in the optimum fashion.

YITZCHAK AVINU - TOLDOS

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:37:00 +0000

The Torah devotes three parshios to Avraham Avinu and Yaakov Avinu. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Yitzchak Avinu. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Yitzchak and no other Av; the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Phlishtim. Yitchak is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rivka, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Plishtim sealed wells that Avraham had dug, and how Yitzchak re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Plishtim and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Yitzchak Avinu.
The most striking aspect of Yitzchak’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Avraham’s time he headed for Mitzrayim; Yitzchak planned to do the same thing until Hashem told him not to leave Eretz Yisroel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them . Rabbeinu Bachya statest that from Yitzchak’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Yitzchak did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita explains Yitzchak’s role among the Avos: Avraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Yitzchak’s avoda was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of mesora. Yitzchak’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine comes to the land, he immediately thinks of going to Mitzrayim because his father did so. And when he comes to Gerar he digs the same wells and gives them the same names that Avraham had given them .

However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha . This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to be deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path toward Avodas Hashem.

We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is clearly no contradiction here; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many different approaches to Judaism that emphasize different areas and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity .

There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality . Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression .

Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than even the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva !

The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jews to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, including development of character traits, limud haTorah and hashkafa: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths.

Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel . Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else . And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora.

How important is it that a person be encouraged to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim . And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of giving ourselves, our children and our students happier and more successful lives.