REDEFINING SINAS CHINAM - TISHA B'AV

As we approach Tisha B'Av we strive to find ways of improving ourselves so that we can ensure that this is the last year without the Beis HaMikdosh. The famous Gemara in Gittin about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches us a great deal about the cause of the churban (destruction) and what we need to rectify in order to bring about its rebuilding.

The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. The gemara explains that an unnamed man was sworn enemies of Bar Kamtza, but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a seudah (meal) but he mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When he came to the seudah, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After being refused that offer, he eventually offered to pay half the costs of the whole seudah, but was instead thrown out. There were a number of Rabbis at the seudah who stayed quiet throughout his unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.

The Iyun Yaakov zt"l asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for the events that led to the churban, he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai zt"l answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the seudah and witnessed the way that Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that whoever has the ability to protest a wrongdoing and does not, it is considered as if he himself committed that wrongdoing. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, and yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the churban.

Furthermore, the Rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza' s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story - that inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any one of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, then the Beis HaMikdosh may not have been destroyed. Their attitude of apathy to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.

This lesson, that apathy was the cause of the churban Bayis sheini, seems to somewhat contradict the gemara in Yoma, that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the churban. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not restricted to active hatred, it can also be understood to include apathy. We see this from the first time that the root word 'sina' is written in the Torah: In Parshas Vayetsei, after Yaakov Avinu married Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, "and Hashem saw that Leah was snuah (literally translated as hated)." The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one that he loves less is called the 'snuah' - he does not hate her, rather his love for her is weaker than that for his favorite. Based on this, the Ramban explains that Yaakov did not hate Leah, rather his love for her was lacking. Accordingly, we can understand that the word, sina, does not necessarily imply an active hatred, rather it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in the gemara in Yoma need not necessarily be restricted to a virulent hatred, it can also include a sense of apathy and lack of concern for one's fellow.

In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibshitz zt"l writes that the sinas chinam described in the gemara does not refer to active hatred, rather it was the disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, and he argues that this was a result of the absence of people willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, "Do you have a greater hater than this; one who sees his friend drowning in the river [of sin] and does not protest?!" Based on this redefinition of sina, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma does not only involve active hatred, rather it also includes a sense of apathy at the pain of one's fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.

The fact that the Beis HaMikdosh has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very much prevalent today and they apply to many areas of our lives. Whether it be in the realm of sharing another's pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or striving to help the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious cheshbon hanefesh to assess our performance in these areas and to strive to improve in them in some way. May we all merit that this be the last Tisha B'Av or mourning that we endure.

THE ULTIMATE MITZVO - VAESCHANAN

“And you shall teach them thoroughly to your children and speak of them while you sit in your home, while you walk on your way, when you retire and when you rise.”

This passuk is the source of the mitzvo of Talmud Torah, the mitzvo that is described as being equal in value to all the others combined. It is surprising that the source for Talmud Torah does not say ‘you shall learn’, rather ‘you shall teach.’ - why is this the case? The Ksav Sofer notes that the passuk does actually instruct us to learn (vedibarta bam) but only after telling us to teach first (veshinantam). The order should be reversed - a person learns before he teaches?! He answers that that the Torah is alluding to us that one’s own learning must be done with the ultimate goal of teaching others. This also explains why the ikar source for the mitzvo of Talmud Torah is teaching - because the ultimate tachlis of learning is to be able to give it over through teaching.

Of course learning Torah is not merely a means to be able to teach, a person needs Torah to be able to develop a relationship with Hashem, and without learning this is impossible. Nonetheless, it is clear from the commentaries that learning without teaching is a great lacking in the fulfillment of the mitzvo of Talmud Torah. This is why Chazal teach us that ‘lilmod al menas lelamed’ is an essential requirement of our focus in our learning. Moreover, the Meiri and Maharal both write that a person who learns but does not teach cannot reach shleimus.

We now understand why the Torah stresses teaching ahead of learning. However, the choice of word it used needs understanding; usually ‘you will teach’ is translated as ‘limadtem’, but here the Torah says, ‘veshinantam’. Rashi explains that this usage has an added meaning; it implies a high level of clarity so that one if someone asks a question, you can answer it without stumbling. From here we learn that a person can gain more clarity in his learning if it is in preparation to teach. A person who learns a Gemara knowing that people will challenge him on his understanding and explanations of it has a great incentive to learn with greater diligence. According to some commentators, this is the explanation of the Gemara: “Rebbi says, ‘I learnt a great deal of Torah from my teachers, more from by friends, and the most from my talmidim.” Students force a teacher to attain a higher level of understanding.

This idea was stressed by Gedolim: An avreich was not succeeding in his learning so he asked the Steipler Gaon zt”l if he should continue in kollel or begin teaching. The Steipler answered that in the past everybody wanted to teach, and a person who did not find a position in teaching continued to learn in kollel. He then said, “That every Gadol Hador of the past grew greatly from giving shiurim.” Teaching is also a great tool in helping one remember his learning. The Steipler once advised another avreich to teach a shiur in Yeshiva katana, and explained that when one teaches others a piece of learning it is equivalent to learning it twenty times. He said further, “I know from my own experience that that which I learnt myself I have forgotten, but that which I taught to others I remember it to this very day.”

Thus far we have seen how teaching on a high level can greatly help one’s own learning. However, it would seem that teaching people on a lower level would not have the same effect. However, a number of commentaries understand the Gemara that ‘I learnt the most from my talmidim’ in a different way. The Chasam Sofer makes an extraordinary point in his hakdama to his Teshuvas on Yoreh Deah in an essay entitled ‘Pisuchey Chosam’. He speaks at length about the importance of giving over of one’s self for the sake of helping the spirituality of his fellow. He focuses on how Avraham Avinu devoted his time and effort to teaching the uneducated masses about Emuna rather than focus on his own growth. He then exhorts us to emulate Avraham and teach people even if they are on a low level of understanding. He addresses an argument against this approach. “If the Eved Hashem would say, ‘my soul craves closeness to Hashem and I want to get close to him. How can I do this and reduce my own learning and self-perfection in order to perfect my fellow’s soul?!’ The answer to this is found in Chazal; ‘… I learnt the most from my students’. Is it beyond Hashem to make up to you the growth that you forsook for the sake of His Kavod?! You should do what Hashem commanded you - to teach the people - and He will fulfil His role…. He will make it possible for you to attain the shleimus in a small time and you will be able to attain lofty heights beyond your own sechel.” One who teaches people that are on a low level of learning will receive a great deal of siata dishmaya which will enable him to attain greater heights than humanly possible.

There is another benefit for teaching those on a lower level, particularly in areas of emuna and hashkafa. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l greatly encouraged yungerleit who were considering careers in Jewish education. He once spoke to them for a three hour question-and-answer session on this subject. One expressed his concern about the bitul Torah involved in teaching. Rav Yaakov pointed out that teaching often forces one to obtain greater clarity in one’s own learning. He then added, “And if you have to learn a little Chumash and Nach, it won’t be such a terrible thing.” When a person teaches those who lack a basic understanding in such vital areas of Torah as Chumash and Nach he is forced to delve into them on a far deeper level than ever before. The great educator, Rav Yitzchak Kirzner zt”l elaborated on this point in discussing the benefits of teaching people lacking the basic tenets of Yiddishkeit. He said that in order to be able to present the Torah outlook on life a teacher needs familiarity with such works as Derech Hashem and Mesillas Yeshvarim. Unfortunately such works are often neglected amidst the pressure to devote all one’s time to Gemara, but by teaching over basic Torah hashkafa an observant Jew can develop his own understanding of Judaism and relationship to Hashem.

We have thus far seen how teaching Torah is a fundamental aspect of the mitzvo of Talmud Torah and that it reaps untold benefits. However, there may still be a temptation to treat it differently from other chiyuvim and look at it more as a ‘mitzvo kiyumis’ than as an obligation. This would seem to be an incorrect attitude: On one occasion the Chazon Ish zt”l saw that in Ponevezh there were a number of younger bochrim who were struggling in their learning. He ordered the older bochrim to spend some time each day learning with the younger bochrim. He was told that they could not find the time in which to teach their struggling contemporaries because of their busy learning schdules. To this he instructed that the following message should be relayed to the older boys: “Do you put on tefillin?! How can you do so, there is no time, you need to learn! Rather, you find the time to put on tefillin because it is a positive mitzvo - there is another mitzvo that is of no lesser value than tefillin - to set apart time to help the younger bochrim.” The Chazon Ish taught that teaching Torah should be viewed as a chiyuv just like any other mitzvo and that the argument that ‘there is no time to teach’ is baseless.

So how can a person know how much time he must spend teaching? Obviously this is not a simple issue and it varies according to the many factors in the life of each person. However, the Gedolim seem to universally agree that bnei Torah must give some of their time to teaching others, especially those who are lacking in their Torah observance. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l sums up the approach very well. In a talk to yeshiva students he argued that just like we are required to give over at least 10% of our time to tzedaka, so too, a ben Torah “must spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah.” He further stated that, “if one is endowed with greater resources he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.”

We have discussed much about the maalos of teaching Torah. Why exactly is it considered so great to the extent that the Eglei Tal writes that it is on an even higher level than learning Torah? There are a number of reasons for this but one can be found in the passuk we have discussed. The Torah says, “you will teach it to your children.” Chazal learn out this does not only refer to one’s genetic children, but also to one’s students. Why doesn’t the Torah just tell us to teach students? The answer is that the Torah is showing us that teaching Torah is similar in a certain aspect to having children. When a person brings a child to the world he is giving him the tremendous gift of life. When a person teaches someone Torah he is giving him the opportunity to gain eternal life. Thus by teaching Torah you are acquiring the quality of parenting - giving life. This is why students are referred to as children. Indeed teaching Torah to a child is considered an even greater chesed than giving birth to him as the Mishna in Bava Metsia states; “If a person sees the lost objects of his father and his teacher, the teacher takes precedence.” Why? “Because his father brought him to Olam Hazeh but his teacher who taught him wisdom, brings him to Olam Haba.” Teaching Torah is the ultimate chesed that one can do - may we all be zocheh to fulfil it.

STRIPPING AWAY THE ILLUSION - TISHA B'AV

Chazal say that since Churban Bayis Sheini we should really be in a permanent state of mourning. However, we could not permanently live that way so for most of the year we conduct our lives as if everything is normal and how it should be. For three weeks of the year, culminating with Tisha b’Av we face the reality of our situation and adopt the customs of aveilim. We recognize that things are not as they should be - there is no Beis Hamikdash, we are in galus and we live in a time of hester panim when Hashem’s hashgacha over us is not evident to the eye. On Tisha b’Av in particular we focus on the events in Jewish history that reflect this hester panim as a way of internalizing the terrible state of affairs.

It seems that in different eras the hester panim manifests itself in different ways. For generations its main expression was through anti-Semitism. Jews steadfastly kept to the traditions of their ancestors and often had to give up their lives for it. More recently with the Holocaust, Jews were murdered merely for being Jews. The untold suffering that we have endured is something that people rightfully focus on a great deal on Tisha B’Av - by reading about such events we feel more aware of the terrible consequences of heseter panim. Whilst this hanhaga is certainly commendable, it seems that the ikar manifestation of hester panim in the present era is not anti-Semitism. Let's take out five seconds and think yourself what it is……..

I imagine that most people answered that today the main manifestation of hester panim is the desperate state of Torah observance in Klal Yisroel today. We all have a vague, intellectual awareness that things are not as they should be but how bad is it?

The intermarriage rate in USA in 1950 was 6%, by 1990 it was 52% and rising. 2 million Jews of Jewish origin do not identify themselves as Jews. 2 million self-identified Jews have no Jewish connection whatsoever. For every wedding between two Jews, two intermarriages take place. 625,000 US Jews are now practicing other religions. 11% of US Jews go to shul. Every day dozens of intermarriages take place which means that in the time it took you to read this, some Jews were lost forever. These statistics make the situation a little more real to us but it is still far from our hearts. A couple of years ago I had to go to a plastic surgeon in Mevasseret on Tisha B’Av when my son got a bad cut on his mouth. I found myself in a Kanyon and was met by a scene of what chillonim do on Tisha B’Av; they go about their lives as normal. I saw Jews eating in a Macdonalds, acting as if everything was normal. What’s more, is that the exact same scene would great you on Shabbos. We all know that chillonim don’t keep Shabbos but to actually experience it! Baruch Hashem we have no idea of what it means to have no Torah, no Shabbos, no relationship with Hashem, no direction in life … but this is the lot of our brothers and sisters - and what’s the difference between us and them? Simply, that we were born into a Torah-observant family and they were not.

So back to the initial point - This is the time of year that we strip away the illusion that everything is okay - everything is not okay. We have to face the truth - and what’s more is that we have to accept the responsibility for the way things are, and, on Tisha B’av in particular, we must feel the pain, we can’t hide from it. Chillul Shabbos is everywhere, inter-marriage is everywhere. And the most important thing to remember is how Hashem ‘feels’ about it. Just to make that idea more real - Imagine that you had 10 children and you brought them all up to be fully Torah-observant Jews. Nine of them follow the path that you hoped they would but one is slightly lax in this observance. How would you feel? Ask any person who has experienced such a thing and he will tell you that it caused him considerable distress. What if that one child was not just slightly lax but had abandoned Torah completely? Of course that would cause the parents untold grief. Imagine if not one but two children went astray, how much additional pain that would cause. If over half the children totally abandoned Yiddishkeit and of the remaining few only one was fully observant, you would feel unbearable anguish.

All Jews are banim l’Makom - Hashem is their father, and this is the state of Hashem’s ‘family’ - let us take this one day and face the reality - this is what the galus is about today and to end the galus this is what must be dealt with. Hashem is hidden, his children don’t see him, they barely even know he exists - there is certainly plenty to mourn. May this be the last Tisha B’Av of sadness and may it be transformed into a day of rejoicing when ALL Jews know what it means to be Banim l’Makom.

HONESTY - DEVARIM

“Do not be afraid of any man because the judgement is to Hashem.” The Torah instructs judges that they should not be intimidated by powerful people when they are deciding a Din Torah, the reason being that ‘the judgement is to Hashem’ - what does this mean? Rashi explains that when a person unjustly takes money from his fellow there is an injustice that needs to be fixed. Therefore Hashem must direct the hashgacha in such a way that the money will be returned to its true owner. In this way the judgement has been ‘placed’ in Hashem’s hands, forcing Him to correct the injustice done. Why is this so serious? Hashem deliberately limits Himself from too much obvious intervention in our lives so as not to interfere with our free will. If His presence was so obvious it would be much more difficult to sin and the balance of bechira would be effected. By causing Hashem to intervene to reimburse the victim of an injustice a person is indeed effecting this delicate balance.

There is another interesting point that we can learn out from this Rashi: When a person commits an aveira in diney mamonos he is not only transgressing in the realm of Bein Adam LeChaveiro but also in that of Bein Adam LeMakom. This point is of significance because there seems to be a tendency to approach Bein Adam LeMakom mitzvos with a different attitude from Bein Adam Lechaveiro mitzvos: When an observant Jew is offered a plate of food he would normally inquire as to the hechsher of the food before he eats it. If he is unclear as to the standards of the hechsher he will ask a shilo. In contrast, it is quite common that when a person is faced with a question as to paying taxes, for example, he is more likely to proceed without looking into the halachic validity of his actions. Perhaps the realisation that mamonos issues also involve Bein Adam LeMakom can motivate us to be more careful in them.

The Gemara supports the idea that mamonos is an area of natural human weakness; “Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says, most people sin in the area of gezel..” This Gemara seems hard to understand - do most Jews go around stealing from others?! The Rashbam explains that the Gemara is not referring to outright stealing such as pick-pocketing or shoplifting. Rather it is referring to much more subtle and insidious forms of stealing in which people justify that what they are doing is mutar. The Gemara may also include forms of ‘gezel’ that come as a result of sheer carelessness. For the remainder of this article we will discuss some of those areas of halacha in monetary matters that are often neglected and observe how our Gedolim conducted themselves in these areas.

A classic example of carelessness is not returning borrowed items. It seems to be an all-too-common occurrence that people lend sefarim out and never see them again! Unless the lender intends to forgive failure to return the sefer, this constitutes a form of gezel. Of course people do not purposely intend to steal, but such negligence surely stems from a lack of respect for other people’s property. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l was a living example of how to act in this area. On one occasion he was filling in a kesubah and used the chassan’s pen and forgot to return it to him amidst the hectic nature of the wedding. TWO YEARS later he met again with the pen owner and handed him the pen.

Another area in which there is a great yetser hara to be moreh heter is using other people’s items without express permission. There are many instances in which it is forbidden to assume that the owner will be mochel for someone to use his item without asking first. The ease at which one can be nichshal in this area is demonstrated in the following story. Rav Leib Chassid was the famous tzaddik of Kelm. In his later years he went out for a walk on the road between Kelm and Tavrig. One day a teenage boy driving a wagon passed by and offered him a ride. Reb Leib asked him if the wagon was his, and the by replied that it belonged to his father. “Did he give you permission to take passengers?” Reb Leib asked. The boy admitted that he had never discussed it with his father, adding, “Do I really need his permission for that?” “Yes”, said Reb Leib, “since you have not asked permission you would be a thief if you took any passengers into the wagon.” It is such sensitivity that is required in order to avoid erring in these halachos.

Avoiding paying taxes to non-Jewish governments is something which one can easily find justification for, however, this is often a violation of Dina d’Malchusa dina. A woman once asked Rav Kamenetsky why her family should not lie about their income in order to obtain food stamps when there was widespread cheating among other ethnic and racial groups to establish eligibility. “Simple” said Reb Yaakov, “they did not stand at Har Sinai, you did.” This answer is the first and most important step in beginning to be more zahir in areas of mamonos. A person can find numerous reasons to justify various hanhagos in monetary areas but he must remember that ultimately everything a Jew does should be based on what Hashem taught us on Har Sinai. Rav Yisroel Reisman Shlita devotes an entire shiur to conveying the message that whenever one is faced with an opportunity to make or save money he must first and foremost look to the words of Shulchan Aruch to determine whether or not this form of behaviour is allowed. This often means asking a shilo and not presuming that it is okay to cheat the taxes or go back on a monetery agreement. And even if it is common practise among ‘observant’ Jews to act in a certain questionable manner this is not an iron-clad proof that it is mutar to act in such a way.

A second step to avoid aveiros in mamonos is to be aware of the tremendous yetser hara of chemdas hamamon. The Gemara in Chagiga states that gezel is something that people have great taiva for. Because of this great yetser we must be extra careful and place fences that protect us from faltering. We learn just how far one must go to do this from Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l. He once visited a wealthy man and was alone with him in a room. The man was called out for a few minutes but when he returned he was shocked to see that Rav Yisroel was not in the room. He looked everywhere for him and, to his great surprise was Rav Yisroel standing outside the house. Rav Yisroel explained that Chazal teach us that a minority of people sin in arayos whilst a majority sin in gezel: We know that it is forbidden to be alone in a room with an erva lest our yester hara overcome us. If the yester hara for gezel is stronger than that for arayos then we must learn out a kal v’chomer that it is assur to be alone with someone elses’ uncounted money! Rav Yisroel was of course the last person that one would expect would be nichshal in gezel, yet he made fences to protect him from its snares, surely we should emulate him.

We currently find ourselves in the nine days - a time of intense mourning for the Churban and the hester panim that accompanies it. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita suggests that carelessness in mamonos is a direct cause of hester panim: The Torah commands us to use accurate and honest weights and measures. Directly following this parsha comes the parsha of Amalek? What is the connection between these seemingly disparate inyanim?

The Netsiv explains that cheating in business undermines the basic tenets of Emuna and Bitachon. One who trusts that Hashem will provide for his parnosa will have no desire to break the Torah laws in order to acquire money. However, a person who is willing to cheat and be moreh heter in order to support himself demonstrates that he is not living with a belief that G-d is looking over him. Mida ceneged mida, Hashem says, ‘if you are acting as if I am not around then I will no longer be in your midst and protect you.’ Without heavenly protection we are open prey to our enemies.

Thus we have seen how negligence in diney mamonos is not just a transgression of our relationships with others, but also shows a severe lacking in one’s relationship with Hashem - one who feels the need to ‘bend the rules’ in order to gain or save money is ignoring the basic tenets of bitachon in Hashem. Let us learn from our Gedolim and try to be more zahir in at least one of the areas discussed here - whether it be, being more careful in returning borrowed items or not using other people’s items without permission, or being honest in business. But the most important aitsa is that which Rav Reisman stressed so much - every area of our lives is decided by Shulchan Aruch and we must always verify that our actions accord with its instructions.

What is the reward for zehirus in mamonos? The Yerushalmi in Makkos states that since the yetser hara to steal is so great, the reward to overcome this desire is proportionally great. “One who separates from [stealing] he and his descendants will benefit for every generation till the end of days.” May we all be zocheh to end the hester panim and bring Hashem back into our lives.
　

THE THREE WEEKS - GOING BEYOND THE LETTER OF THE LAW

The Gemara tells us that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because people were makpid on each other and treated them according to the strict letter of the law. This seems very difficult to understand - it would have seemed that the whole concept of going beyond the letter of the law is something of a stringency and that failing to follow it would not deserve such a strict punishment. Why were the Jewish people treated so harshly for being medakdek on each other?

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to identify the Torah source for going beyond the letter of the law. In Parshas Va'eschanan, the Torah states: “And you will do that which is right and good in the eyes of Hashem so that He will do good to you and you will come and inherit the land which Hashem promised to give to your forefathers.” This teaches us of the necessity to avoid being medakdek (exacting) in matters of law and to be mevater (forgiving) what is rightfully ours in certain situations. One example of this is; when a person finds a lost object that halachically he is allowed to keep, but he knows the identity of the original owner - Chazal tell us that even though it is technically permitted to keep the object, he should nonetheless give it back. Another example is when a piece of property is for sale - the prospective buyers should give precedence to the person who lives next to that property because he stands to gain the most by buying this particular property. In truth, however, there are numerous instances when one should go beyond the letter of the law - the Ramban writes that the Torah did not want to explicitly state them all, rather we should learn from this passuk that we must constantly strive to treat people in an understanding fashion and avoid always treating them according to the strict letter of the law.

It seems that failure to treat people ‘beyond the letter of the law’ reflects a deep flaw in a person’s attitude to Avodas Hashem. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains, (based on the Ramban on this passuk) that ‘v’asisa hayashar vehatov’ is the bein adam lechaveiro equivalent of ‘kedoshim tehyu’: The Ramban in Parshas Kedoshim explains that a person can keep all of the mitzvos and yet be a menuval b’reshus HaTorah.’ - this means that he is careful not to transgress any mitzvos but at the same time he has no interest in elevating himself in areas of reshus such as eating and sleeping. The underlying reason behind his lifestyle is that he believes that the Torah is true and therefore must be observed, but he does not subscribe to the true Torah outlook - he has no interest in elevating himself spiritually, rather his goals are very much ’this-worldly’, involving such aims as fulfilling his physical desires and attaining wealth. Because of his recognition of the truth of Torah, he will never deliberately commit aveiros, nevertheless he will show no interest in elevating himself in areas that he is not technically obligated to do so.

Similarly, in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro, a person may recognize the necessity of following the laws of the Torah, however he has no desire to integrate into himself the hashkafos behind them. Thus he will always adhere to the strict letter of the law but whenever he has the opportunity to make a financial gain in a technically permissible fashion he will not hesitate to do so. The Torah tells this person that he is making a serious hashkafic error by instructing him to “do what is right and good”, to act ‘beyond the letter of the law’, to treat people in a merciful fashion, and not be medakdek in every case. The Torah is instructing us that we should develop a genuine sense of ahavas Yisroel and thereby treat our fellow Jew in the same way that we would want them to treat us - to be forgiving and compassionate. Thus, for example, when someone has lost a valuable object, a Jew should not hesitate to return it even if he is not obligated to do so. Or, when a person is owed a large amount of money by a pauper, he should act with a degree of flexibility and compassion.

This helps understand why there was such a strict punishment when the Jews treated each other in a strict fashion - they missed the lesson of ‘hayashar b’hatov’, that it is not right to treat one’s fellow Jew in a harsh and unforgiving manner this does not adhere to the spirit of bein adam lechaverio that theTorah espouses.

The commentaries find another difficulty with the Gemara saying that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because the people were strict with each other. Other Gemaras give different reasons for the destructions, such as murder, idol worship, immorality and baseless hatred. Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin answered this question when he was witness to the following incident. Someone had slandered his fellow and now came on Erev Yom Kippur to ask for forgiveness. The victim refused to forgive him, pointing to the halacho that one does not have to forgive slander. Rav Yitzchak asked him about the aforementioned contradiction in Gemaras. He explained that the Batei HaMikdash was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in the other Gemaras. However, he pointed out that Chazal tell us that when people treat each other beyond the letter of the law and are not makpid on every point, Hashem acts measure for measure and is forgiving for even the most serious sins. However, when Hashem saw that the people were treating each other in a strict fashion, He acted accordingly and chose not to be forgiving for their other sins. So too, Rav Yitzchak said to the unforgiving person, if you treat your fellow in such a medakdek way then you should expect that Hashem will treat you in the same way. The man heard the lesson and forgave the slanderer.

May we all be zocheh to treat each other how we would like to be treated ourselves and that Hashem should react in a similar fashion.

GIVING REBUKE - DEVARIM

Parshas Devarim consists largely of Moshe Rabbeinu’s tochacha to the Jewish people. The Parsha begins with Moshe mentioning a number of place names that do not appear anywhere else in the Torah. Chazal tell us that these names were in fact allusions to places where the Jews had sinned; Moshe did not explicitly state that the Jews had sinned here, rather he chose to hint to their transgressions. Rashi explains that he did so “because of the honor of Israel” - even though the Jewish people needed to be rebuked, to explicitly mention their sins would have been too much of a pgam on their kavod. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l derives a vital lesson about tochacha from Rashi’s explanation he writes, “we learn from here how incumbent it is upon the rebuker to worry about and be fearful for, the honor of the person being rebuked.”

This teaches us that the key factor that determines whether a rebuke will have a positive or negative effect is one’s motivation for rebuking. Moshe maintained his love and concern for the Jewish people in the midst of speaking to them very harshly. Indeed, it seems clear that this love was the very reason that he was rebuking them - it was purely an act of kindness. In doing so he was able to maintain a sensitivity to their honor whilst simultaneously criticizing them. The Gemara tells us that it is exceedingly difficult to rebuke someone in an effective way. Nonetheless, this does not mean that we are exempt from the mitzvo, and there are times when one can do a great kindness by clarifying the correct hanhago to someone who is likely to listen. We learn from Moshe that the rebuker must care about the other person, and empathize with him, trying to understand where he is coming from and how is the best way to influence him for the good. Conversely, rebuke can be extremely damaging when it emanates from anger and a lack of concern for the spiritual well being of the other person. In such instances the rebuker will make no effort to try to understand why the other person is acting in such a way and may therefore have unreasonable expectations of him.

The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, demonstrates this point: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbis but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbis, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach zt“l. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim.”

This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do and how much good can be achieved with caring words. How did the girl who spoke harshly to Devora come to commit such a serious sin when she surely meant to defend shemiras hamitzvos? The answer is that she made no effort to understand Devora’s background and level. Consequently, her rebuke did not only fail to change Devora for the good but it very nearly alienated this girl from chareidi Jewry and prevented her from becoming more observant.

In contrast, tochacha that is motivated out of concern for one’s fellow will lead us to measure our words carefully before correcting someone else’s behavior. Rav Yehonasan Eibeschitz zt”l says that the greatest way of fulfilling the mitzvo of ‘love thy neighbor’ is by caring about the spiritual well being of one‘s fellow Jew - this attitude manifests itself in the right form of tochacha. This lesson is very pertinent to Tisha B’Av; Chazal tell us that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinas chinam (baseless hatred). Rav Eibetschitz continues that the sinas chinam was the fact that the people refrained from rebuking each other. As a consequence, the numerous groups of apikorsim were allowed to grow and adversely influence the Jewish people. According to this explanation, hatred is not limited to active adversity, it also includes apathy. Such apathy indicated a severe lacking in the bein adam lechaveiro of the people at the time of the Second Beis HaMedrash.

Chazal tell us that any generation in which the Beis HaMikdash is not rebuilt, is considered as if they destroyed it. This means that the present generation is still effected by sinas chinam, defined by Rav Eibetschitz as not caring enough about one’s fellow to want to help him improve his Avodas Hashem. Whilst we have seen that rebuke can be very damaging when done in the wrong way, nonetheless, if it emanates from a true feeling of ahava then it can surely be used to greatly help our fellow Jew.
　

THE THREE WEEKS

Chazal tell us with regard to any generation in which the Beis HaMikdosh was not rebuilt, it is viewed as if it was destroyed in that very generation. Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l explained that this means that had the Beis HaMikdosh been extant in that generation, then it also would have been destroyed as a result of the people's actions. Accordingly, it is clear that the actions that caused the initial destructions are still very much relevant to the present generation.

The Gemara in Nedarim offers one explanation as to why the first Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. It tells us that after the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdosh and the galus (exile) that followed, the Chachamim and Neviim did not know what was the cause of such a terrible punishment, until Hashem himself told them that it was because “they left My Torah.” Rav explains that this does not mean that they were not learning Torah, rather that they did not make Birchas HaTorah before they would start learning. The commentaries find a number of difficulties with this Gemara. Why were the people punished so severely for the relatively minor sin of not saying Birchas HaTorah? Moreover, this Gemara seems to contradict the Gemara in Yoma, which states that the first Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of murder, idol worship, and immorality.

The Maharal addresses these problems. He writes that it is impossible to understand the Gemara literally, that they were not saying Birchas HaTorah. Rather the Gemara means that they did not say the bracha with the proper intentions. He explains that when a person says Birchas HaTorah, he should focus on his great love and gratitude towards Hashem for giving him the tremendous gift of the Torah. The chachamim of the generation did say the bracha and moreover, did not merely say it out of rote, however they did not focus sufficiently on their love of Hashem when saying it. He continues to explain how this subtle failing was the root cause of the terrible sins that led to the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh. If a person focuses sufficiently on Hashem in the process of his learning then he merits to have tremendous siyata dishmaya that makes it much easier for him to avoid sin, and even if he does falter, it enables him to do teshuva without great difficulty. Rav Hutner zt”l writes that this is what Chazal mean when they say that ‘the light of Torah returns a person to good’. However, if he does not connect to Hashem through his learning then he loses that special siyata dishmaya and if he falters he is far more likely to become trapped in a downward spiral of sin.

Based on this explanation we can resolve the contradiction between the Gemaras in Nedarim and Yoma. The Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in Yoma. However, the failure to say Birchas HaTorah with the proper attitude was the root cause that enabled the deterioration of the Jewish people to the point where they were sinning so greatly. Because they did not connect to Hashem properly they lost siyata dishmaya and consequently fell prey to the powerful temptations of the yetser hara. The Maharal offers a fascinating and somewhat surprising explanation of the reasons why a person may fail to show the proper love of Hashem in his Birchas HaTorah. He argues that it is impossible to love two entities at the same time, and consequently focusing on love of one thing will reduce the focus of the love for something else. Based on this, he writes that there are two possible ‘loves’ that one can express when saying Birchas HaTorah, love of Hashem or love of the Torah, and that it is not possible to feel love for both at the same time! When a person says this bracha he is more likely to express his love for the Torah more than his love for Hashem! He warns that, “one must be very careful that he make the blessing on the Torah with all his heart and soul.”

This explanation of the Maharal may seem to contradict the approach of Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l in Nefesh HaChaim. He emphasized that when one learns Torah they should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem, rather they should delve as deeply as possible into the Torah that they are learning. He argued that this approach is the optimal way through which a person can become close to G-d. The Maharal’s distinction between love of Hashem and love of Torah seems to clash with the Nefesh HaChaim’s emphasis on Torah as opposed to thoughts of Hashem. However, on deeper analysis it seems that there is no disagreement; the Maharal did not say that a person should focus on his love of G-d during his learning. Rather before he begins to learn and says Birchas HaTorah, then he should be careful not to lose focus of G-d. The Nefesh HaChaim himself makes a very similar point with regard to one’s attitude before learning. He writes, “whenever one prepared himself to learn, it is proper for him to spend, at least, a small amount of time, contemplating a pure fear of G-d with a pure heart.” He even argues that at times one should take a small break during his learning in order to rekindle his yiras Hashem.

Thus, it seems that there is agreement amongst these two Gedolim that before a person learns, he must be very careful not to lose sight of whose Torah he is learning. Whist, with regard to the actual time of learning, there is no reason to say that the Maharal will not agree with the Nefesh HaChaim’s approach that one should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem.

The Three weeks is a time to reflect on the various causes of the Churban; a key area of avoda is to maintain a constant awareness of Hashem during one's fulfillment of Mitzvos and learning Torah. By doing so, the Maharal teaches us that each of us will have great siyata dishmaya in avoiding the others sins that caused the churban. May we all merit to see the rebuilding of the Beis HaMiikdosh speedily in our days.

ACCEPTING REBUKE - MATTOS

When the Sfas Emes was a boy, he was looked after by his grandfather, the great Chiddushei Harim. On one occasion, the Sfas Emes stayed awake for most of the night learning Torah until he fell asleep in the early morning. He awoke after a short time to find himself a few minutes late for the shiur that the Chiddushei Harim taught. When the Chiddushei Harim saw that he arrived late he was unaware that his grandson had been awake for most of the night, and strongly rebuked him, presuming that his tardiness was the result of an element of laziness. Instead of defending himself, the Sfas Emes listened quietly to the scolding he received. His friend later asked him why he did not respond to the Chiddushei Harim’s criticism, and thereby spare himself of the rebuke. The Sfas Emes replied, saying, “would I waste the opportunity of being rebuked by my grandfather!” He based this line of thinking on an incident in Parshas Mattos.

The B’nei Gad and Reuven approached Moshe Rabbeinu, asking that he allow them to remain on Eiver HaYarden where there was sufficient land for them to farm their animals. Moshe replied with a strong rebuke - his main point of criticism was that by not entering Eretz Yisrael they would be abandoning their brethren in the upcoming conquest. In a lengthy passage, Moshe ominously reminds them of the incident of the spies and its terrible consequences. In reply to Moshe’s criticisms, the B’nei Gad and Reuven said that they would join the rest of the nation in conquering the land. The Sfas Emes pointed out that in truth, they had intended to join the conquest right from the beginning but Moshe Rabbeinu did not understand this from their request and consequently rebuked them for being unwilling to join their brethren in conquering the land. If so, why did they not interrupt him right at the beginning of his condemnation instead of having to endure such a strong rebuke? The Sfas Emes explained that they wanted to hear the word of rebuke from a great man, and were therefore happy to listen to his criticisms even though they could easily refute them early on. So too, although he could have stemmed the rebuke of his grandfather by justifying his tardiness, he preferred to hear the rebuke of a tzaddik.

What was the great quality of being rebuked by a great man that caused the B’nei Gad and Reuven to bear such stinging rebuke? The Gemara in Taanis tells us that the curses with which the Propeht, Achiya HaShiloni cursed the Jewish people are greater than the blessings with which Bilaam blessed them. The Gemara bases this idea on a passuk in Mishlei: “The blows of a beloved one are trustworthy, and the kisses of an enemy are damaging.” The commentaries explain that the ‘blows’ delivered by one’s beloved here refer to words of rebuke. The rebuke of someone who genuinely cares about his friend is of great benefit because it is aimed at helping him improve himself. This is a great kindness because it helps one improve his spiritual standing. When the B’nei Gad and Reuven heard Moshe Rabbeinu rebuke them, they knew that he was doing so from the purest of motives and only had their best interests in mind. Thus, even though they could defend themselves, it was more worthwhile to listen to his words and try to somehow grow from them.

Thus far, we have seen how the rebuke of a tzaddik is of great value, however it seems that even the tochacha of a less righteous person can be of considerable benefit. Moreover, even rebuke that is given in the wrong way, can still nonetheless help someone tremendously. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the prohibition to take revenge is based on the concept that whatever happens to a person is directed by Hashem. Even if someone acted towards a person in a negative fashion, it is nevertheless fruitless to bear a grudge or take revenge because the pain caused would not have occurred had Hashem so desired. Thus, when a person is rebuked in what he perceives to be a hurtful way, it is highly commendable that he ignore the failings of the rebuker and focus on what he actually said and accept the rebuke. There is often an element of truth in the rebuke proving that this rebuke was sent from Hashem as a means to communicating that he should strive to change his ways.

Shlomo HaMelech makes a similar point in Mishlei: “Hear advice and accept rebuke so that you will become wise in your latter days.” It is interesting to note that with regard to advice, we are told to ’hear’, whereas in relation to rebuke we should ’accept it’. Hearing implies an element of contemplation and thought - when a person is given advice he should think about it before he acts upon it. In contrast when one is rebuked he should accept it without analyzing the validity of the rebuke - rather he should view it as a message from Hashem to improve himself and act accordingly. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l excelled in his reaction towards incorrect rebuke. On one occasion, he answered the phone only to be met with a barrage of criticism from someone who was incensed at one of his halachic rulings. He patiently listened to the tirade until it ended and did not even try to defend himself. A shocked student asked him why he did not respond to such an inappropriate rebuke. He answered that he so rarely receives any rebuke that he was grateful for the opportunity to hear such strong words - and even though in this specific area the rebuke was unfounded, there must be some other area where he could improve himself and he should use the rebuke to improve in that area!

On another occasion Rav Moshe was rebuked for a perceived transgression. He answered the rebuke in a teshuva that is found in Igros Moshe. He begins the teshuva saying: I was very happy that maalas kevodo was so zealous in fulfilling the mitzvo of rebuke according to his understanding, and chas v’shalom that I should be upset at this… bli neder I will no longer travel in a car during the time of candlelighting even though there is absolutely no prohibition in it, and there is not even maaris ayiin.” After completely refuting the arguments of the rebuker he ends, saying, “from his beloved who blesses him with the merit of the mitzvo of rebuke that he did for the honor of HashemYisbarach and for the honor of Shabbos Kodesh..”

It is understandable that most people are not on the level of Rav Feinstein and do not enjoy being rebuked - it is unpleasant be told that one has a character flaw or acted in an improper fashion. However, if a person can move past the feelings of pain he experiences and tries to learn from the rebuke then he can transform it into a tremendous tool for growth and can use it to be a better Eved Hashem.

FASTING ON SHIVA ASAR B'TAMMUZ

The fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz begins the mourning period known as the 'Three Weeks'. On this day, the walls of Jerusalem were broken down, and three weeks later, the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. It is instructive to delve deeper into the purpose of fasting, in order to enter into this sad period with the appropriate state of mind.

The Ben Ish Chai zt"l writes that there are two main purposes of fasting. The first reason is fairly apparent - that fasting diverts a person from physical involvement so that he can focus on more spiritual matters. His second reason is a little less obvious; he explains that when a person fasts, he feels hungry and endures considerable discomfort. By placing himself in such a predicament, he can come to a greater appreciation of the constant hunger and discomfort that a poor person faces throughout his life. This increased awareness will heighten his feelings of pity for the poor man's situation, and will motivate him to offer greater assistance to his unfortunate fellow.

The Ben Ish Chai applies this explanation to clarify an enigmatic gemara in Brachos. The gemara tells us, 'the reward for fasting is charity'. He explains that the gemara is telling us that the consequence of fasting is that a person will give more charity. His very act of fasting will cause him to be more caring about the poor people whom he constantly encounters, and accordingly he will want to help them to a greater degree. It is possible to add that fasting has another benefit related to doing chesed with those less fortunate than oneself. As well as causing a person to give more abundantly, it enables him to improve his giving in a qualitative fashion. By temporarily placing oneself in a situation similar to that of the poor person, he is able to show a far greater sense of understanding for his fellow's desperate situation. When the giver shows that he truly empathizes with the receiver, then the act of giving constitutes a far greater act of chesed.

The Sifsei Chaim explains an Avos d’Rebbi Nosson in a similar vein. It says, “one should greet every man with a friendly countenance… if a person gives to his friend all the gifts in the world, but his face is sullen, it is considered as if he gave nothing. But one who greets his fellow with a friendly countenance, even if he gave him no gifts, it is considered as if he gave him all the best gifts in the world.” The Sifsei Chaim writes that what people want more than anything is for others to show an interest in and care about them. A gift is merely an indication that the giver thought about the needs of his fellow and how he could give him joy. However, without an accompanying show of warmth, the main purpose of the gift is lost, because the person does not feel as if he is being genuinely cared about. In contrast, when a person is friendly to his fellow even without giving any gifts, then he is providing him with his main need, the desire to feel cared about. A person who gives charity with a friendly attitude is giving much more than money, he is nourishing the poor man with a sense of importance by showing that he is cared about. Similarly, when the poor man feels that his fellow truly relates to his pain, then he feels a great deal of comfort that someone truly understands and cares about his plight.

Rav Shach zt"l excelled in doing chesed by showing an understanding of his fellow's challenges. On one occasion he heard about a widower who was depressed to the point that he stopped functioning. Rav Shach decided to visit the man in an attempt to bring him out of his depression. Receiving no response to his knock, he let himself in, and found the man lying motionless on the couch. "I know what you are going through," he said to the man. "I'm also a widower. My world is dark and I have no joy." The man's eyes lit up for the first time in months - this encounter was the catalyst of the man's resumption of a normal life. What was Rav Shach's secret? By stressing that he too experienced the feelings of losing a spouse, he showed the man that somebody truly understood his pain.

In this instance, the giver had first-hand experience of the receiver's situation. When one is fortunate enough not to endure the same difficulty, he must adapt the lesson of the Ben Ish Chai and try to somehow place himself in a state where he can somewhat relate to his fellow's plight. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita applies this lesson to help people empathize with those who lose family members through some kind of tragedy. He suggests that when one hears about such a tragedy he should spend a short time thinking about how he would feel if this happened to someone close to him. In this way, one can develop a far greater sense of empathy with those who suffer tragedy.

This lesson of fasting is particularly relevant to the 'Three Weeks' Chazal say that the Second Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of failings in the area of bein adam lechaveiro. A failure to empathize with the situation of one's fellow is one of the main causes for such flaws. It is far easier for a person to harm others when he has no sensitivity to the pain that he causes them. The Ben Ish Chai teaches us that fasting can be an effective way of eroding one's apathy for his fellow Jews. May we utilize the fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz to improve our conduct in bein adam lechaveiro.
　
　
　
　
　
　

THE ZEALOUSNESS - PINCHAs

The parsha begins with Hashem rewarding Pinchas greatly for his act of zealousness in killing Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchas was from the tribe of Levi whilst Zimri was from the tribe of Shimon. This is not the first time in the Torah that these two tribes are associated with one another - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l provides an illuminating account of the history of these two tribes and how they developed in such different ways.

In parshas Vayishlach, we are told of how Shechem kidnapped Deena. All of the brothers conspired to bring her back - their plan was to persuade the people of Shechem to undergo bris mila and then they would come and retreive Deena whilst the people were still recovering. However, Shimon and Levi planned a more drastic course of action - they believed that all of the people of Shechem were chayav misa for their part in the taking of Deena and proceeded to wipe out the whole city in the process of saving her. Yaakov Avinu strongly disagreed with their course of action, fearing that it would greatly damage the reputation of his family. Shimon and Levi defended their actions, saying, “should our sister be treated like a harlot?!”

It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticized Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel.” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah. Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi?

He answers that Yaakov saw that they possessed a positive mida that the other brothers did not. He recognized their motivation in destroying Shechem - they were willing to risk their whole lives in order to defend the kavod of their sister. The other brothers also saw the terrible situation in which Deena was in, but only Shimon and Levi felt the pain as if it were their own pain. Rav Kamenetsky writes: “Yaakov saw that their actions stemmed from an inner pain and genuine empathy with the pain of another, and this motivated them to a burning zealousness that was without limit, to the point where they could not find menuchas nanefesh until they destroyed the whole city. Only men of this character, who feel the pain of their fellow as if it is their own pain - only they would … be moser nefesh and give up their physical resources, in order to wander from city to city to spread the Torah of Hashem in the world and to teach the children of Bnei Yisroel.”

Yaakov Avniu saw in Shimon and Levi a zealousness that could potentially be used for a very positive purpose, spreading Torah in Klal Yisroel. However, in this week’s parsha we see how the descendants of these two Bnei Yaakov, followed very different paths: Pinchas, a member of the Tribe of Levi, was able to channel his zealousness to doing the ratson Hashem - his act of violence brought an end to the plague that killed thousands of people. Hashem rewarded him highly to show that He acknowledged that Pinchas was acting purely leshem shamayim. However, Zimri, a Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, expressed the zealousness of his ancestor in a forbidden way, breaking boundaries that the Torah forbade. How did these two tribes divert so drastically from each other? Rav Kamenetsky explains that whilst most of Klal Yisroel were slaves in Mitzrayim, the tribe of Levi was free to learn Torah. It was this period of internalization of Torah values that enabled the Leviim to channel their zealousness in the right way. In contrast the members of Shevet Shimon never had the opportunity to learn Torah in the same way. Consequently their zealousness was without guidance and therefore expressed itself in forbidden ways. Rav Kamenetsky observes: “When zealousness is guided and bound by the limits of the Torah then it will succeed…. But without guidance, boundaries, and the hanhagas haTorah… it [zealousness] does not have the power to succeed and ultimately will remove the kanai from the world.”

There are numerous lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes.
Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behavior, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel.’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel.

Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today.”

Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world?”

Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularisation that was becoming rampant in their times.

Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashem. May we all merit

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA - PINCHAS

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables.” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’.

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation, however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.
Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara. The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah, and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt.

The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’

We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem.” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment. Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality..”

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.