LEARNING FROM THE FROGS - VA’EIRA

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

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

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

He explains that whilst HaShem did command the frogs to go into the ovens, He did not restrict the command to ovens – the bedrooms, beds, and kneading bowls were included in the list of the places where the frogs could go to. Therefore, each frog had the choice as to where they would go – he could conceivably decide that he would choose the more comfortable option of going to the bed or kneading bowl. Nonetheless, many frogs did indeed choose to risk their lives in order to ensure that HaShem’s command was fulfilled. Since each individual frog was not commanded to go into the fire and yet many of them still did so, Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learnt that all the more so they should be prepared to be thrown into a fire.

The Darchei Mussar continues that we learn a fundamental lesson from the actions of the brave frogs who went into the ovens. It was possible for them to shift the responsibility onto another frog, however they declined the comfortable option and as a result, contributed to the enhanced sanctification of G-d’s name. So too, he writes, that when a person is given the opportunity to perform a certain Mitzvo he should not seek to shirk the responsibility placed upon him by hoping that someone else will undertake the Mitzvo. Rather, he should view this as a golden chance to sanctify G-d’s name. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a person to tend to view such opportunities as burdens. This attitude seems to be fundamentally against the Torah outlook. The Torah strongly espouses taking responsibility when things need to be done. The Mishna in Avos states: “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” This applies in both minor daily occurrences and less common but more significant occasions. For example, there may be a general request for people to help in a certain endeavor, it is praiseworthy to assume the responsibility without waiting for others to do so. On a larger scale, there are numerous major problems facing the Jewish world today – instead of waiting for others to take responsibility to rectify these problems,, a person should see if there is anything he can do himself. On one occasion, some American Torah students living in Israel discovered that a significant amount of Americans living in Israel were living in extreme poverty but were too ashamed to tell anyone. Rather than merely expressing sympathy for these people, a few men undertook to create a new charity (known as Got Chicken ) aimed at providing basic necessities for people in dire need.

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

DO NOT COVET, PART 6

We noted in an earlier article, that the prohibition of ‘Do Not Covet’ refers specifically to not trying to attain someone else’s item. However, it is not prohibited to want the same item as his friend, and to try to acquire it for himself. For example, if Brian owns a laptop computer, Dave is allowed to try to buy the same make of laptop for himself. However, Dave is not permitted to pressure Brian into selling his very own laptop to Dave. Why is it considered so bad to desire someone else’s item in particular?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand the possible motivations for acquiring physical property. A person may want possessions simply because they offer a certain benefit to him. For example, a person may want a large house because he has a big family and needs a certain number of bedrooms to provide enough space for his family. However, a person may desire possessions for a very different reason. He may judge his sense of value on the basis of his acquisitions. He may see property ownership as a measure of a person’s success in life. Accordingly, if he sees that his friend owns a large house, he will feel that his friend is ‘beating’ him in an unspoken competition for possessions. This will engender feelings of jealousy which he will want to assuage. The best way of doing this is to acquire his friend’s very house. In this way, the large house, which was the source of his feeling of inferiority, would now engender in him feelings of superiority.

We can now understand why the desire for someone else’s specific item is considered so negative. It is driven by an attitude that is totally foreign to Torah values. This is an attitude that stresses the value of a person according to his material possessions. The only measure of one’s success in this area, is how much he owns in comparison to other people. Accordingly, a person who lives with this value system will constantly desire to acquire other people’s possessions so that he can ‘overtake’ them in the relentless battle to see who can own the most ‘toys’.

The Torah approach is diametrically opposed to this attitude. The Torah ascribes no importance to material ownership in appraising the value of a person. All people are of infinite value because they are made in the Image of G-d. Moreover, the only acquisitions that are important and lasting are those of the spiritual kind. The wealthiest person in the world will lose all his possessions when he dies, they are only temporary acquaintances. The only ‘possessions’ that accompany a person to the Next World, are the Mitzvos and good deeds that a person performed in this world. When a person recognizes this truth, he will find no desire to want the possessions of his fellow man.

MOSHE RABBEINU AND PHARAOH - VA’EIRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRECISION OF DIVINE JUSTICE - SHEMOS

The Parsha describes Moshe Rabbeinu’s actions in defending the Jews from the oppression of the Egyptians. He sees an Egyptian man beating a Jewish man and kills him: "And it was in those days that Moshe grew up and he went out to his brethren, and saw their suffering. He saw an Egyptian man strike a Hebrew from amongst his brethren. He turned this way and that way and he saw that there was no man, so he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” The simple understanding of this incident is, that after seeing the Egyptian’s actions Moshe looked around to see if there were any onlookers, and when he saw that there were none, he killed the Egyptian. Rashi explains that Moshe was looking at something much deeper; “He saw that no future man would descend from him [the Egyptian] in the future, who would convert.” Rashi further adds that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian in an orthodox fashion, rather he used the shem hamefurash (holy name) to kill him.
Two questions arise from Rashi’s explanations; Firstly, why did Moshe choose to kill the Egyptian with the shem hamefurash? Secondly, the commentaries write that Moshe made a legal ruling on what the Egyptian was doing, and he ruled that the Egyptian was punishable by death. They point out that when punishing sinners, the Beis Din (Jewish law court) does not take into account any consequences of the punishment, such as how it would affect other people, including whether the sinner would have any righteous descendants . Accordingly, why did Moshe need to assess the future descendants of this man?!
The Maharil Diskin answers that the sin the Egyptian was committing was one that was only punishable by death bidei Shamayim (in the hands of Heaven), but not bidei adam (in the hands of man) . Therefore, Moshe could not punish him by physically killing him, rather he needed to utilize a method that would require Heavenly assistance; accordingly he killed him using the shem hamefurash. There is a fundamental difference between how punishments that are bidei Shamayim are determined and how those that are bidei adam are enforced. As we said above, when Beis Din punish someone they do not take into account all the possible ramifications of the punishment, such as how it will affect the sinner’s family, friends and his future descendants. However, when HaShem sends the punishment He takes into account all the myriad effects of the retribution. Included amongst these considerations is how this punishment will affect the future descendants. For example, if one is punishable by death bidei Shamayim but righteous descendants are destined to come from him, then HaShem may alter the punishment so as not to prevent their coming into existence. Since Moshe was using this form of punishment he had to take into consideration such factors as the future offspring of the Egyptian.
This explanation brings to light the difference between Heavenly retribution and human punishment. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l discusses this concept at length. He quotes the verse in Tehillim: “The judgments of HaShem are true, they are correct together.” What does it mean that they are correct together? He explains that when human courts mete out punishments they only take into the account the sinner, but ignore his family and friends. This is unavoidable, since a human judge cannot begin to be able to take such factors into account. However, HaShem, in His Infinite wisdom knows exactly how the punishment will affect everyone involved, and passes judgment accordingly. Thus, His judgments are;”correct together” in that they take into account all the people together who stand to be effected by the punishment. In this vein, Rav Shmuelevitz discusses a number of examples in Tanach and in Chazal, where one’s wife is punished because of the sin of the husband. This does not seem fair, but he explains that the one who suffers is certainly being punished for a previous transgression. However, up to this point, HaShem spared her because her husband did not deserve to endure the pain of losing her. Yet, once he sins and is not worthy of this special treatment, then she is no longer protected from her transgression.
We have seen from the Maharil Diskin’s explanation of Moshe’s punishment of the Egyptian, and Rav Shmuelevitz’ discussion of HaShem’s justice, that it is perfectly measured for all the people connected to the person being punished. One key lesson that can be learned from this principle is that tragedies or challenges are not only for the sake of the person most directly involved: Many people understand that when some form of challenges happen to them, that HaShem is somehow communicating with them and they react by trying to improve their deeds. However, the same attitude should be applied when suffering does not inflict the person himself, but his family or friends, or members of his community. The closer the person is to the one in pain, the more powerful the communication from HaShem. Therefore, it is essential that the person try to view his family member or friend’s suffering as HaShem communicating with him. In this vein, Rav Yissachar Frand shlita, says that when tragedies afflict a community, it is insufficient to merely recite a chapter of Tehillim but otherwise continue our life as if nothing changed. Rather, we should undergo serious contemplation of why this event took place, and how HaShem wants us to grow from it. It is often impossible to exactly know what HaShem is telling us, however, the main point is that we see this as HaShem directly communicating to us and we try to change our ways in some form.

GIVING FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING SHEMOS

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately the tendency to over emphasize the financial aspect of maasim tovim can even creep into the most kadosh of activities such as learning and teaching Torah. The Mishna in Avos stresses how undesirable such an attitude is when it enjoins us “do not make it [the Torah] a crown to attain greatness with or a spade to dig with. ” Many commentaries argue that the Mishna is not saying that it is forbidden to earn money through learning or teaching Torah for money however they all agree that this should not be the primary motive. The Rambam in particular emphasizes the abhorrence of being involved in Torah in order to earn a parnasa. However even he does not rule out learning or teaching if a person has the ideal kavannas. In Hilchos Shemitta v’Yovel he writes that Shevet Levi are separated from everyone else so that they can “serve Hashem and teach His just ways and His righteous laws to the public, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel. ’” He continues that such a role is not limited to Leviim alone, but that anyone who is willing to learn Torah with similar motives is worthy of assuming the same function. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that such a person is allowed to receive money for his learning Torah and it would seem that the reason for this is because there is no danger in his being motivated by ulterior motives .

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

DO NOT COVET PART 5

We have completed the halachic (legal) issues relating to the mitzvo of ’Do not Covet’. It is now important to discuss some of the philosophical aspects of this mitzvo.

The commentaries discuss why it is wrong to covet someone else‘s item. The early commentator, the Ibn Ezra, offers a useful analogy to help understand the Torah’s outlook on what one’s attitude should be towards material possessions. He tells us to imagine a lowly peasant man who sees a beautiful princess. If he is of sound mind, he will not contemplate marrying her, because he is well aware that she is not designated for him, because she is in a completely different social sphere. In a similar vein, everything that a person has is given to him from HaShem and anything that he does not need is not given to him. Therefore, the property of another person has no relevance to him - it is completely out of his sphere of ownership.

This idea is developed further by an illuminating saying of the Sages. They tell us that righteous people are very careful about looking after their material possessions because they know that they did not acquire anything dishonestly. As we said above, everything that a person owns is given to him from HaShem. However, this is on condition that it was acquired in an honest fashion. A righteous person recognizes that since he is totally honest, whatever he has been given or acquired is necessary for him to properly serve HaShem. Accordingly, he is very careful not to damage or lose his property, because to do so, would make it very difficult to achieve his purpose. With this in mind, it is evident that acquiring other people’s property is totally unnecessary for a person to achieve his life potential. By definition, anything that his fellow owns is not needed for him. Therefore, it is fruitless for him to try to attain it from his friend.

With this attitude a person can learn to become far more satisfied with his lot.

RESPONDING TO DIVINE PROVIDENCE - SHEMOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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 Kamenetsy Zt”l notes that the Avos faced their greatest tests in areas that were the opposite of their natural midos. Avraham Avinu, the consummate baal chesed, faced the incredible nisayon in the Akeida, where he had to be covesh his great sense of rachamim and be prepared to kill his son. Yaakov Avinu’s greatest challenges required him to trick reshaim using the mida of sheker, the antithesis of his mida of emes .

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

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

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

REUNIONS - VAYIGASH

Parshas Vayigash is characterized by a number of dramatic reunions between Yosef and his family. It is instructive to analyze the actions and attitudes of the great people who were involved in these emotional occasions. The most powerful of all the reunions was clearly that of Yosef with his father Yaakov. Yaakov surely felt indescribable joy at seeing his beloved son after twenty two years of separation, having believed that Yosef was no longer alive. What did Yaakov do when he finally saw Yosef? Rashi tells us that he said the Shema. Some commentaries understand that he was fulfilling one of the two daily obligatory recitations of the Shema; they discuss why he chose this point to fulfill his obligation of Shema. However, the Maharal writes that Yaakov was not fulfilling the daily obligation of Shema. Rather he was saying Shema as an expression of his great connection to HaShem at this joyous time. Instead of focusing purely on the joy of seeing his son, he tried to direct all his happiness to love of HaShem. He chose Shema in particular, because this represents an acknowledgement of how everything HaShem does is ultimately for the good. Moreover, it involves kabbalas ol Malchus Shamayim, which means that as a result of one’s recognition of HaShem one totally subjugates himself to HaShem’s will. The most striking fact about Yaakov’s actions is that, even on an occasion of such great natural emotion, he strove to connect all his natural joy to HaShem and emphasize his subjugation to HaShem.
The Torah writes further that Yosef acted very differently in this same reunion. The Torah states: “Yosef harnessed his chariot and went up to meet his father, to Goshen; and he appeared to him, fell on his neck, and he wept on him excessively.” Rashi explains the clause, “and he appeared to him,” to mean that Yosef appeared to Yaakov. The Ramban asks, that these words seem superfluous – once we know that Yosef fell on Yaakov’s neck it is obvious that Yosef appeared to his father. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains the significance of the fact that Yosef appeared to Yaakov: He notes that it is evident that Yosef himself felt great joy at the prospect of being reunited with his beloved father after so many years. However, Yosef approached this reunion with only one intent – to provide his father with as much joy as possible in being reunited with his son. Therefore, Yosef made a conscious effort to ‘appear’ or ‘make himself seen’ by his father when they met . He disregarded his own desire to see his father at that moment of reunion, and his single goal was to provide his father with as much joy as possible . We see from this explanation that Yosef had a very different intent from his father in this joyful reunion. Yaakov focused purely on his connection with HaShem at this time, whereas Yosef concentrated on the Mitzvo of kibud av v’eim (honoring one’s parents) to the greatest degree possible. The common denominator between the two was that the intent of both was purely to do what they perceived to be HaShem’s will at this time. This shows a tremendous level of constant awareness of HaShem, and a permanent desire to do his will, even at the height of one’s own natural emotions.
We learn similar lessons in this vein from the earlier reunion in the Parsha between Yosef and Binyomin. The Torah tells us: “Then he [Yosef] fell upon his brother, Binyomin’s neck and wept; and Binyomin wept upon his neck.” Chazal tell us that the two brothers saw through ruach hakodesh future calamaties that would take place in their portions of land in Eretz Yisroel: Yosef cried over the destruction of the two Temples that would be in Binyomin’s portion whilst Binyomin mourned the destruction of the Mishkan of Shiloh that would be in Yosef’s portion.
Rav Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman shlita, discusses why they had such a vision at this time in particular. He explains that their thoughts and emotions were constantly directed to spirituality. Thus, despite the great emotion they felt at this time, their concerns were only spiritual. Had they only been focusing on their personal feelings, they would not have merited to receive ruach hakodesh. The fact that they did receive it at this time, demonstrates their lofty thoughts even at the heights of this powerful reunion. This is another example of how tzaddikim approach moments of great joy. There is a further lesson in how the two brothers reacted to their sad vision. It is noteworthy that they did not cry over the future destructions that would take place in their own portions, rather over the loss in the other brother’s portion. This shows, that, even in the midst of receiving ruach hakodesh, the brothers maintained a very high level of selflessness and sensitivity for others.
We have seen the great righteousness of Yaakov, Yosef and Binyomin, in how they conducted themselves at the height of their emotions. This demonstrates their constant sense of connecting to HaShem and doing His will. Whilst their level seems unattainable for us, there are a number of ways in which we can strive to emulate them in our daily lives. Indeed, halacha (Jewish law) dictates that even at times of great joy, we direct our happiness to HaShem. For example, on the occasion of the birth of a child we say the bracha (blessing) of shehechiyanu or hatov vehametiv. Likewise, we say one of these blessings when we acquire a new item that gives us great joy.
We can also emulate the heightened sense of bein adam lechaveiro that Yosef and Binyomin demonstrated at their reunion. Even at a time of great joy, they thought about other people more than themselves. A common example where this can be emulated is when a person is celebrating some kind of happy occasion. At such a time, one can easily become totally absorbed in his own joy and not notice other people. Yet this is an apt time to make the guests and well-wishers feel good by showing them that we are really happy to see them. This gives them a sense of importance and being appreciated. May we all merit to emulate the great personalities in the Torah, by serving HaShem even at times of great emotion.

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.

THE FESTIVAL OF HIDUR - CHANUKAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOSEF’S STRENGTH - MIKEITZ

Parshas Mikeitz continues the account of Yosef’s remarkable tenure in Mitzrayim; it relates to how he endured terrible suffering, and yet emerged as the Viceroy of Mitzrayim. Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l speaks in depth about Yosef’s unique role in the development of The Jewish nation. It is instructive to analyze Yosef’s contribution and how it was played out by his actions in Parshas Mikeitz.
Rav Hutner notes that whilst Yosef was one of the twelve Tribes, he also seems to play a more significant role than his brothers in the development of Klal Yisroel (the Jewish nation). For example, each brother represented one tribe, whereas Yosef, through his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe, represented two tribes. Rav Hutner also notes a unique fact about Yosef – his death is mentioned twice; once at the end of Sefer Bereishis , and once in the beginning of Parshas Shemos . In contrast, the death of all the other brothers is only mentioned in Shemos. How do we understand the nature of Yosef’s role?
Rav Hutner explains that Yosef is somewhere in between the Avos (Patriarchs) and the Shevatim (tribes). In a certain sense he is close to being an Av, but in other aspects he is like one of the Shevatim. Rav Hutner explains that the status of ‘Av’ is ascribed to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, because each played a defining role in creating the concept of Klal Yisroel, and ensuring that it would last permanently: Avraham was the first ‘convert’ and he thereby created the very existence of a ‘Jew’ as someone who follows the will of HaShem. Yitzchak was the first to be holy from birth, thus providing the Jewish nation with a level of purity and holiness that it would need to last. However, Avraham and Yitzchak’s contributions do not necessarily ensure that the Jewish nation will endure because they both had children who are not considered to be part of the Jewish nation. Thus, it would still be possible for their descendants to be unworthy of being part of Klal Yisroel. Yaakov was the first of whom all his children remained part of the new Jewish nation. In doing this, he created the concept that someone born of a Jewish woman will always be a Jew, regardless of his actions.
However, Rav Hutner points out, that Yaakov’s role of ensuring Jewish continuity is still incomplete, due to the halacha (law) that the child of a non-Jewish woman is a non-Jew, even if the father is Jewish. Because of this halacha, the permanence of Klal Yisroel is still not ensured. It is in this area that Yosef plays a defining role. He, unlike his brothers, was alone in an alien atmosphere and subjected to great temptations, particularly the nisayon (test) involving Potiphar’s wife. Through his ability to withstand such challenges, and to maintain his identity as a ‘Jew’, he infused into all future generations the ability to withstand the future challenges of the exiles in which Jews will be under great pressure to assimilate with the other nations. In this way, Yosef’s contribution acts as a completion of Yaakov’s role in ensuring Jewish continuity. Yaakov created the concept that a person born from a Jewish woman is always a Jew, but Yosef ensured that he have the fortitude to refrain from intermarriage.
With this understanding, we can explain why Yosef’s death is mentioned both at the end of Sefer Bereishis, and at the beginning of Sefer Shemos. The Ramban writes that Sefer Bereishis is the book of the Patriarchs, and Shemos is the book of the ‘children’. The deaths of all of Yaakov’s sons, with the exception of Yosef, are only mentioned in Shemos because that is the book of the children. Yosef is also partly considered one of the tribes, therefore his death is also mentioned in Shemos. However, he also plays a role as a kind of half-Patriarch, through is completion of Yaakov’s role. Accordingly, his death is also discussed in Bereishis. Similarly, he merits having two tribes descend from him, because he is something more than a regular tribe. The question remains, how was Yosef able to withstand the great tests of being surrounded by an atmosphere that made it so difficult to maintain one’s allegiance to HaShem. Not only did Yosef succeed in remaining strong himself, but he was also able to bring up children in Mitzrayim who would continue the tradition of the Avos.
In these Parshios, we see a number of examples of Yosef’s behavior that can help explain his remarkable adherence to HaShem. At the beginning of Parshas Mikeitz, Yosef was suddenly taken out of prison and placed in front of Pharaoh, the most powerful man in the world. Pharaoh asked him to interpret his dreams. Even before Pharaoh related the contents of the dreams, Yosef boldly asserted; “This is beyond me, it is HaShem who will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare. ” Every year we read this passuk and give it little thought, but with some reflection we can begin to fathom how incredible Yosef’s words are; he had been imprisoned in a hell-hole for 12 years and was finally given a golden opportunity to attain freedom, if only he could appease Pharaoh, he can have a new start in life. He knew that Pharaoh did not believe in the Jewish G-d, indeed he believed that he himself was a god, and his arrogance was unmatched: What would a person say in such circumstances? Yosef would have been justified in thinking that now was not the right time to attribute everything to G-d and that he would surely be justified in selling himself and his talents as much as possible. Yet Yosef did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable lesson in how to act in an alien environment, a test that all the generations of galus (exile) had to face. One could try to hide his Judaism from the non-Jews, in an effort to hide the differences between them. Sadly, history has proven that this approach generally resulted in assimilation. By removing the barriers between Jews and non-Jews, one opens the way for the loss of his Jewish identity. However, Yosef’s confidence in asserting his beliefs proved to be one of the reasons why he and many in the future generations, were also able to withstand assimilation throughout the long Galus.
After Yosef became Viceroy, he had two sons; he names the second son, Ephraim, “because My G-d made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.” Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita, explains that Yosef was calling Mitzrayim “the land of my suffering” even at his present time of being the Viceroy. Thus, whilst he acknowledged that he had become fruitful in Mitzrayim, nonetheless, it remained as the ‘land of his suffering’. In this way, Yosef avoided the trap of feeling comfortable and at home in Mitzrayim, despite his great success. This provides another reason why Yosef was able to remain steadfast in his adherence to Torah values whilst being surrounded by alien influences. History has proven on many occasions, that once a Jew becomes overly comfortable in galus, then he is far more likely to assimilate into the nation that he lives in. This was the case in Germany when the early Reform Jews called Berlin, ‘the New Jeruslaem”; it also proved to be the case in America, of which numerous Jews saw as the land of opportunity. Sadly, in their efforts to succeed as Americans, untold thousands were lost to the Jewish people forever.
We have seen how Yosef exemplified the ability to maintain his values and identity, in the midst of an atmosphere that was foreign to everything he stood for. In doing, this, he infused the Jewish people with the ability to follow in his footsteps and reject assimilation throughout the long Galus. It is no co-incidence that Psrshas Mikeitz always falls on Chanukah – the lessons of the Parsha relate to Chanukah. In this instance, the connection is clear; the Greek exile was the first in which the disease of assimilation posed a major threat to Jewish continuity. Throughout the previous exiles and suffering, the Jews maintained their sense of identity. However, the Greeks were the first nation to offer a genuinely enticing ideology. Sadly, a significant number of Jews failed to learn from Yosef, and gladly tried to remove all vestiges of their Judaism – they even tried to undo their circumcisions! However, the Hashmonaim and many Jews with them, resisted the attraction of the Greek way of life, and risked their lives to maintain their Jewish identity. Like Yosef’s strength in Mitzaryim, the spiritual victory over the Greeks and the Mityavnim can continue to give us guidance and inspiration to withstand the challenges of Galus to this day.

PERFECTLY IMPERFECT - CHANUKAH

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 G-d’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 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.

YOSEF’S GREATNESS - MIKEITZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHANUKAH - THE BATTLE OF CHANUKAH By Yehonasan Gefen

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. As a result, he 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 does merit 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.

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.