Torah From Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen

TERUMAH - THE POWER OF LAZINESS

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:22:00 +0000

The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan (tabernacle). "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ."

The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He answers by bringing the Medrash that informs us of the background to the donation of the precious stones. They were brought by the Nesi'im (princes) after everything else had already been donated. The Nesi'im had initially planned to wait for everyone else to bring their contributions to the Mishkan, and whatever was lacking, the Nesi'im would then give. However, their plan backfired when the people, in their great enthusiasm, gave everything that was needed with the exception of the precious stones. The Medrash goes on to say that Hashem was displeased with them because they were so late in giving to the Mishkan. Their 'punishment' was that the 'yud' in their name was omitted at one point in the Torah . Accordingly, the Ohr HaChaim explains that since the donation of the precious stones involved some kind of error, they are mentioned last in list of the materials given to the Mishkan, Despite their great material value, the spiritual failing that resulted in their donation by the Nesi'im meant that they were inferior to all the other materials in the list.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l asks that it is still unclear why Hashem was displeased with the Nesi'im. Their reasoning for delaying their donation seems to be very understandable - why are they punished for a seemingly innocent miscalculation? He answers by quoting Rashi's explanation for their punishment: Rashi states; "because they were initially lazy, they lost a 'yud' in their name ." Rashi is revealing to us that the real reason that the Nesi'im tarried in bringing the gifts was because of laziness! Beneath all their seemingly valid justifications for their actions lay the trait of laziness.

The Mesillas Yesharim writes at length about how laziness can prevent a person from fulfilling his obligations properly. He writes: "We see with our own eyes many many times, that a man can be aware of his obligations, and he is clear about what he needs for the goodness of his soul... yet he weakens [in his Avoda] not because of a lack of recognition of his obligations or any other reason, rather because of the powerful laziness that overcomes him." He continues that what is so dangerous about laziness is that one can find several 'sources' to justify his inaction. "The lazy one will bring numerous sayings of the Sages, verses from Tanach, and 'logical' arguments, all of them justifying his confused mind into lightening his burden ... and he does not see that these arguments do not come from his logical thought, rather they stem from his laziness, which overcomes his rational thinking. " Accordingly, he warns us that whenever we have two choices we should be very weary of choosing the easier option, because our root reason for doing so may very likely be laziness.

The Mesillas Yesharim is teaching us that even the most 'valid' arguments may simply be veils for a person's desire to avoid pushing himself. We see a striking example of this in the Introduction to Chovos HaLevavos. He writes that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons: “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings... Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited why he should not write the sefer seem fair and logical, but he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. If someone as great at the author of Chovos HaLevavos nearly fell victim to the yetser hara of laziness, how much is everyone at risk of being ensnared by this destructive trait. A person generally does have seemingly valid reasons for why he may choose to ignore possible avenues in which he could improve hs Avodas Hashem but he must be aware that his true motivation may be laziness.

The yetser hara of laziness is so cunning that it can clothe itself in some of the most admirable of traits, in particular that of humility. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l addresses a common tendency of people to underestimate themselves by claiming that they are greatly limited in their talents and that they can never achieve greatness. He writes that this kind of humility really emanates from the yetser hara. It seems that this attitude actually derives from laziness, which is really a manifestation of the desire for comfort. It is not easy to achieve greatness; it requires great effort and the willingness to face setbacks and even failure. This is difficult, therefore it is very tempting for a person to ‘write himself off’ and thereby exempt himself from even trying - this is certainly the more ‘comfortable‘ option.

Constantly, throughout a person's life he is given the opportunity to improve himself and attain great heights in his own Avodas Hashem and his influence on others. We see from the lesson of the Nesi'im that perhaps the single most powerful factor preventing him from achieving his potential is a desire for comfort that stems from laziness. This causes a person to 'create' numerous 'reasons' as to why he does not push himself in the way that he could. The Mesillas Yesharim teaches us that he should recognize that these excuses are very often simply the atsas yetser hara and that he should disregard them and proceed in his efforts to grow and accomplish. May we all merit to overcome this powerful yetser hara and make the correct choices even if they are difficult.

PURE INTENTIONS - TERUMAH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:15:00 +0000

Parsha Terumah describes the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the various keilim (vessels) that were to serve in it, such as the Aron HaKodesh (Ark), the Menorah and the Shulchan. The Rabbis teach that there is great symbolism in each vessel in that they represent various aspects of the spiritual world. Accordingly, the commentaries closely analyze the descriptions of the Mishkan in order to derive important lessons. In this vein, the Kli Yakar notes a difficulty with a verse in the description of the Aron HaKodesh. The Torah states: “And you shall cover it [the Aron] with pure gold from the inside; and on the outside you shall cover it…” The Kli Yakar points out that HaShem twice instructs Moshe to cover the Ark; once on the inside, and once on the outside. This teaches us that the Ark had both an inner and outer layer of gold. However, with regard to the inner layer, the Torah says that the gold must be pure, whereas when mentioning the outer layer, there is no mention that the gold need be pure. The Kli Yakar argues that it was certainly required for the outer layer of gold to also be pure, therefore he asks why the Torah davke stressed the pure nature of the gold with regard to the inner layer.
He answers that the Torah is teaching us an important lesson in Avodas HaShem. He explains that the inner gold covering alludes to performance of Mitzvos done in a private fashion where no one else sees, whilst the outer gold covering alludes to public performance of Mitzvos. With regard to private observance, it is quite conceivable that one have completely pure intentions when performing the Mitzvo seeing that that nobody else will be aware of the Mitzvo. Therefore, when describing the inner gold, the Torah can attach the description of pure. However, when a person does a Mitzvo in public, there is always a very strong possibility that his intentions are not totally pure, as there may be an element of a desire that other people witness his righteous act. Accordingly, when discussing the outer gold It cannot say that it was pure.

The Kli Yakar’s explanation illuminates us as to the great power of the yetser hara (negative inclination) involved in doing Mitzvos in public. The following story involving the Kotsker Rebbe demonstrates even further the full power of this yetser hara. The Kotsker Rebbe was on his deathbed surrounded by many people. The time came when it seemed certain that he was about to pass away. At that moment, he said Shema Yisroel with great fervor. Yet, to everyone’s surprise he did not die at that time. His students asked him what he was thinking whilst he was saying the Shema. He answered, that he was thinking that everyone would say about him that the final words he uttered were ‘Shema Yisroel’! If, at the powerful moment before death, the great Kotsker Rebbe acknowledged that he had some level of interest in what people would say about him, then all the more so, ‘ordinary’ people would be highly subject to this yetser hara throughout their lives.

Because it is so difficult to maintain completely pure motives when doing Mitzvos in public, it is often praiseworthy to strive to do Mitzvos in private. Likewise, it is commendable to hide one’s spiritual achievements from others when there is no benefit in publicizing them. The Baalei Mussar in particular went to great lengths to hide their true spiritual level. One of the leading Baalei Mussar was Rav Yitzchak Blazer zt”l; on one occasion he joined a gathering of great Torah scholars led by the Beis HaLevi, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l. The Beis HaLevi had heard that Rav Blazer was a tremendous Torah scholar as well as being a great Mussar personality, and wanted to see how Rav Blazer would contribute to a Torah discussion. The Beis HaLevi asked a very difficult question which resulted in heated debate amongst the scholars. Eventually, the Beis HaLevi offered two brilliant solutions to the problem, one of his own, and one from his renowned son, Rav Chaim zt”l. However, during the whole discussion, Rav Blazer remained quiet. Surprised at Rav Blazer’s apparent inability to answer the question, the Beis HaLevi perused Rav Blazer’s commentary on the Gemara, known as, Pri Yitzchak, to see what he wrote with regard to the topic that they had debated. The Beis HaLevi was shocked to see that not only did Rav Blazer ask the same question as the one that the Beis HaLevi posed, but also gave both answers that the Beis HaLevi had suggested! He recognized Rav Blazer’s humility in remaining quiet and hiding his Torah greatness. Of course, on many occasions it is important for one to contribute to Torah discussions, however, evidently Rav Blazer felt there would be no benefit in adding his opinion to the distinguished group. In a similar vein, the great Alter of Slobodka, Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel zt:l, was rarely seen with a Gemara, however, late at night in his room, he would learn from the gemara in a hidden fashion, and if anyone came in he would pretend to be asleep.

We learn from the above sources, that it is extremely difficult to perform Mitzvos in public without having some focus on the honor or praise that one would receive. One lesson to be derived from this is that one should strive to perform at least some Mitzvos in private, where there is no chance that the purity of his intentions is tainted by desire for recognition . This includes giving charity , learning Torah, and other Mitzvos. May we all merit to serve HaShem with the purest intentions.

STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE - TERUMAH

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:07:00 +0000

The Torah states regarding the walls of the Mishkan: “The center crossbar shall go through the middle of the beams, from one end to the other. ” The Targum Yonasan writes that the center crossbar was made with wood that came from the trees that Avraham Avinu planted for the purpose of doing chesed for the travelers. Why was this wood in particular used to take such a prominent position in the Mishkan? Rav Zelig Pliskin Shlita explains that it is to remind us that even whilst we are devoting ourselves to Hashem, we should never forget to have compassion for our fellow man, who is created in G-d’s image .

This lesson is stressed in the teachings by the Baalei Mussar: One of the great contributions of Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was that whilst it is highly commendable to place great care on dikduk hamitzvos in the realm of Bein Odom leMakom nevertheless we should be very careful that this should not be at the expense of others. There are numerous examples of how he put this teaching into practice. On his way to get water for netilas yedayim, a talmid passed through some rooms in which people were sleeping. “Netilas yadayim is a mitvo instituted by our Sages,” commented, R’Yisroel, “but robbing others of their sleep is forbidden by the Torah. ” On another occasion a talmid began davenning a spirited Shemoneh Esrei whilst standing by the open window on a hot day. R’Yisroel scolded him for blocking the air for the other people in shul. Another of the great Baalei Mussar, the Alter of Slobodka, also placed great emphasis on mitzvos’ bein odom le chaveiro. He taught that, in doing a mitzvo, we must be very careful not to cause unpleasantness or harm to anyone to avoid forfeiting its rewards. He never gave shmusen during mealtimes and when he prayed with a minyan, either he finished the Shemoneh Esrei with everyone, or he knocked on his shtender to indicate that the congregation should not wait for him .

On one occasion one talmid standing in prayer among the others was fervently shaking in every direction with his whole body. After the tefillo, the Alter called the talmid over and said to him, “A person who hits another, even without inflicting damage, is called a ‘rasha’ and is punishable by malkus. Now when you shake you are liable to bump into our neighbor who is standing beside you, and thereby commit - in the midst of your fervent tefillos - a serious transgression for which you will be called a ‘rasha’ !

We may never daven in such a way but there are situations where we may unwittingly cause pain or inconvenience to others amidst our Avodas Hashem: For example, it is not uncommon for a person in shul for Shacharis to suddenly be struck by the flying tallis strings of someone who is donning his tallis - this is a classic example of how we must maintain our awareness of others during our own Avoda. Another case is when the Sefer Torah is brought out. It is certainly praiseworthy to kiss it, however, if one is likely to push or shove others on the way then the poskim write that the hidur of kissing the sefer Torah is over-ridden by the requirement not to risk harming our fellow Jew . Another common example of this is that a person who davens a long Shemoneh Esrei can cause a considerable amount of inconvenience to the person standing in front of him. The poskim say that it is recommended for a slow davenner to pray in a place where there are no passers-by .

Another aspect in which bein adam lechaveiro can sometimes take second place behind bein adam leMakom is in the areas of chumros. There is a well-known Ramban on the passuk of “be holy” where the Ramban tells us that it is not enough to keep the ikar hadin in terms of our Avodas Hashem, rather we should strive to reach ever higher levels in our relationship with Hashem. There is a less well-known Ramban that makes a similar point with regard to bein adam le chaveiro. The Torah says, “And you should do what is fair and good in the eyes of Hashem..” Chazal say that this passuk teaches us that we should go beyond the letter of the law in our dealings with other people. The Ramban explains that it is not enough to simply keep the ikar hadin of mitzvos bein adam lechaveiro, rather we must realize that Hashem wants us to treat people with a heightened sensitivity to their needs.

A person may have a tendency to emphasize chumros in mitzvos of bein adam leMakom such as kashrus. The Imrei Emes understood that the concept of ‘hiddur mitzvo’ applies just as much to our dealings with other people as to out relationship with Hashem. A chassid once asked him if he could borrow a pair of tefillin since he had misplaced his own. The Rebbe lent him a pair, but not just any pair. It was his own set of tefillin, which had belonged to his father, the Sfas Emes. When asked why he gave the chassid his most precious set, he answered that, “the passuk says, ‘Zeh Keili v’anveihu’ from which we learn that one must do a mitzvo in the most beautiful way possible. This concept applies to chesed as well. That is why I gave him the priceless tefillin. ” The center crossbar in the Mishkan stood as an eternal reminder that there are two pillars of Avodas Hashem - bein adam le Makom and bein adam lechaveiro, and even at times of the highest devotion to Hashem it is essential to remember our obligations to our fellow man. May we all be zocheh to strike the right balance.

TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD - MISHPATIM

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:56:00 +0000

“Distance yourself from falsehood.”

It is well known that honesty is one of the most important character traits and its antithesis, falsehood, is one of the most undesirable. The Sefer Hachinuch speaks very strongly about how disdainful it is to lie: “falsehood is abominable and disgraceful in everyone’s eyes, there is nothing more disgusting than it,... Therefore the Torah exhorts us to greatly distance ourselves from falsehood, as it says, 'distance yourself from falsehood.' ” He then explains that the Torah does not use the language of ‘distancing’ with regard to any other negative mitzvo which indicates its severity. Moreover, this teaches us that we should distance ourselves from even the slightest possibility of falsehood. Given the severity of lying, it is worthwhile to clarify what is included within the prohibition of 'midvar sheker tirchak'.

It is instructive to analyze the following scenario: Reuven owes Shimon money and the date for repayment has already passed. Shimon phones Reuven to request his money, but Reuven’s wife answers the phone. Reuven does not want to speak to Shimon but he also does not want his wife to lie and say that he is not home when he really is. Therefore Reuven steps just outside his house and instructs his wife to tell Shimon that Reuven is not home - this is technically true, Reuven is now not in the house, even though he could speak to Shimon if he so desired. One may think that this does not constitute falsehood because no false words were spoken. Is this indeed the case?

The Gemara in Nedarim discusses a case in which a man was owed some money so he brought the borrower before Rava’s Beis Din and said to him: “Pay me back.” The borrower responded: “I already paid you.” Rava said to the borrower: “In that case, you must swear an oath that you have given him the money.” The borrower went to get his cane, hid the money he owed inside its hollow, and leant on the cane as he returned to the courtroom. He said to the lender: “Hold this cane in your hand,” ostensibly in order to free his own hands to take hold of the Torah scroll. He then took a Torah scroll and swore that he had already given the money into the lender’s hand. The lender, incensed at the man’s chutzpah, broke the cane. Suddenly all the money inside spilled to the ground and it emerged that he had indeed sworn the technical truth!”

The borrower was obviously guilty of terrible midos but did he actually commit a genuine transgression? The Gemara concludes that he did because an oath taker must adhere not only to the plain definition of his words, but also to the meaning they are meant to convey as well. Consequently, he was guilty of swearing falsely by taking an oath that was technically truthful but deceptive .

We learn from here that saying words that are technically true does not mean that a person can deceive others by saying true words with a misleading message. Therefore, it would seem that Reuven’s strategy of standing outside the house does not help avoid the transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak.” The words that he is not home may be true but the message is not - Shimon is not interested in the technical location of Reuven; he wants to know if Reuven is present so that Shimon can speak to him. Thus, by saying that he is not present is a misleading message. One may argue that the case in Nedarim was that of an oath, but that in day to day life, perhaps it is allowed to deceive others on condition that words we say are technically true.

The Gemara in Shevuos disproves this theory: The Gemara discusses a number of cases that involve a transgression of 'midvar sheker tirchak'. One is the case where a talmid chacham claims that someone owes him money but he does not have any witnesses to support his claim. Accordingly he tells his talmid that the 'borrower' is clearly lying so he suggests a plan to influence the borrower to admit to the truth. He asks his talmid to come with him to court so that he would appear to be a witness to the loan. The borrower, seeing the prospective witness will realize that he can not escape from the truth and will admit that he does indeed owe the money. The Gemara says that the talmid transgresses, ‘midvar sheker tirchak’ by his actions . In this case, the talmid did not even say anything - he merely walked in with his Rebbe and sent an unsaid message to the borrower that he was a witness to the loan. Moreover, in this case, there is no oath being taken and nevertheless it is an example of falsehood. This proves that even if a person does not even say anything but his actions imply a false metsius then he is considered to be lying. This is all the more so the case where a person says words that are technically true but are also misleading .

However, if we analyze one of the most famous incidents in the Torah it would seem that saying technically truthful words is allowed. When Yaakov Avinu pretends to be his brother, Esav, Yitzchak asks him for his identity and he answers, “I am Esav your firstborn.” Rashi explains that he meant by this, “It is I who bring this to you, Esav is your firstborn.” Consequently his words were technically true although Yitzchak could only understand their simple meaning - that he was claiming to be Esav. This would seem to strongly question the premise that has been thus far established. My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that Yaakov’s deft wording in and of itself did not justify lying to Yitzchak. Rather, the commentaries explain that Yaakov was justified in deceiving Esav because Esav himself was a trickster and it is allowed to use deceit in order to overcome a deceitful person . Why then did Yaakov need to resort to the 'word games'? The Orchos Tzaddikim writes that even when it is permissible to lie it is still nonetheless preferable to say words that are technically true . As a consequence, Yaakov did not want to release false words from his lips.

Nonetheless we should not be mistaken into thinking that saying words that are technically true justifies misleading others when there is no valid justification to do so and it constitutes a clear violation of midvar sheker tirchak. It is very important to educate our children on this point so that they realize that the prohibition to lie is not avoided by clever wording . Moreover, it is necessary for us to clarify the gedarim of this easily misunderstood mitzvo. The Chinuch stresses that Hashem is a ‘G-d of Emes’ and that bracho only comes to a person who strives to emulate Hashem. May we all succeed in living lives of genuine emes.

COMPLETE KINDNESS - MISHPATIM

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:51:00 +0000

In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "

On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:

"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.

"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.

Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.

We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.

One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.

APPRECIATING NATURE - TU B'SHVAT

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:58:00 +0000

The first Mishna in the gemara of Rosh Hashana informs us of various 'new years'. These are times of the year that are considered the beginning of the annual calendar with regard to various laws. The Rosh Hashana for trees is the fifteenth day of the month of Shvat, more famously known as 'Tu B'Shvat'. This day is considered a festive day, therefore the prayer of tachanun (supplication for forgiveness) is not recited. Further, there is the universal custom to make blessings on, and, eat a variety of fruit. The overall focus of the day is to thank HaShem for the gift of trees to the world and to recognize the wonders of nature.

Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l asks, why is there no similar concept of a celebratory day for the 'birthday' of vegetables? There is also a date for the new year for vegetables which has halachic (legal) ramifications. That being the case, why is there no festivity on their 'birthday' ? He explains that there are numerous remarkable aspects about nature, that merit contemplation of the wonder of creation. Many 'miracles' occur with regard to both vegetables and trees. For example, the taking root of a seed and its development into a tree, bush or vegetable is truly miraculous - it is only its regularity that takes away from our wonder at this astonishing occurrence. Moreover, the process of photosynthesis that enables plant life to use the energy from the sun is another miracle that demonstrates the complexity of nature.

However, there is an additional miracle that is found specifically with trees. The process of nourishment for a vegetable is relatively straightforward; it is drawn directly from the ground into the vegetable itself. In contrast, the process of nourishment for a tree is far more complicated. The tree needs to be able to take the nourishment from the ground, draw it all the way up the trunk to its branches, and then to the fruit. Rav Weinberg explains that every stage in a plant's development is a miracle, therefore we are instructed to be thankful for HaShem's numerous gifts in this area. Since trees are subject to more miracles than vegetables, it is appropriate that their 'birthday' is considered more worthy of celebration than that of vegetables.

Rav Weinberg's explanation reminds us of the importance of focusing on the details of creation - it is very easy to ignore the numerous miraculous aspects of all of the natural world. Tu B'Shvat awakens us to the importance of appreciating HaShem's gifts, particularly in the form of fruit. It is instructive to offer one small example of this, in order to arouse us to take note of the numerous miracles that surround us.

When a person eats a peach, he pays little attention to the hard stone that lies beneath the tasty fruit. However, Rav Avraham Katz shlita teaches us about the great significance of this seemingly bland aspect of nature. Like all fruit, the peach has a great problem - that is, how to ensure its continuity. Since it is completely immobile it has no way of spreading its seed so that it can procreate. Therefore, the peach seed develops a tasty flesh that surrounds it. This will cause humans and animals to eat the peach, thereby transferring it to other locations where it may be able to take root. However, there remains the difficulty of how the seed will not be consumed by its eater along with the rest of the fruit. Accordingly, the peach seed surrounds itself with a very hard casing that cannot be broken by the strongest teeth. In this way, the precious seed is safe. Nevertheless, the problems do not end there. If the casing is so strong, how will the seed be able escape so that it can take root? The remarkable answer to this, is that the casing is lined with a seam running along its length, which is bounded by a powerful adhesive. Not even a metal hammer is able to crack it. And yet, when the case falls to the ground, there is a special enzyme in the soil that dissolves the glue and allows the seed to exit its casing! This mundane seed is the subject of numerous miracles, and if any of them did not take place, then the peach would cease to exist. This is just one example of the testimony to the wonders of HaShem's creation.

On Tu B'Shvat we take numerous fruits and say blessings on them before we eat them. This custom can help us focus on the numerous acts of kindness that HaShem performs for us in ensuring the creation of these wonderful fruit. As a person goes through his daily routine, it is very easy for him to inadvertently close his eyes to the wonders around him. The analogy is given of a person who visits the Louvre art gallery, and complains that all the paintings look like yoghurt. After some time, he takes of his glasses, only to realize that they had yoghurt on them! He was unable to appreciate the beauty of the paintings because his vision was blocked. So too, a person can go through life with the proverbial 'yoghurt' blocking his vision, causing him to be blind to the numerous marvels that surround him. Tu B'Shvat gives us the opportunity to open our eyes and appreciate some of HaShem's wonderful gifts.

RAV NOACH WEINBERG ZT"L - YISRO

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:17:00 +0000

"I am the Lord, Your G-d, who took you out of the land of Mitzrayim from being slaves. "

The First of the Ten Commandments is the Mitzva of Emuna, to believe in the one G-d as the first cause of all existence, who constantly creates and sustains all of creation . There is another fundamental concept that is connected to Emuna, that of Bitachon, trust in G-d. Is trusting in G-d a part of the Mitzva of Emuna or is it a separate concept that is not included in any specific Mitzva? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Bitachon is not separate at all, rather it is the natural outgrowth of genuine Emuna; The obligation to have Emuna requires that one believe in the fundamental tenets about G-d such as First Cause and Hashgacha (Divine Providence), whereas Bitachon is applying that belief in practice. If a person cannot do this then it reveals that his Emuna is severely lacking. The Chazon Ish gives an example of Reuven who is constantly expressing his Emuna and how everything that he has is from Hashem; he proclaims his recognition that his livelihood emanates purely from Hashem and that there is no need for anxiety. However, when someone else opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future. Reuven's Emuna seemed to be strong when everything was going smoothly, but when he was put to the test he failed to show sufficient Bitachon. This in turn demonstrates that his Emuna was never genuine .

We learn from the Chazon Ish that an essential aspect of Emuna is bitachon, which means applying one's Emuna to real life situations. The Nesivos Shalom zt"l develops our understanding of Bitachon by explaining that there are two levels of Bitachon. There is an inactive kind of Bitachon and there is a proactive Bitachon. Inactive bitachon applies when one finds himself in a difficult situation in which there is nothing he can do - in such circumstances his Avoda is to trust that everything that happens will ultimately be for the good. Proactive bitachon becomes necessary when a person is required to do something that demonstrates his trust in Hashem. He cites the example of Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds); Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were crying out to Hashem to save them from Pharaoh's advancing army. In response, Hashem told them to stop praying and to go into the sea. The Nesivos Shalom explains that in order for the Jewish people to merit Hashem transcending nature through Krias Yam Suf they had to demonstrate a trust in Hashem that transcended the normal laws of nature. They had to believe that if the Ratson Hashem (will of Hashem) was for them to cross the sea then they should trust that He had the ability to enable them to do so, even if they had no idea how it was possible. Accordingly, their stepping into the raging sea before it split was a display of proactive bitachon that earned them the right to the great miracle of Krias Yam Suf .

By combining the lessons of the Chazon Ish and Nesivos Shalom we conclude that genuine Emuna can only manifest itself in a person who is willing to act with an unswerving trust in G-d; a belief that if Ratson Hashem dictates that he act in a certain way, then he can and must take the required action, and that Hashem will enable him to succeed in whatever he endeavors to do. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l epitomized this attribute to a great degree. He is most well-known for his incredible feats in kiruv rechokim (outreach) however, as one of his closest friends pointed out, all his accomplishments emanated directly from his deep Emuna and Bitachon.

I merited to learn in Yeshivas Aish HaTorah for four years, and in that time I was fortunate to experience Rav Weinberg's greatness first-hand. I never forget how he made a bracha - he spoke to Hashem as if He was really in front of Him, a demonstration of 'shivisi Hashem kenegdi tamid' (I constantly place Hashem in front of me) . When he talked about trusting in G-d, it deeply influenced his listeners, not because he said anything so unusual, but because he lived such Bitachon and the fact that he internalized it so greatly enabled it to rub off on others just by observing him.

Because his Emuna was so genuine he was able to apply it in practice and thereby express the high level of proactive Bitachon that the Nesivos Shalom described . He used to say that if we see problems in the world there is no reason that we shouldn't go out and tackle them if we believe that Hashem so desires. Hashem is willing and able to help us achieve his Ratson even if it demands superhuman achievements. If we demonstrate proactive Bitachon then Hashem could make miracles happen for us. This is exactly what took place in Rav Weinberg's life. At a time when kiruv was virtually unheard of, he saw a dire need to bring back the countless Jews who knew nothing of Torah observance. Many people mocked his dreams as being completely unrealistic and called him a fool. Nevertheless, his conviction that he was fulfilling Ratson Hashem enabled him to overcome numerous setbacks and perform miracles in creating a movement that saved thousands upon thousands of unaffiliated Jews from begin totally lost to Judaism . His son, Rav Hillel Weinberg Shlita described how he began his quest with three young men in a small room in Kirayt Sanz. No-one could have imagined how those humble beginnings could culminate in Aish HaTorah and its offshoots. No-one, that is, except for Rav Noach himself; those closest to him testify that he genuinely believed that he would bring Moshiach through his efforts - his extensive achievements were small in his eyes because he knew that Hashem wanted so much more. At the funeral, his son, Rav Hillel, told us what Rav Weinberg would tell us if he were standing in front of us. He would say that we could be bigger than him, we could be as big as Moshe Rabbeinu! Chazal's words to this effect were not some vague saying, rather they were real and should be taken seriously.

I heard an incredible story about how Rav Weinberg put his Emuna into practice; At the shiva his daughter told over that once a chess champion came to Aish, learned for a few days, and decided to leave. Rav Noach challenged him to a game of chess, on the basis that if the student won, he could leave, but if Rav Noach won, he would stay. Rav Noach won. When asked how he could have had the audacity to propose such a deal, he said that he knew Hashem wanted the young man to stay, so he trusted that Hashem would make him win .

It is appropriate to end with one of his oft-told stories, one that I have discussed before, but one that should never fail to arouse us. Many years ago, Rav Shach zt"l came to Aish HaTorah for a bris. Upon seeing numerous baalei teshuva, people who had come from the most distant backgrounds, Rav Shach told over an idea that he had never expressed before . He quoted the Navi, Hoshea; "Return, Yisroel, to Hashem, your G-d because you have stumbled in your sin ." He asked that the Navi implies that the reason that Yisroel should return to Hashem is because they stumbled in sin - why is the stumbling in sin the reason that Yisroel should return to G-d? He answered by explaining that we know that however powerful evil is, the power of good is greater. Accordingly, the very extent to which Yisroel sinned is the proof that they have the power to do teshuva, because however powerful a person's yetser hara, their yetser tov is greater. Based on this, Rav Shach said, that if one man can destroy six million lives, then one man can save six million lives. He was clearly aroused to express this idea by the remarkable feats that Rav Weinberg had already performed. Rav Hillel added, that the man who caused so much destruction, Hitler, yemach shemo, was not a particularly talented or intelligent person and yet he was able to do so much harm. Therefore, each of us, no matter how ordinary we consider ourselves, have the potential to do more good than the evil that he perpetrated. How can we achieve this? By learning from Rav Noach and developing an Emuna and Bitachon that will strengthen us with the belief that we can achieve incredible feats if Hashem so wills it.

It seems difficult to aspire to the level of Emuna and Bitachon that Rav Noach Weinberg attained. However, his greatness in this and all areas did not come about as a result of his natural talent - it was a result of years of hard work in developing his relationship with Hashem. He constantly exhorted us to learn about and internalize the Six Constant Mitzvos, the Mitzvos that encapsulate a Jew's relationship with Hashem. An appropriate way of remembering him would perhaps be to listen to his teachings and strengthen ourselves in our relationship with Hashem through learning about these Mitzvos, beginning with Emuna . This is the key to achieving the level of proactive Bitachon that the Jews reached at Krias Yam Suf and that Rav Noach Weinberg epitomized throughout his life. May we all merit to learn from Rav Noach Weinberg and ensure that his dreams are fulfilled and that every Jew will return to his Father in Heaven.

SHABBOS AND HONORING ONE'S PARENTS - YISRO

noreply@blogger.com (Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:12:00 +0000

The highlight of Parshas Yisro is the Ten Commandments. The fourth Mitzvo is to remember the Shabbos , and the fifth is honoring one’s parents . This juxtaposition may not seem to be of great significance, however, this is not the only time in the Torah that these two seemingly unrelated Mitzvos are juxtaposed. In Parshas Kedoshim, the two Mitzvos are actually mentioned in the same verse: “Every man: Your mother and father shall you revere; and My Sabbaths shall you observe – I am HaShem, your G-d.” Chazal do indeed extrapolate lessons from this verse – they explain that even though one must honor and revere his parents, this obligation does not extend itself to the point where he should listen to his parents’ command to break Shabbos or any other Mitzvo in the Torah. The commentaries ask why the Torah chooses Shabbos in particular to teach that honoring one’s parents does not override other Mitzvos. Indeed, Shabbos is considered one of the most severe Mitzvos to transgress in terms of its punishment.

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l offers a drush explanation as to the juxtaposition of these two Mitzvos. This explanation can perhaps also be used to answer why the verse chose Shabbos in particular when informing us that honoring parents does not override Mitzvos. In his old age, Rav Kamenetsky was once on an airplane with some of his grandchildren. He was sitting next to another elderly man who was a secular Israeli professor. The professor noticed how much Rav Kamenetsky’s grandchildren were honoring and serving him. He told Rav Kamenetsky that his own grandchildren did not give him any honor or respect; he asked the Rabbi what was the difference between the two of them? The Rav answered, that the secular belief is that man originates from apes, therefore each generation is one step further from being an ape. It is logical that each generation is more advanced than its predecessors and consequently there is no reason why young people should honor old people, in fact it should be the reverse – the old should look up to the more ‘advanced’ young. That is why the professor’s grandchildren accorded him no honor.

In contrast the Torah point of view is that the further one goes back in history, the closer one gets to the Act of Creation and Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon was the most holy man, being that he was created by HaShem himself, so-to-speak. Each generation after him is one step further away from that great Act of Creation. Accordingly, each generation views the previous ones as being superior. That, Rav Kamenetsky explained, was why his grandchildren gave him so much respect.

With this elucidation, Rav Kamenetsky explained the juxtaposition of the Mitzvos of honoring one’s parents and keeping Shabbos. Shabbos represents belief in the Act of Creation in that it commemorates how HaShem created the world in six days and then rested. Observing Shabbos demonstrates a recognition that HaShem created the world. When a person has that recognition, he will automatically come to the accompanying realization that each generation is closer to that Act of Creation and therefore worthy of respect. That is the connection between the two Mitzvos – they both emanate from a belief in HaShem’s creation of the world.

Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation can also be used to explain why Chazal chose Shabbos in particular when teaching that honoring parents does not override the Mitzvos of the Torah. As the Ohr HaChaim explains, the end of the verse, “I am HaShem” shows us that honoring one’s parents does not override any Mitzvos because all Mitzvos come from the necessity to do HaShem’s will, including honoring one’s parents. Yet the Torah made a specific mention of Shabbos because the message of Shabbos is intrinsically connected to honoring one’s parents. A person who honors one’s parents recognizes Creation, and it follows that he should also observe the Shabbos which represents the ultimate commemoration of Creation.

This view of elder generations illuminates to us the Torah attitude towards the past, and its stark contrast to that of the secular world. The secular view emphasizes the value of progress whilst often deemphasizing adherence to past values. The Torah view stresses adherence to the values that were passed down since Mattan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). It approaches changes in the modern world in the context of those values. Thus, whilst there have often been valid new approaches and movements in Jewish history they always stay within the context of the values of Mattan Torah. This ides is demonstrated by the Hebrew word for progress – kadima. The root of this word is kedem which means the past. This teaches us that the Torah view is that progress is based on adherence to the values of the past. Those values are very much relevant to the present. We have seen how the Mitzvos of Shabbos and Honoring one’s parents are intrinsically connected – both emphasize the belief in the act of Creation. In turn, they teach us to rest on the seventh day and to respect our elders as being closer to the great moment of Creation. May we all internalize these lessons and keep both Mitzvos to our greatest ability which in turn will strengthen our recognition as G-d as the sole Creator.

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.