ATONEMENT FOR THE SALE OF YOSEF - PARSHAS SHEKALIM

"This shall they give - everyone who passes through the census - a half shekel of the sacred shekel, the shekel is twenty geras, half a shekel as a portion to Hashem."

In Parshas Ki Sisa, the Torah instructs every man to give half a shekel (known as machsis hashekel) towards the communal offering given in the Mishkan (Tabernacle). Since the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh, we no longer merit to have this Mitzvo, however, we remember it every year when we read Parshas Shekalim. Accordingly, there still remain valuable lessons that can be derived from the machsis hashekel.

The Medrash Rabbah offers a surprising reason for the mitzvo, and in particular, why the specific value of half a shekel, must be given. The Medrash explains that the giving of the half shekel is an atonement for the sale of Yosef Hatzaddik by his brothers. The brothers sold Yosef for twenty pieces of silver. This is equivalent to five shekel. Ten of the brothers sold Yosef, each one receiving one tenth of this value, making a half shekel each. Accordingly, since each brother gained half a shekel in the sale, their descendants were instructed to give half a shekel as an atonement. The obvious question to be asked is what is the connection between the giving of half a shekel and the sale of Yosef?

In order to answer this, we need to deepen our understanding of the sale of Yosef. The brothers knew that twelve tribes were destined to come from Yaakov Avinu. Each tribe would have its own unique qualities and they would all join together to combine to make up the Jewish people as a whole, with tribe complementing the others. The brothers decided that Yosef had lost his right to be part of this group, because of what they perceived to be his dangerous attitude and behavior. Therefore, they believed that they could remove Yosef from the destined 12 tribes, and be left with only eleven. The chiddush (novelty) of this approach was that they planned to remove one of the twelve pieces to the puzzle that would constitute the Jewish people. They felt that they could do without Yosef's potential contribution to the Jewish people, and the Jewish people could continue without him.

With this understanding we can now explain how the mitzvo of Shekalim atones for the sale of Yosef. The commentaries note the significance of the fact that one must give half a shekel as opposed to a full shekel. Many explain that it comes to teach us about the importance of unity amongst the Jewish people by showing that each person is only 'half a person' without combining with the strengths of his fellow man. One should not think that he can separate from his fellow Jews and be unaffected. A person who ha this attitude he will be incomplete. In this way, the mitzvo of giving half a shekel can act as an atonement for the sale of Yosef. Yosef's brothers thought that they could get along fine without Yosef's contribution to the Jewish people. Their mistake was that even if they believed him to be erring, he was still an essential part of the Jewish people. By giving half a shekel we remind ourselves that this is not the correct attitude - all Jews are part of a unified whole, and everyone needs to combine with their fellow.

This idea even extends itself to people who are not behaving in the most optimal fashion. Shortly after the mitzvo of giving half a shekel, HaShem commands us to combine a number of spices to make the incense. One of these is the chelbanah, which Chazal tell us has a foul smelling odor. Why then is it included in the ingredients for the incense? The Gemara explains that any communal fast that does not include sinners is not considered a proper fast. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that when the Jewish people are not united, then they are not considered one unit, and therefore the power of the community is drastically weakened.

The Bostoner Rebbe zt"l epitomized the attitude that every Jew should be treated with respect regardless of his religious affiliation. His funeral testified to this by the fact that there were numerous people attending who would not be classified as regular Bostoner Chassidim. He expressed his attitude in this area in a couple of brief sentences: "The trouble with our generation is we only love our fellow man if he's like us - if he davens in my shtiebel , if he has the same Rebbe, if he goes to the same yeshiva - then [he says] 've'ahavta lereyecha'. If he's not 'camocha', then I have no business with him." In a similar vein, he said, "When people try to disassociate one group from another, that's part of the 'torah' of sinas Yisrael (hatred of Jews). Every person can improve. Every group can improve. But it doesn't mean that these people have to be blackballed because some people think that they're not exactly the way they are..."

We have seen how the Medrash connecting the episode of the sale of Yosef to the mitzvo of giving half a shekel, teaches us that we should realize that we should never 'blackball' other Jews, regardless of who they are. May we all merit to learn from the words of the Bostoner Rebbe zt"l and emulate his actions, in striving to unite all Jews.

ACHIEVING SHLEIMUS - VAYECHI

Sefer Bereishis culminates with the eternal brachos that Yaakov Avinu bestowed on his sons. Each son received a unique bracho which catered exactly to his talents and needs. At the end of the brachos the Torah states that Yaakov blessed them again. What was this new bracho? Rashi explains that with this final bracho Yaakov included every son in each other’s bracho so that, for example Yehuda was blessed with the strength of a lion, but with this final bracho, all the brothers also received this mida of gevura. Rashi’s pshat, however, raises a new problem - if every brother was blessed with what every other brother received in his own personal blessing, then what was the significance of blessing them individually at all?!

The Maharal answers that Yaakov’s final bracho did not make them equal in every area - each one was strongest in the area that he was blessed in - this final bracho gave all of them an aspect of each other’s brachos. Yehuda, for example, was blessed with a higher level of gevura than his brothers however this final bracho gave each of other brothers a certain element of that mida of gevura.

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

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

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

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

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

THE ROOT OF SIN - VAYECHI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undertaking the difficult task of fixing one’s character traits requires much thought and discussion but the first phase for each person is to gain a recognition of which midda is holding him back. There may be more than one negative trait that harms him, but very often there is one ikar midda which is at the root of much of his negative behavior and is the key factor that holds him back from fulfilling his true potential. Possible ways to help locate and understand this destructive midda include speaking with one’s Rabbi or friends and learning Mussar Sefarim that discuss the various middos. Once a person develops a deeper understanding of himself he can now begin the daunting task of genuinely improving himself.

Elul is normally the time when discussion of teshuva and tikun hamiddos is most prevalent, however if one only works on himself for one month a year then he will never truly improve himself. The only way of avoiding sin and removing the obstacles that hold one back is to constantly work on improving himself in a genuine, deep way. May we all merit to be truly better people.
　

YOSEF’S PROOF - VAYIGASH

“They went up from Egypt and came to the land of Canaan to Yaakov their father. And they told him, saying, ‘Yosef is still alive’ and that he is ruler over all the land of Egypt; but his heart rejected it for he did not believe them.” However, when they related to him all the words that Yosef had spoken to them, and he saw the wagons that Yosef had sent to transport him, then the spirit of their father, Yaakov, was lifted.”

When the brothers returned from their momentous reunion with Yosef, they told Yaakov Avinu the astounding news that his beloved son was still alive. However he was not convinced by all their efforts to persuade him and he only accepted the news when they showed him the wagons that Yosef had sent. What was so special about the wagons? Rashi quotes the Medrash Tanchuma that explains that the wagons were a simun of the Mitzva of Egla Arufah which was the final thing that Yaakov and taught Yosef. This simun finally convinced Yaakov that his son was really alive. The Darchei Mussar asks that Yosef could surely have given any number or proofs that he was not an impostor. Why did he choose to give this particular simun? Furthermore, why did this evidence supersede everything that the brothers could say to prove that this was really Yosef?

The Darchei Mussar answers with a fascinating story involving the Vilna Gaon zt”l. There was a woman whose husband had been lost for many years and she was in the status of aguna. Suddenly, a man returned claiming that he was the missing husband. He gave many simunim that seemed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was indeed her husband, however, she remained uncertain of his true identity. Unsure what to do, the people involved came to the Vilan Gaon to ask him the course of action. He advised them to bring this man to the shul that the husband had attended, and test him by telling him to sit in his makom kavua. The man did not know where the makom kavua was and admitted that he was not this woman’s husband. Evidently, he had met the husband at some point and found out many private details about him as part of his plan. The Vilna Gaon explained that he realized that it was conceivable that this man had met the true husband and asked him questions about his life that enabled him to convincingly pose as the husband himself. However, if this man was really an impostor who was planning to commit such an evil act of deceit, then it was impossible that he would think to ask the true husband about a davar sheb’kedusha. It was inconceivable that such a rasha would have thoughts of kedusha because they were so distant from his headspace.

With this story, the Darchei Mussar explains why Yosef sent his father a simun of the last piece of Torah that they learnt together. If the Egyptian Viceroy were an impostor of Yosef he would never think to have asked Yosef a matter pertaining to ruchnius. Thus Yosef knew that only something relating to kedusha would convince his father that he was the same Yosef that left so many years earlier. The Darchei Mussar continues further that this simun also served as an excellent proof that Yosef had maintained his high spiritual standing because had he been negatively influenced in Mitzrayim he never would have thought to send a simun relating to Torah.

We learn from this explanation that the things that occupy a person’s thoughts and make up his speech give a very strong indication of his spiritual standing. A person who devotes much of his thinking and conversation to matters of ruchnius shows that his penimius is saturated with kedusha. For example, when the famed Rogatchover Gaon zt”l was about to undergo an operation, one observer noted that he suspected that when the surgeon would cut the Rogatchover’s skin, Torah would come pouring out! He was so full of Torah that it constituted his very essence.

In contrast, a person who devotes much of his conversation to intrinsically meaningless matters gives an indication that his penimius is not saturated with spirituality. A person may diligently learn Torah when he is in the Beis HaMedrash but he should also ask himself what he talks about in his ’spare time’? There is nothing necessarily wrong with discussing the news and business matters to a certain degree but they should surely not constitute the majority of one’s conversation. An important aspect of self-growth is to develop an appreciation of spiritual matters such as Torah and chesed to the extent that they dominate one's thinking and speech. A paradigm of such a level was the Chofetz Chaim zt“l. It is said that he was a very talkative person - what did he talk about? Torah and matters pertaining to the spiritual welfare of Klal Yisroel.

We learn from Yosef’s simunim that that which occupies a person’s minds is a great indication of where his holding - may we all merit to think and speak words of true spiritual depth.

YOSEF - SECOND IN COMMAND - VAYIGASH:

The parsha begins with Yosef revealing himself to his brothers; he informs them that they need not feel guilty for what they had done because Hashem was guiding the course of events that brought them to this incredible situation. “G-d has sent me ahead of you to insure your survival in the land and to sustain you for a great deliverance.“ Yosef’s role was to ensure the physical well-being of the B’nei Yisroel during their stay in Mitzrayim. Later in the parsha the Torah alludes that Yehuda was responsible for ensuring the spiritual well-being of the Bnay Yisroel in Mitzrayim, it was he who preceded his brothers in coming there so that he could set up yeshivas: This division of roles between Yosef and Yehuda established a pattern for Jewish history; Yosef is the facilitator by paving the way in gashmius and Yehuda is the ultimate Melech, leading Klal Yisroel in ruchnius. This relationship is most plainly borne out by the respective roles of Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David. Mashiach ben Yosef will fight the wars, destroying our enemies and paving the way for Mashiach ben David to build the 3rd Beis HaMikdash.

One important aspect of Yosef’s role is that it is essentially a secondary one - his job is to facilitate Yehuda’s position of Melech. Indeed, a brief analysis of Yosef’s time in Mitzrayim shows that Yosef was mesugal to a role of ’number two’: He first becomes the head of Potiphar’s household - second to Potiphar; then he rises to a similar position in prison, second to the prison warden. And finally he assumes the role of Viceroy in Mitzrayim, second to Pharaoh. This pattern indicates Yosef’s role as the number two, the facilitator. A person could easily find this role unsatisfactory - playing ’second fiddle’ to someone else could pose a considerable challenge to a person’s midos. A key aspect of Yosef’s greatness is his willingness to accept his role as the facilitator with joy.

Two of Yosef’s most famous descendants were faced with a similar challenge to accept a secondary role but responded to it in drastically contrasting ways: In Parshas Vayechi, Yaakov alludes to these two people; he notes Ephraim’s greatness because of his future descendant, Yehoshua bin Nun. However, he also prophetically sees that one of the most evil Kings of Israel, Yeravam ben Navat, would emerge from Yosef.

Both these men had the potential to follow Yosef’s example of being a prime facilitator but only one succeeded whilst the other failed dismally. Why did they take such divergent paths?
Yehoshua is most famous for being the devoted talmid of Moshe Rabbeinu. There are numerous instances of Yehoshua showing his submission to his Rebbe. The Torah describes him as Moshe’s attendant, and Chazal explain that he would take towels to the bathhouse for him and would rise early every morning and select the largest of the manna and give it to Moshe. In Torah learning he dedicated himself to understanding and emulating his Rebbe to the extent that the Talmud Yerushalmi says that even in matters that he had not heard from Moshe, his own reasoning corresponded with what had been told to Moshe at Sinai. Yehoshua was completely content with his role as second to Moshe, he did not feel as though it belittled his own standing, rather it elevated him to incredible heights.

Indeed the Medrash tells us that it was the merit of Yehoshua’s submission to Moshe that caused him to become the leader of Klal Yisroel: “Hashem told Moshe, Yehoshua constantly served you and accorded you much honor. He came early to your house of assembly to arrange the benches and spread the mats. Since he served you with all his might, he is worthy of serving Israel.” Yehoshua happily accepted his role as ‘number two’ and consequently attained the ultimate position of leader of Klal Yisroel.

Yosef’s other relative alluded to in Vayechi, Yeravam Ben Navat, also had the opportunity to emulate Yosef and accept a position of facilitator but failed dismally. In Tanach we see that he was initially a great tzaddik and talmid chochom. Hashem decided that the kingdom of Yisroel should be split into two as a punishment for Malchus Beis David, and he sent Achiya HaNavi to grant Yeravam the Northern Kingdom which would consist of the vast majority Klal Yisroel. Moreover Achiya promised him that if he would follow in the ways of the Torah then he would meet with great success. He did however point out that Yeravam’s kingship was only a result of the sins of Malchus Beis David and that ultimately it would return to the descendants of David HaMelech. Yeravam’s role was to be a leader but a temporary one, whose purpose was to be the instrument of punishment for Malchus Beis David. Had he accepted this role then he could have emulated Yosef and Yehoshua and been recorded as one of the great leaders and tzaddikim in Jewish history.

Yeravam, however, was unwilling to accept the position of facilitator or ‘number two’. He desired to be the King in his own right and was not prepared to subjugate himself to anyone. He worried that when the nation would perform the mitzvo of Hakhel in the Beis Hamikdash only the Melech Yisroel would be allowed to sit down but he would have to stand up. When the people would see this they would rebel against him and return to the kingdom of Yehuda. In order to prevent this threat to his power he set up two golden calves in the North and banned anyone from going down to the Beis HaMikdash. Yeravam’s action was the catalyst for the constant Avoda Zara that plagued the Northen Kingdom and he is known as the ultimate machti es harabim.

Even after he began to sin Hashem gave him one last opportunity to do teshuva. The Gemara says that Hashem grabbed Yeravam by his garment and said to him, “’Repent and I, you and the son of Yishi will stroll together in Gan Eden“ Given this incredible opportunity to redeem himself Yeravam asked, ‘Who will be at the head?’ Hashem answered that Ben Yishi would be at the head - when he heard this he refused to do teshuva. Yeravam could not accept being second to anyone, even though he was offered the greatest reward of Gan Eden. His arrogance was the cause of his destruction, he wanted power but instead he is one of the Kings that receives no Olam HaBa.

Yosef Hatzadik was invested with the role of facilitator in Mitzrayim , preparing the way for Yehuda, he accepted his role with joy and was able to reach true greatness. Yehoshua, too, achieved his potential through his willingness to subjugate himself to Moshe Yeravam could not do so and lost his opportunity for distinction. This is a powerful lesson; we should all strive to be as great as possible., however there are times when hashgacha clearly tells us that certain attainments are not best for us. For example, a person may work hard in learning Torah and learn a great deal and yet not attain the teaching position that he would like - what we must realize is that anything beyond the realm of our bechira is in the category of hashgacha - we can strive to be greater but there is not toeles in fighting the hashgacha. Whatever role in life we attain, that is the position through which we can fulfill our tachlis.
　

CHANUKAH - THE FESTIVAL OF HIDUR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOSEF’S GREATNESS - MIKEITZ AND CHANUKAH

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

The Malbim explains in this vein that Yosef made simunim for himself through the names that he gave his sons. He further writes that this demonstrates Yosef’s great righteousness in that he strived to remember the suffering that he had endured even in the times of good. He continues: “This is also the explanation of why we are commanded to eat Matzo together with Maror on Seder night; we should remember the Galus in the time of freedom, because the Galus is the reason for the freedom, and the bad brings the good.” However, the Malbim does not explain why exactly the ‘bad’ is the reason for the subsequent ‘good’. Further clarification is required as to why he considers that remembering the bad in the time of good indicates great righteousness.
A solution to these problems can be found in the Sifsei Chaim’s explanation of part of the ‘Al HaNissim’ prayer. In ‘Al HaNissim’ we thank Hashem for enabling us to defeat the Yavanim: “You placed the strong in the hands of the weak; and the many in the hands of the few; and the impure in the hands of the pure; and the evil in the hands of the righteous; and the guilty in the hands of those who toil in Your Torah.” The Sifsei Chaim asks that the first two of these praises do not seem to be parallel with the following three: The implication of the first two is that Hashem enabled the weak to be victorious even though they faced strong enemies; and the few to win even though they were fighting many. In contrast in the remaining praises the implication is that the pure were successful because their enemies were impure; and that the righteous defeated the Greeks because they were evil.

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

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

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

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

SERVING MAN OR G-D - MIKEITZ AND CHANUKAH

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

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

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

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

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

MOURNING

One of the most difficult experiences that a person must undergo is the pain of the death of a loved one. Without guidance, one finds it very hard to find the correct approach to death. On one extreme, some people tend to try to escape the unpleasant feelings associated with death. One baal teshuva remembered the tragic death of a friend in his teens, and how his friends didn't know how to react. What did they do? They went out and got drunk as a way of escaping the unpleasantness of the situation. On occasion these feelings of the need to escape are even expressed at a shiva, where the visitors speak about mundane matters instead of talking about the deceased. On the other extreme, some people do not know how to recover from the pain of losing a loved one. They mourn excessively to the point where their lives are permanently harmed in some way.

In order to understand the Torah approach to death it is instructive to analyze some of the mitzvos that relate to mourning. The Torah prohibits certain acts of mourning: In parshas Kedoshim, it writes "You should not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am Hashem." In parshas Re'eh it tells us, "You are children of G-d, do not cut yourselves, nor tear out hair between your eyes over a death." These mitzvos teach that it is wrong to make a cut in one's body as a sign of mourning. In contrast, there is a positive commandemnt to tear one's clothing on the occasion of the death of a close relative (this is known as kriah). The Shulchan Aruch states, "Someone whose relative has died, (if it is a relative that one is required to mourn over), must tear [their garment] for them." It is striking how very similar actions of tearing are regarded so differently in Jewish law, to the extent that cutting one's flesh is forbidden and yet, tearing one's clothing is obligatory?

In order to understand the difference between cutting one's body and cutting one's clothing, it is necessary to analyze the first event in the Torah in which clothing plays a role - that of the chet (sin) of Adam Harishon The Torah tells us that before the chet, Adam and Chava did not wear any clothes, yet they felt no shame. However, after they ate from the fruit, they then realized that they were naked and they wore clothes to cover their shame. What change took place as a result of the sin? We know that man is comprised of two, contrasting features; a body and a soul. It seems that it was always understood that it was inappropriate for one's essence to be exposed, and therefore there was the necessity of some kind of 'covering' or clothing. Before the sin, Adam primarily identified himself as a soul, and his body took on the role of a kind of 'clothing' for the soul. Accordingly, there was no need for garments to act as clothing for the body, because the body was a kind of clothing in and of itself. However, after the sin, man's primary identity shifted to being that of a body. Once he viewed his body as being the ikar, he felt embarrassed when it was uncovered. Accordingly he needed clothing to cover himself.

With this insight into the relationship between body and soul, we can now gain a deeper understanding of the significance of tearing one's clothing or cutting one's body. Since the chet of Adam Harishon, man lives his life primarily focusing on himself as a body. Thus, when a person dies, one could mistakenly think that his whole being is gone forever. However, this is a grave mistake - he has only lost his body, but his soul remains extant. Accordingly, we tear our clothing to remind us in our time of grief, that our loved one's essence has not disappeared. Only his body, which was the clothing for his soul, has been lost, however his soul is intact. This explains why it is forbidden to make a cut in one's flesh. To do so indicates a belief that this person ceases to exist in all forms.

Through the Torah's directions of how to react to death, we learn the correct attitude towards such a significant event. The mitzvo of kriah teaches us that it is appropriate and proper to express feelings of loss at the death of a loved one. Escaping is an unhelpful and even damaging way to react to any painful event. We acknowledge the pain of losing someone close to us, and also share in an pain that they may experience as they leave their body. However, we do not view death as the end of a person's existence. We recognize that our loved one has moved on to a higher plain of existence. Making cuts in one's body symbolizes a belief that the deceased ceases to exist in any form. Accordingly, it is a totally inappropriate action.
May we all merit to understand the Torah approach to life and death.
　
　
　
　

YOSEF’S DREAMS - VAYEISHEV

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

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

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

With this understanding the Beis HaLevi answers the initial question of why after the first dream the brothers hated Yosef whereas following the second, they were jealous of him. Hatred results when one resents another person’s actions, whereas jealousy arises when one feels inferior to his fellow. The brothers hated Yosef after the first dream because of its implication that they would need him for their sustenance and he would physically rule over them. However they were not jealous of him because the prospect of his greater wealth did not make them feel inferior to him. They saw physical attainment as something external to a person and therefore not worthy of jealousy. In contrast they were jealous of him after the second dream because that implied that he would be spiritually superior to them and this could indeed arouse their jealousy.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the Beis HaLevi’s explanation. Firstly, we learn that the material possessions of a person are of no consequence with regard to his true greatness. A wealthy person may be deserving of respect, but one should not envy his wealth because it does not represent a barometer of his real value. Only the spiritual level of a person determines the true greatness of a person and only that is worthy of envy.

The Western world greatly emphasizes the importance of the material possessions of a person. One’s wealth is considered a very significant indication of his ‘greatness’ according to the Western definition. This attitude is so pervasive that even a Torah observant person may find it difficult not to be influenced by the great chashivus that is ascribed to wealth. One possible way of maintaining a correct perspective to material possessions is to look at what defines a great person in the Torah world. Wealth is of no significance in determining who is a ‘Gadol b’Yisroel’, indeed many Gedolim were extremely poor. What is important according to the Torah definition is the intrinsic spiritual greatness that a person attains. Reminding oneself of the qualities of our Gedolim can help us keep an accurate perspective of the insignificance of wealth to one’s true greatness.

A second related lesson from the Beis HaLevi is that a person should be careful not judge his own standing according to his material possessions. This is no easy task given the importance that is attributed to wealth in the Western world. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita gives an interesting example of this phenomenon. He quotes a Gadol who pointed out that many people in the Western world are very secretive about anything relating to their financial situation. Why is this the case? He suggests that when something is very important to a person he does not want to reveal it because it is part of his essence; thus if a person’s financial standing is very important to him he is likely to not want to make known aspects of his financial status such as his salary and the value of his home.

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

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

HALLEL AND HODAAH - CHANUKAH

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

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

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

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

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

In contrast, the miracle of the oil was not of the greatest necessity - without it, the Jewish people would still be free of the Greek yoke. However, the miracle was remarkable in that it represented a clear overturning of the laws of nature. Such a miracle had a particularly powerful effect on the onlookers, in that it made clear Hashem's involvement in an unmistakable fashion.
With this understanding we can now answer why the gemara focuses on the miracle of the oil, whilst the Al HaNissim tefilla emphasizes the victory over the Greeks . When the gemara asked, "What is Chanukah", Rashi explains that it was asking, "for what miracle did they fix Chanukah [as a permanent festival]." The Sifsei Chaim explains that, initially there were numerous events in which miracles took place, and that each one was made into a kind of Yom Tov where it was forbidden to eulogize and fast However, these events became so abundant that the Rabbis cancelled all these days of celebration with two exceptions - Purim and Chanukah. The Sifsei Chaim explains that the miracles that occurred on these days were the ones that most effected the people. In this vein, he writes that the most outstanding miracle on Chanukah was that of the oil, not of the military victory. Thus, when the gemara asked for which miracle did they fix Chanukah, it was asking which miracle was so outstanding that the Rabbis did not annul the festival of Chanukah in the way that they did almost all of the other festivals. Accordingly, the gemara answered by focusing on the miracle of the oils because that was the miracle that broke the laws of nature and therefore had the greatest effect on the people.

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

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

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

STEPPING OUT OF OUR OWN WORLD - VAYEISHEV

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHANUKAH - PERFECTLY IMPERFECT

Chanukah is one of the most well-observed Jewish festivals. Everyone enjoys lighting pretty menorahs and eating lots of doughnuts! But underlying the memorable victory of how the Hasmoneans defeated the powerful Greek army lies a fundamental ideological battle, one that still rages today. These two ideologies represent opposing attitudes regarding the purpose of life. There is a medrash about a Roman leader who asks Rabbi Akiva whose creation is greater, that of Hashem or that of man. Rabbi Akiva surprisingly answers that man’s creation is greater. Why? Because Hashem creates inedible produce, such as a kernel of wheat which serves no benefit, whereas man takes this kernel and, through much toil, makes it into bread. The medrash tells us that Rabbi Akiva anticipated that the Roman expected him to say that Hashem’s creation was greater. He also knew what the Roman’s next question would be: if Hashem’s creation is greater, then why is it that after Hashem creates a human being, man proceeds to perform bris mila, cutting away part of the human body, thus implying that man is improving upon Hashem’s creation. Rabbi Akiva forestalled the question by stating that man’s creation is indeed greater. How can we understand this ma’amar Chazal? Surely Hashem’s creation is infinitely greater than that of man!

There was a deeper disagreement underlying this discussion. The Roman represented the Greco-Roman philosophy that emphasized the perfection of man. The Greeks idolized the human body and intellect. In their eyes, man was naturally perfect, and the Romans essentially represented a continuation of that ideology. Consequently, the Jewish practice of bris mila was particularly abhorrent to them; it represented taking something that was perfect and damaging it. Rabbi Akiva represented the Torah belief that Hashem deliberately created the world in an imperfect fashion so that man could perfect it himself. Of course Hashem is infinitely greater than mankind. He creates a coarse kernel of wheat so that man will go through the process of turning it into something greater. This, too, is the symbolism of bris mila: the idea that man is not born perfect. Man has much work to do, in particular to harness and control all his powerful drives and use them for growth or improvement.

Given all this, it should be of little surprise that one of the three mitzvos that the Greeks forbade the Jews from observing was bris mila. They sought to uproot the idea that man is not made perfect, that life is about improving oneself, striving to remove his negative traits and develop his positive attributes. However, the Jews fought this prohibition with all their might and eventually overcame the Greeks. So, too, we have outlived the Romans and all the philosophies that espouse the natural perfection of mankind. However, the battle continues. Today, we are surrounded by a secular society that places little or no emphasis on the concept of self-improvement. Instead, it focuses far more on self-gratification. We, however, know that the true satisfaction can only be derived from growing, from becoming a kinder, more spiritual person, a more thoughtful spouse, a more attentive parent, and, most importantly, a better eved Hashem.
　

THE BATTLE OF CHANUKAH - CHANUKAH

On Chanukah we celebrate the momentous defeat of the Hashmonaim over the mighty Greek army and the subsequent miracle of the shemen that lasted eight days. The war with the Yavanim (Greeks) was far more than a standard military confrontation between two nations striving to attain power. This was the first ideological war in the history of mankind; it was a clash of two outlooks who could not peacefully co-exist. Initially, the Yavanim had no desire to harm the Jewish people, rather they hoped to influence them through their ‘enlightened’ ideology of Hellenism to leave Torah observance for what they perceived to be a superior way of life. However, once the majority of Jews resisted their attempts they became hostile and attempted to coerce the Jews to abandon the Torah. After the Hashmonaim successfully resisted the Greeks and forced them out of the land, Chazal decided to set up a permanent commemoration of this event through the festival of Chanukah. Thus every year we are reminded of the Judaic-Hellenistic conflict that took place so long ago. Why is it so important to remember such a distant event? In truth, it seems that the ideological battle of Chanukah remains highly significant to every Jew. Understanding this conflict on a deeper level can help us derive vital lessons that are relevant to our lives today.

In order to understand the relationship between Yavan and Klal Yisroel it is instructive to examine the Torah’s account of the forefathers of these great nations. In Parshas Noach the Torah tells us about the incident in which Noach’s son, Ham uncovered his drunken father’s nakedness. In response to this, Ham’s brothers, Shem and Yapheth covered their father and protected his dignity. Rashi quotes the Medrash that tells us that Shem initiated this meritorious deed and that Yapheth then joined him. Both were rewarded for their righteous actions but Shem received a far greater reward. His descendants, Klal Yisroel, were given the Mtizva of Tsitsit whilst those of Yapheth will be accorded a respectful burial. Shem’s descendants are rewarded with a new Mitzva, which offers an opportunity to grow in ruchnius whereas the reward of Yapheth will only benefit their bodies without their soul. Why did Shem’s extra zerizus in this incident earn him such a qualitatively superior reward to that of Yapheth? The commentaries explain that Shem was not merely more eager than Yapheth in covering their father, rather his kavanna in doing so was on a whole different level from that of Yapheth. Shem saw the uncovering of Noach in a spiritual sense and recognized that it was a Mitzva to save his father from such indignity. Yapheth, in contrast, looked at this incident with a more common sense approach that Noach was being physically degraded, and acted on this recognition to cover his father. He had a natural sense of indignation at the ugly nature of an uncovered human body. It was Shem’s higher motivation that spurred him to greater zerizus than Yapeth’s more logical approach. Accordingly, Shem received a great spiritual reward whereas Yapheth was merely awarded a dignified burial which only benefits his dead body.

Immediately after this incident Noach makes a seminal statement regarding the role of the two brothers in history. “Elokim will give beauty to Yapheth and he will dwell in the tents of Shem.” The commentaries explain that this means that Yapheth will be blessed with yofi, which refers to the most superficial kind of beauty, that which is only skin deep. in order for that beauty to be utilized in the correct way it must be placed in the ‘tents of Shem’ which means that it should be used to enhance spirituality. This is demonstrated by the Mishna in Megilla which learns out a very interesting halacho from this passuk. The Mishna tells us that a Sefer Torah can only be written in two languages, Hebrew and Greek. This is derived from how the Torah says that the beauty of Yapheth must dwell in the tents of Shem - the Gemara saw from this passuk that placing the yofi of Yavan within the Torah of Shem can produce a beautiful combination.

Why were Shem and Yapheth given these blessings in particular? It seems that Yapheth’s earlier actions in conjunction with Shem to cover their father earned him this blessing; he applied his logical indignation at a the ugliness of a person being physically exposed to join with his more spiritually motivated brother and as a result performed a great deed in saving his father’s embarrassment. From here Hashem blessed him that he would achieve great heights if he continued to direct his appreciation for the beauty of a covered body and logic towards achieving spirituality in conjunction with of Shem.

However, the blessing only applies when Yapheth strives to deepen his natural logic and appreciation of beauty with the depth of Shem, but if he rejects that depth then the result will be very different. Physical beauty without spiritual depth quickly degenerates into a base physicality in which superficiality rules. This was indeed the case with the Yavanim - they emphasized the natural beauty of man to the extent that they practiced gross acts of indecency and immorality.

Rav Chaim Friedlander zt”l describes another way in which Yavan failed to utilize Noach’s blessing that he place his wisdom in the tents of Shem. He explains that their chachma remained very superficial in that it had no influence on the inner greatness of its practitioners. He brings a story involving the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, in which he was caught committing an indecent act. His students asked him how he could perform an act that so blatantly contradicted his teachings. He answered, “at the time that I did what I did I was not Aristotle.” Rav Friedlander explains that Aristotle was saying that his teachings did not obligate him to apply them to his life. This is another example of how Yapheth without Shem constitutes a dangerously superficial way of life. In contrast the ‘Torah’ of Klal Yisroel obligates us to take a far deeper approach to wisdom and apply its external lessons to our penimius. A person who learns Torah and does not internalize it cannot be considered a true Torah scholar. The Maharal writes that these differences between Yavan and Yisroel led to the great antagonism between the two nations. Instead of appreciating the great depth that Torah had to offer them, the Yavanim reacted with great jealousy and made tremendous efforts to destroy this rival form of chachma.

Rav Zev Leff Shlita sees a fascinating allusion to Yavan’s failure to give depth to its physical beauty in the letters that make up it’s name. The yud, vav and final nun are all straight lines that have no thickness to them. This alludes to the superficiality that Yavan epitomizes.

We have seen that the battle of Chanukah was far more than a conflict between two warring nations. Rather it was a clash of two ideologies; the superficiality of Yavan against the spirituality of Yisroel. We were successful in that particular battle but it seems that the war continues to rage to this day. The Western world is greatly influenced by Greek thought, in particular the emphasis on physicality devoid of depth. One cannot walk in the street without being exposed to the Western obsession with base physicality.

This yetser hara of superficiality continues to pose a great threat to the spiritual integrity of Klal Yisroel. It is possible for a person to be completely Torah observant and yet be greatly influenced by superficial considerations in many aspects of his life. He may place greater importance to the clothing that people wear than the middos that they display. The type of yarmulke on one’s head or the length of one’s dress may merit a small amount of consideration, yet one must keep in perspective that it is the penimius of a person that is most important. A person can very easily wear the most ‘frum’ looking garb and as a result he will feel that he is succeeding in his Torah observance. Similarly, the size of a person’s home or beauty of his upholstery may take an oversized place in his hashkafos hachaim. In a similar vein, a person’s Avodas Hashem can be dominated by superficiality, for example, the way he appears to others when he davens being of more importance to what he is in his head. Furthermore, there is always the risk that the Torah that he learns can remain superficial, not influencing his internal middos.

Thus we see that the threat of Greek superficiality remains relevant to this very day. The story of Chanukah teaches us that we must remember that the Greek ideology of superficiality is a great threat to the integrity of Torah. May we all merit to achieve true depth in our Avodas Hashem.