TAKING ACHRAYUS FOR OURSELVES - NITZAVIM -

“This mitzvo that I command you today - it is not hidden from you and it is not distant. It is not in heaven, [for you] to say, ‘who can ascend to the heaven for us and take it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?’” What is the mitzvo that the Torah refers to in this passuk? The Ramban writes that it is the mitzvo of teshuva; the Torah is telling us that teshuva is not something that is out of our grasp, rather it is easily attainable if only we make the effort. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l asks, if the mitzvo of teshuva is so easy to fulfil, then why are there so few people who do teshuva properly, everyone knows that they make mistakes so why do they not admit their error and repent?!

The following Medrash about the story of Kayin and Hevel can help us answer this question: After Kayin killed Hevel, Hashem did not punish him instantly, rather He said “where is Hevel your brother?” Kayin famously answered, “am I my brother’s keeper?” (ibid. 4:9) The Medrash gives more details of Kayin‘s reply: “You are the protector of all life, and You are asking me?!.. I killed him but You gave me the evil inclination, You are supposed to protect everyone and You let me kill him, You are the one that killed him… had You accepted my offering like his, I would not have been jealous of him.” Why didn’t Kayin do teshuva for his heinous act? Because he refused to accept culpability for his role in the murder - he even blamed it on Hashem! We can now answer our initial question as to why so few people do teshuva properly. We are generally aware that we commit aveiros but there is one factor that prevents us from repenting properly, the ability to accept that the ultimate responsibility for our actions lies with us and us alone. There are many factors to which we can easily attribute our flaws; whether it be our upbringing, our natural inclinations, or our society, we find it extremely hard to accept ultimate responsibility for our failings. The prerequisite for teshuva is a recognition that ’I could have done better, I could have overcome my yetser hara and not sinned.’ Without the ability to make this difficult admission we can not begin to repent properly but with it teshuva is easily attainable.

This inability to admit our guilt lies at the core of the first and most decisive sin in human history which plagues us to this very day - that of Adam HaRishon. We traditionally attribute Adam’s sin to his disobeying Hashem’s instructions not to eat from the fruit, and it was this that caused Adam and Chava to be expelled from Gan Eden with all the accompanying negative consequences. Rav Motty Berger shlita points out that on closer analysis it is clear that they were not punished immediately after the sin. Rather, Hashem engaged Adam in conversation, giving him the opportunity to admit his mistake. However, Adam did not accept this reprieve, instead he said, “the woman whom You gave to be with me - she gave me of the tree and I ate.” Adam avoided responsibility for his sin, shifting it onto Chava and even Hashem himself for giving her to him initially. Then Hashem turned to Chava, also giving her a chance to repent - she too declined the offer, saying, “the serpent deceived me and I ate.” Only then did Hashem punish them for the sin. it is clear that had they taken responsibility for their actions when Hashem confronted them, then surely the punishment would have been far lighter. Who knows how different the course of history could have been!

We see from the stories of Adam and Kayin that the ability to admit one’s mistakes is perhaps even more important than not sinning! Indeed we all err at some point, it is whether we can stand up and admit the truth for our actions that is the true judge of our spiritual level. It was only several hundred years after the sad beginning of history that a man arose who would shoulder the responsibility for his actions and metaken the mistake of Adam HaRishon. The Tosefta says “why did Yehuda merit the Kingship? Because he admitted [to his actions] in the incident of Tamar.” Tamar was about to be burned at the stake for her alleged act of adultery, when she gave Yehuda the chance to admit to his part in the events. He could easily have remained quiet, thereby sentencing three souls to death - Tamar and the twins inside her. However, in a defining moment in history, he bravely accepted accountability, saying, “she is right, it is from me.” It is no co-incidence that this was the key moment in producing the seed of Moshiach. We know that Moshiach is the person who will bring mankind back to its pristine state of before the sin, rectifying the mistake of Adam and Chava. The way in which to repair the damage done by a sin is by correcting the negative midda displayed in that sin. As we have seen, the main flaw present in Adam’s sin was an inability to accept responsibility for mistakes, therefore Yehuda’s success in taking responsibility for his actions was an ideal rectification.

The intrinsic connection between Moshiach and taking responsibility continued strongly amongst Yehuda’s most distinguished descendant, David Hamelech. The Gemara tells us that Shaul sinned once and subsequently lost his kingdom, whereas David sinned twice and remained king. Why was Shaul treated so much more harshly than David? Shmuel confronted Shaul after he had not destroyed all of Amalek as he was commanded. But instead of admitting his mistake, Shaul justified his actions, denying he even sinned. Then he blamed it on the people for pressuring him to leave over some of Amalek’s animals to be offerings. After a lengthy back and forth, Shaul finally did repent but it was too late and Shmuel informed him that he had lost his right to the kingship. In contrast, after David’s sin in the incident of Batsheva, The prophet Natan sternly rebuked him for his actions, and David immediately replied, “I have sinned to Hashem.” David showed his willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes by immediately admitting his guilt unlike Shaul. Therefore he was forgiven and given another chance to continue as King. Moreover, the kabbalistic sources write that David Hamelech is a gilgul (reincarnation)l of Adam HaRishon and that his purpose was to metaken Adam’s sin. It seems very apparent that one of the main ways in which David HaMelech was metaken the chet was by taking responsibility for his error so quickly.

We live in a society today that shuns the concept of responsibility - many educated people claim that no-one can be held liable for his behaviour. They argue that essentially we do not have any free will, the person that we become is predestined based on our background, upbringing, genetics and society. Consequently, criminals can be excused of their crimes on the basis that they really had no choice in the matter, and people can tolerate the failings in their relationships and middos as being unavoidable. The Torah outlook strongly rejects this view. If a person is brave enough to admit that he can do better then Hashem will surely help him do so.

We see this from the Gemara about a man called Elazar ben Durdaya. He was a man who was steeped in immorality, however, he suddenly came to a realisation of the error of his ways. The Gemara then proceeds to tell us how he tried to gain forgiveness for his sins. He sat between a mountain and a hill and asked them to request rachamim for him but they refused. He then asked the heavens and earth to request rachamim for him but they also refused. He finally turned to the sun and the moon but they also refused to help him.

Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita brings a drash explanation of this Gemara. The different things whom he asked to pray for him represent different influences on his life; he was trying to shift responsibility for his behaviour onto them. The mountain and hill represent his parents. He argued that his upbringing was responsible for his dire situation, but they refused to acknowledge their guilt. He then turned to the heavens and earth, who represent his environment and tried to blame that for his actions, but they also would not accept responsibility for his sins. He finally turned to the sun and the moon who represent his mazal, his natural inclinations, and claimed that it was impossible to avoid sinning because of his teva. But again, they would not accept culpability for his behaviour. Then the Gemara states that he said “this thing is only dependent on myself.” He finally acknowledged that there was only one source responsible for his aveiros - himself. He could not blame his parents, society or teva, he realised that he had the power to change his ways and he did so. He then did teshuva sheleima and his soul returned to heaven and a Bas Kol came out, proclaiming that Rebbi Elazar ben Durdaya has a place in Olam Haba. The commentaries note that the Bas Kol called him ‘Rebbi’ because he is our Rebbi in teshuva - he teaches us that the only way to do proper teshuva is to admit that the ultimate responsibility for our behaviour lies only with ourselves. If we can do this, then we can hope to do teshuva sheleima.
　

KOHELES AND SUKKOS

On many holidays, it is customary to read one of the five megillos. There is always a connection between the festival and its megillah. On Sukkos we read Koheles. This megillah was written by Shlomo HaMelech and focuses on how he experienced every pleasure in this world (within the parameters of Jewish law) but discovered that it was all hevel havalim, the ultimate emptiness.

The commentaries observe that the message of Koheles seems to contradict the very essence of Sukkos. This holiday is described as zman simchaseinu, even more joyous than the other festivals. Koheles, in contrast, seems anything but joyous in its stress on the meaningless of this world. What connects Sukkos and Koheles?
In Darchei Mussar, Rav Yaakov Neiman, ztz”l, notes that a primary feature of Sukkos is the command to leave our permanent abode and live in a temporary dwelling. He points out that this move hardly seems conducive to joy. Leaving one’s secure, comfortable home for a flimsy, sparse sukkah sounds downright depressing. Rav Neiman explains, however, that a person can reach true happiness only when he recognizes that the pleasures of this world are illusory and provide no genuine joy or fulfillment. Exchanging the comforts of home for a sukkah facilitates this recognition.

Yet why can one never attain true happiness through this-worldly pleasures? A fundamental tenet of Judaism is that a human being is composed of body and soul. Both demand satisfaction: The body seeks the physical delights of this world, whereas the soul aspires to connect to Hashem, which is possible mainly in the next world. The soul can elevate the body to the point that the body becomes subservient to the soul and facilitates its connection to Hashem. For example, if one says a blessing when he eats, he elevates this mundane, physical act to a spiritual one. However, if a person focuses on this-worldly pleasures, his soul receives no satisfaction, since its aspirations are being ignored. It follows that over- attachment to the physical world excludes the soul and therefore precludes true joy.
We can now understand the connection between the joy of Sukkos and the apparent pessimism of Koheles. Shlomo HaMelech is saying that life is meaningless only when aimed at this-worldly pleasures. We see this idea in the Gemara’s discussion of a contradiction within Koheles. In the second chapter, Shlomo writes, “Joy, what does it do?” suggesting the futility of happiness. However, in the eighth chapter, he tells us, “I praised joy.” The Gemara explains that joy is praiseworthy when it involves a mitzvah and futile when it does not. In other words, happiness rooted in this world is meaningless, but the joy of spirituality is to be praised.
Accordingly, Sukkos and Koheles go hand in hand. Both teach us that the only way to attain true happiness is by recognizing that this-worldly pleasures will never satisfy the soul’s yearning for Hashem. May we apply these lessons to our lives and experience the joy of Sukkos.

HOW TO KEEP THE YETSER HARA AWAY - BEREISHIS

In the midst of the famous story of Kayin and Hevel the Torah offers us the very first lesson about the yetser hara (negative inclination); after Hashem ignores Kayin’s offering and turns to that of Hevel, Kayin reacts very badly. “Kayin was very angry and his countenance fell.” In response to this reaction, Hashem warns Kayin about the possible consequences of his reaction; “And Hashem said to Kayin, why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not true that if you do good, you will be forgiven? But if you do not do good, sin crouches at the opening; its longing is toward you, yet you will rule over it.”

The Kli Yakar explains this enigmatic verse with a Gemara in Brachos; the Gemara compares the yetser hara to a fly. He explains that a fly does not have enough power to open a person’s skin when there is no wound there, however when he finds an opening, he has enough power to strike and open the wound further. So too, the yetser hara does not have enough strength to expose a weakness of a person who has not faltered in his Avodas Hashem. However, when a person weakens he creates an opening through which the yetser hara can enter and cause the person to sin further. This is the explanation of the Gemara in Shabbos that says; “of the one who comes to sin it is opened for him.” The Kli Yakar explains that the opening referred to is that he has opened the door for the yetser hara to enter and widen the opening until the wound becomes impossible to heal.

The yetser hara stands at the opening, waiting for a person to falter, but if he does not then he will rule over the yetser hara because it does not have the strength to cause him to sin if he stands steadfast in his avodas Hashem. However, if a person does falter, even in a small way, then the yetser hara can enter the opening and it will be far more difficult to now overcome it’s temptations. Hashem was telling Kayin that he was on the brink of falling into the trap of the yetser hara by opening the door to him. Kayin did not heed Hashem’s advice, and instead he confronted Hevel, allowing his yetser hara to overcome him and lead him to commit the terrible sin of murder.

Based on this understanding the Kli Yakar suggests that a person who has foresight should strive not to give the yetser hara any opening through which it can enter and cause great damage. From here we learn the importance of consistency in one's avodas Hashem. It is well-known that when a person undertakes some kind of self-discipline, such as a diet, or giving up an addiction, it is essential that he strive to avoid faltering in any way. This is because of the Kil Yakar’s principle - once a person shows a sign of weakness, then he triggers a process of deterioration that is very hard to stop. It seems that people who have tried to give up something, and failed, in many instances did not make a conscious decision to renew their bad habit. Rather they had a moment of weakness where they made an exception to their discipline, however that one moment of weakness began the process whereby they fell back into the traps of that addiction.
Very often, people who commit terrible sins began with a very minor transgression. One Rabbi suggested that this was the case with the tragic cases of ‘observant’ butchers who descended to the point where they were selling non-kosher meat. How could someone fall to such a low level to the extent that he causes so many people to sin? He explained that they probably began with a very minor ‘short-cut’ that saved some money, and in time this slowly escalated until the yetser hara has completely taken over the person.

Not everyone will necessarily fall to this level when they falter, however there is still a great need for a person to try to remain consistent in his lifestyle and avoid even minor failings as much as possible. This applies in all areas of Avodas Hashem. In one’s own observance of mitzvos, small lapses can lead to bigger ones. It similarly applies with regard to one’s relationships - very often a relationship can deteriorate as a result of one thoughtless comment and after the damage is done it is far harder to rectify the situation. It is especially applicable in the area of learning - Chazal emphasize that a person must have set times for learning that are never missed; by consistently learning at a set time a person can overcome the yetser hara’s attempts to take him away from his learning. However, if he does not consistently adhere to his schedule then it is far easier for the yetser hara to drag him away from learning on a constant basis.

The story of Kayin teaches us about the importance of remaining steadfast in one’s Avodas Hashem as a prime way of overcoming the yetser hara and the terrible consequences that can occur if we do not. May we all be zocheh to defeat the yester hara and reach our full potential.
　
　

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION - BEREISHIS

After Kayin’s heinous act of murdering his brother Hevel, Hashem decreed upon him to be a wanderer around the earth, he was never to have a permanent dwelling. It is a basic tenet of Torah that any ‘punishment’ that Hashem decrees upon a person is not arbitrary, rather it is intended as a tikun for that person’s aveiro. By adhering to the conditions of the onesh a person can rectify his initial mistake; living in this state of galus was intended to be the tikun for Kayin. However, it seems that Kayin did not adhere to the form of tikun that Hashem decreed for him, rather he tried to avoid it. Immediately after receiving his onesh the Torah tells us how Kayin proceeded. “And Kayin was a city builder..” The Ramban notes that the lashon of the Torah hints to the fact that Kayin was constantly building cities but they would immediately collapse because of the curse that he be in constant exile. However, instead of learning from this and accepting his status as a wanderer, Kayin continued to build cities throughout his life.

Kayin’s actions seem to have generated a trend in his descendants to avoid the tikunim that Hashem had ascribed to mankind to metaken the chet of Adam HaRishon. He told Adam after the chet that the tikun for him was to work the land with his own hands in order to earn his livelihood. However, Kayin’s descendants preferred to avoid working the land and turned to other forms of earning a livelihood: The Torah describes how they did this: “”And Adah bore Yaval; he was the first of those who dwell in tents and breed cattle. The name of his brother was Yuval; he was the first of all who handle the harp and flute. And Zilla, too - she bore Tuval-Kayin, who sharpened all cutting implements of copper and iron..” Rashi explains that these innocuous passukim are of great significance because they represent the development of some of the basic aspects of modern civilization. Yuval chose to be a shepherd, avoiding Hashem’s instructions to work the land. It is also possible that the ‘dwelling in tents’ in the passuk represents the development of business activities, also something not consistent with the tikun that Hashem ascribed to mankind. Yuval was the first to develop the art of music; this represents how mankind tried to avoid the pain of working the land by distracting itself with entertainment. And Tuval-Kayin was the first to develop weapons which enabled man to survive by overpowering others, another way in which he could avoid the klala to work the land. Thus we have seen how the development of mankind was based on a desire to avoid the method which Hashem had given them to rectify the chet of Adam HaRishon in favor of an easier lifestyle which would not metaken chet Adam HaRishon. Consequently, mankind developed in a state of ignoring Ratson Hashem, which culminated in their subsequent moral degeneration and destruction in the Great Flood.

There was one person who did attempt to deal directly with Hashem’s directive to work the land; “Lamech .. begot a son. And he called his name Noach, saying, ’this one will bring us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which Hashem had cursed.’” Rashi tells us that Noach invented farming tools and this made the working of the land more successful. Noach was the first person who did not try to avoid the klala of Adam HaRishon, rather he faced it directly and this helps explain why Noach was also the one person who Hashem did not destroy. Unlike the rest of the world, his life was dedicated to fulfilling Hashem’s ratson, therefore he was not subject to the moral degeneration that plagued mankind.

There are two significant lessons that can be learned from this brief tour of early world history. Firstly, we have discussed how the development of civilization was characterized by a desire to avoid Ratson Hashem. This too is a great nisayon in today’s society; we are blessed with constant advances in technology - these can be used to provide great spiritual benefit for mankind if used with the correct intentions, however, often this is not the case. This even seems to be true to an extent among observant people. The cell phone, for example, is a device that can have great benefits, however, all too often these are outweighed by its damage. For example, Gedolim have decried, amongst other things, the tremendous bitul Torah caused by people having their cell phones at hand even during learning. Moreover, cell phones have brought a new dimension to disrespectful behavior both for Hashem and people. We are all familiar with the sound of a cell phone during davenning, weddings, and speeches. Rav Frand Shlita even mentions a case in which a person neglected to turn of his phone during a levaya, but what is far worse is that he actually answered it and spoke whilst the levaya was taking place! This does not necessarily mean that we should not utilize the great potential of modern technology but we must be vigilant that ensure that we are using it to further Ratson Hashem and not negate it.

A more general lesson that can be derived from here is that very often Hashem places us in a situation from which He wants us to grow but we have a tendency to avoid seizing that opportunity. The Toras Avraham writes that Hashem communicates us through yissurim - this does not just refer to major tragedies, but also to the general difficulties that we all face in life. A good example of this is marriage; how can a person know which area of growth to focus on in his marriage? By noting in which area there is the most friction in the marriage and how his failings contribute to this problem. Clearly Hashem is sending him these yissurim as a way of telling him that he should work on this area of his midos. However, even a person who is willing to work on his marriage may prefer to focus on aspects of growth that come more naturally to him; for example, a person who has a leaning to the bein Adam le Makom aspect of Avodas Hashem is more likely to focus on working on tefilla than rectifying his issues in Bein Adam Lechaveiro. Obviously, it is a great thing to work on tefilla, however even this can emanate from atsas hayetser hara that wants to divert us from focusing on the most needed aspects of our growth.

Parshas Bereishis is far more than a historical description of the early generations in history. It is an account of how Hashem communicated to mankind how they should rectify their mistakes and how the vast majority of them refused to heed His instructions. It is upon us to heed their mistake and directly learn from Hashem’s hashgacha how we can do His Ratson.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION - BEREISHIS

After Kayin’s heinous act of murdering his brother Hevel, Hashem decreed upon him to be a wanderer around the earth, he was never to have a permanent dwelling. It is a basic tenet of Torah that any ‘punishment’ that Hashem decrees upon a person is not arbitrary, rather it is intended as a tikun for that person’s aveiro. By adhering to the conditions of the onesh a person can rectify his initial mistake; living in this state of galus was intended to be the tikun for Kayin. However, it seems that Kayin did not adhere to the form of tikun that Hashem decreed for him, rather he tried to avoid it. Immediately after receiving his onesh the Torah tells us how Kayin proceeded. “And Kayin was a city builder..” The Ramban notes that the lashon of the Torah hints to the fact that Kayin was constantly building cities but they would immediately collapse because of the curse that he be in constant exile. However, instead of learning from this and accepting his status as a wanderer, Kayin continued to build cities throughout his life.

Kayin’s actions seem to have generated a trend in his descendants to avoid the tikunim that Hashem had ascribed to mankind to metaken the chet of Adam HaRishon. He told Adam after the chet that the tikun for him was to work the land with his own hands in order to earn his livelihood. However, Kayin’s descendants preferred to avoid working the land and turned to other forms of earning a livelihood: The Torah describes how they did this: “”And Adah bore Yaval; he was the first of those who dwell in tents and breed cattle. The name of his brother was Yuval; he was the first of all who handle the harp and flute. And Zilla, too - she bore Tuval-Kayin, who sharpened all cutting implements of copper and iron..” Rashi explains that these innocuous passukim are of great significance because they represent the development of some of the basic aspects of modern civilization. Yuval chose to be a shepherd, avoiding Hashem’s instructions to work the land. It is also possible that the ‘dwelling in tents’ in the passuk represents the development of business activities, also something not consistent with the tikun that Hashem ascribed to mankind. Yuval was the first to develop the art of music; this represents how mankind tried to avoid the pain of working the land by distracting itself with entertainment. And Tuval-Kayin was the first to develop weapons which enabled man to survive by overpowering others, another way in which he could avoid the klala to work the land. Thus we have seen how the development of mankind was based on a desire to avoid the method which Hashem had given them to rectify the chet of Adam HaRishon in favor of an easier lifestyle which would not metaken chet Adam HaRishon. Consequently, mankind developed in a state of ignoring Ratson Hashem, which culminated in their subsequent moral degeneration and destruction in the Great Flood.

There was one person who did attempt to deal directly with Hashem’s directive to work the land; “Lamech .. begot a son. And he called his name Noach, saying, ’this one will bring us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which Hashem had cursed.’” Rashi tells us that Noach invented farming tools and this made the working of the land more successful. Noach was the first person who did not try to avoid the klala of Adam HaRishon, rather he faced it directly and this helps explain why Noach was also the one person who Hashem did not destroy. Unlike the rest of the world, his life was dedicated to fulfilling Hashem’s ratson, therefore he was not subject to the moral degeneration that plagued mankind.

There are two significant lessons that can be learned from this brief tour of early world history. Firstly, we have discussed how the development of civilization was characterized by a desire to avoid Ratson Hashem. This too is a great nisayon in today’s society; we are blessed with constant advances in technology - these can be used to provide great spiritual benefit for mankind if used with the correct intentions, however, often this is not the case. This even seems to be true to an extent among observant people. The cell phone, for example, is a device that can have great benefits, however, all too often these are outweighed by its damage. For example, Gedolim have decried, amongst other things, the tremendous bitul Torah caused by people having their cell phones at hand even during learning. Moreover, cell phones have brought a new dimension to disrespectful behavior both for Hashem and people. We are all familiar with the sound of a cell phone during davenning, weddings, and speeches. Rav Frand Shlita even mentions a case in which a person neglected to turn of his phone during a levaya, but what is far worse is that he actually answered it and spoke whilst the levaya was taking place! This does not necessarily mean that we should not utilize the great potential of modern technology but we must be vigilant that ensure that we are using it to further Ratson Hashem and not negate it.

A more general lesson that can be derived from here is that very often Hashem places us in a situation from which He wants us to grow but we have a tendency to avoid seizing that opportunity. The Toras Avraham writes that Hashem communicates us through yissurim - this does not just refer to major tragedies, but also to the general difficulties that we all face in life. A good example of this is marriage; how can a person know which area of growth to focus on in his marriage? By noting in which area there is the most friction in the marriage and how his failings contribute to this problem. Clearly Hashem is sending him these yissurim as a way of telling him that he should work on this area of his midos. However, even a person who is willing to work on his marriage may prefer to focus on aspects of growth that come more naturally to him; for example, a person who has a leaning to the bein Adam le Makom aspect of Avodas Hashem is more likely to focus on working on tefilla than rectifying his issues in Bein Adam Lechaveiro. Obviously, it is a great thing to work on tefilla, however even this can emanate from atsas hayetser hara that wants to divert us from focusing on the most needed aspects of our growth.

Parshas Bereishis is far more than a historical description of the early generations in history. It is an account of how Hashem communicated to mankind how they should rectify their mistakes and how the vast majority of them refused to heed His instructions. It is upon us to heed their mistake and directly learn from Hashem’s hashgacha how we can do His Ratson.