FASTING ON SHIVA ASAR B'TAMMUZ

The fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz begins the mourning period known as the 'Three Weeks'. On this day, the walls of Jerusalem were broken down, and three weeks later, the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed[1]. It is instructive to delve deeper into the purpose of fasting, in order to enter into this sad period with the appropriate state of mind.

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

The Ben Ish Chai applies this explanation to clarify an enigmatic gemara in Brachos. The gemara tells us, 'the reward for fasting is charity[2]'. He explains that the gemara is telling us that the consequence of fasting is that a person will give more charity. His very act of fasting will cause him to be more caring about the poor people whom he constantly encounters, and accordingly he will want to help them to a greater degree. It is possible to add that fasting has another benefit related to doing chesed with those less fortunate than oneself. As well as causing a person to give more abundantly, it enables him to improve his giving in a qualitative fashion. By temporarily placing oneself in a situation similar to that of the poor person, he is able to show a far greater sense of understanding for his fellow's desperate situation. When the giver shows that he truly empathizes with the receiver, then the act of giving constitutes a far greater act of chesed.

The Sifsei Chaim explains an Avos d’Rebbi Nosson in this vein. It says, “one should greet every man with a friendly countenance… if a person gives to his friend all the gifts in the world, but his face is sullen, it is considered as if he gave nothing. But one who greets his fellow with a friendly countenance, even if he gave him no gifts, it is considered as if he gave him all the best gifts in the world.[3]” The Sifsei Chaim writes that what people want more than anything is for others to show an interest in and care about them. A gift is merely an indication that the giver thought about the needs of his fellow and how he could give him joy. However, without an accompanying show of warmth, the main purpose of the gift is lost, because the person does not feel as if he is being genuinely cared about. In contrast, when a person is friendly to his fellow even without giving any gifts, then he is providing him with his main need, the desire to feel cared about[4]. A person who gives charity with a friendly attitude is giving much more than money, he is nourishing the poor man with a sense of importance by showing that he is cared about. Similarly, when the poor man feels that his fellow truly relates to his pain, then he feels a great deal of comfort that someone truly understands and cares about his plight.

Rav Shach zt"l excelled in doing chesed by showing an understanding of his fellow's challenges. On one occasion he heard about a widower who was depressed to the point that he stopped functioning. Rav Shach decided to visit the man in an attempt to bring him out of his depression. Receiving no response to his knock, he let himself in, and found the man lying motionless on the couch. "I know what you are going through," he said to the man. "I'm also a widower. My world is dark and I have no joy." The man's eyes lit up for the first time in months - this encounter was the catalyst of the man's resumption of a normal life. What was Rav Shach's secret? By stressing that he too experienced the feelings of losing a spouse, he showed the man that somebody truly understood his pain[5].

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

This lesson of fasting is particularly relevant to the 'Three Weeks' Chazal say that the Second Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of failings in the area of bein adam lechaveiro[6]. A failure to empathize with the situation of one's fellow is one of the main causes for such flaws. It is far easier for a person to harm others when he has no sensitivity to the pain that he causes them[7]. The Ben Ish Chai teaches us that fasting can be an effective way of eroding one's apathy for his fellow Jews. May we utilize the fast of shiva asar b'Tammuz to improve our conduct in bein adam lechaveiro.






[1] Taanis, 26a-b.
[2] Brachos, 6b, See Rashi and Maharsha for their explanations of what this means.
[3] Avos d’Rebbi Nosson, Ch.13.
[4] Sifsei Chaim, Moadim, 3rd Chelek, p.275, footnote 11.
[5] Kaplan, 'Major Impact', p.55-6.
[6] See Yoma, 9b, Bava Metsia, 30b.
[7] Psychologists observe that criminals are able to cause others great pain because they are totally immune to the pain that their victims endure. Accordingly, one of the most successful forms of therapy is making the criminals relive their crimes from the perspective of their victims. In this way, they develop some idea of the tremendous pain that they have caused innocent people.

GOING BEYOND THE LETTER OF THE LAW - THE THREE WEEKS

The Gemara tells us that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because people were makpid on each other and treated them according to the strict letter of the law[1]. This seems very difficult to understand - it would have seemed that the whole concept of going beyond the letter of the law is something of a stringency and that failing to follow it would not deserve such a strict punishment. Why were the Jewish people treated so harshly for being medakdek on each other?

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to identify the Torah source for going beyond the letter of the law. In Parshas Va'eschanan, the Torah states: “And you will do that which is right and good in the eyes of Hashem so that He will do good to you and you will come and inherit the land which Hashem promised to give to your forefathers[2].” This teaches us of the necessity to avoid being medakdek (exacting) in matters of law and to be mevater (forgiving) what is rightfully ours in certain situations. One example of this is; when a person finds a lost object that halachically he is allowed to keep, but he knows the identity of the original owner - Chazal tell us that even though it is technically permitted to keep the object, he should nonetheless give it back[3]. Another example is when a piece of property is for sale - the prospective buyers should give precedence to the person who lives next to that property because he stands to gain the most by buying this particular property[4]. In truth, however, there are numerous instances when one should go beyond the letter of the law - the Ramban writes that the Torah did not want to explicitly state them all, rather we should learn from this passuk that we must constantly strive to treat people in an understanding fashion and avoid always treating them according to the strict letter of the law[5].

It seems that failure to treat people ‘beyond the letter of the law’ reflects a deep flaw in a person’s attitude to Avodas Hashem. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains, (based on the Ramban on this passuk) that ‘v’asisa hayashar vehatov’ is the bein adam lechaveiro equivalent of ‘kedoshim tehyu’: The Ramban in Parshas Kedoshim explains that a person can keep all of the mitzvos and yet be a menuval b’reshus HaTorah.’ - this means that he is careful not to transgress any mitzvos but at the same time he has no interest in elevating himself in areas of reshus such as eating and sleeping. The underlying reason behind his lifestyle is that he believes that the Torah is true and therefore must be observed, but he does not subscribe to the true Torah outlook - he has no interest in elevating himself spiritually, rather his goals are very much ’this-worldly’, involving such aims as fulfilling his physical desires and attaining wealth. Because of his recognition of the truth of Torah, he will never deliberately commit aveiros, nevertheless he will show no interest in elevating himself in areas that he is not technically obligated to do so[6].

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

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

The commentaries find another difficulty with the Gemara saying that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because the people were strict with each other. Other Gemaras give different reasons for the destructions, such as murder, idol worship, immorality and baseless hatred[7]. Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin answered this question when he was witness to the following incident. Someone had slandered his fellow and now came on Erev Yom Kippur to ask for forgiveness. The victim refused to forgive him, pointing to the halacho that one does not have to forgive slander. Rav Yitzchak asked him about the aforementioned contradiction in Gemaras. He explained that the Batei HaMikdash was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in the other Gemaras. However, he pointed out that Chazal tell us that when people treat each other beyond the letter of the law and are not makpid on every point, Hashem acts measure for measure and is forgiving for even the most serious sins. However, when Hashem saw that the people were treating each other in a strict fashion, He acted accordingly and chose not to be forgiving for their other sins. So too, Rav Yitzchak said to the unforgiving person, if you treat your fellow in such a medakdek way then you should expect that Hashem will treat you in the same way. The man heard the lesson and forgave the slanderer[8].
May we all be zocheh to treat each other how we would like to be tr
[1] Bava Metsia, 30b.
[2] Va’eschanan, 6:18.
[3] Bava Metsia, 30b.
[4] Bava Metsia, 108a. This is known as, ‘Din d’bar metsra.’
[5] Ramban, Va’eschanan, ibid.
[6] See my piece on Parsas Vayeira about how Lot epitomized this dichotomy.
[7] It is not clear which Beis HaMikdash the Gemara in Bava Metsia is referring to.
[8] Many other commentaries explain this Gemara in a similar vein to Rav Yitzchak, including the Maharal, Ben Yehoyada, and Chofetz Chaim.

THE THREE WEEKS

Chazal tell us with regard to any generation in which the Beis HaMikdosh was not rebuilt, it is viewed as if it was destroyed in that very generation[1]. Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l explained that this means that had the Beis HaMikdosh been extant in that generation, then it also would have been destroyed as a result of the people's actions. Accordingly, it is clear that the actions that caused the initial destructions are still very much relevant to the present generation.

The Gemara in Nedarim offers one explanation as to why the first Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. It tells us that after the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdosh and the galus (exile) that followed, the Chachamim and Neviim did not know what was the cause of such a terrible punishment, until Hashem himself told them that it was because “they left My Torah.[2]” Rav explains that this does not mean that they were not learning Torah, rather that they did not make Birchas HaTorah before they would start learning[3]. The commentaries find a number of difficulties with this Gemara[4]. Why were the people punished so severely for the relatively minor sin of not saying Birchas HaTorah? Moreover, this Gemara seems to contradict the Gemara in Yoma, which states that the first Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of murder, idol worship, and immorality[5].

The Maharal addresses these problems[6]. He writes that it is impossible to understand the Gemara literally, that they were not saying Birchas HaTorah. Rather the Gemara means that they did not say the bracha with the proper intentions. He explains that when a person says Birchas HaTorah, he should focus on his great love and gratitude towards Hashem for giving him the tremendous gift of the Torah. The chachamim of the generation did say the bracha and moreover, did not merely say it out of rote, however they did not focus sufficiently on their love of Hashem when saying it. He continues to explain how this subtle failing was the root cause of the terrible sins that led to the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh. If a person focuses sufficiently on Hashem in the process of his learning then he merits to have tremendous siyata dishmaya that makes it much easier for him to avoid sin, and even if he does falter, it enables him to do teshuva without great difficulty. Rav Hutner zt”l writes that this is what Chazal mean when they say that ‘the light of Torah returns a person to good’. However, if he does not connect to Hashem through his learning then he loses that special siyata dishmaya and if he falters he is far more likely to become trapped in a downward spiral of sin[7].

Based on this explanation we can resolve the contradiction between the Gemaras in Nedarim and Yoma. The Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in Yoma. However, the failure to say Birchas HaTorah with the proper attitude was the root cause that enabled the deterioration of the Jewish people to the point where they were sinning so greatly. Because they did not connect to Hashem properly they lost siyata dishmaya and consequently fell prey to the powerful temptations of the yetser hara. The Maharal offers a fascinating and somewhat surprising explanation of the reasons why a person may fail to show the proper love of Hashem in his Birchas HaTorah. He argues that it is impossible to love two entities at the same time, and consequently focusing on love of one thing will reduce the focus of the love for something else. Based on this, he writes that there are two possible ‘loves’ that one can express when saying Birchas HaTorah, love of Hashem or love of the Torah, and that it is not possible to feel love for both at the same time! When a person says this bracha he is more likely to express his love for the Torah more than his love for Hashem! He warns that, “one must be very careful that he make the blessing on the Torah with all his heart and soul.[8]”

This explanation of the Maharal may seem to contradict the approach of Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l in Nefesh HaChaim. He emphasized that when one learns Torah they should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem, rather they should delve as deeply as possible into the Torah that they are learning. He argued that this approach is the optimal way through which a person can become close to G-d. The Maharal’s distinction between love of Hashem and love of Torah seems to clash with the Nefesh HaChaim’s emphasis on Torah as opposed to thoughts of Hashem. However, on deeper analysis it seems that there is no disagreement; the Maharal did not say that a person should focus on his love of G-d during his learning. Rather before he begins to learn and says Birchas HaTorah, then he should be careful not to lose focus of G-d. The Nefesh HaChaim himself makes a very similar point with regard to one’s attitude before learning. He writes, “whenever one prepared himself to learn, it is proper for him to spend, at least, a small amount of time, contemplating a pure fear of G-d with a pure heart[9].” He even argues that at times one should take a small break during his learning in order to rekindle his yiras Hashem[10].

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

The Three weeks is a time to reflect on the various causes of the Churban; a key area of avoda is to maintain a constant awareness of Hashem during one's fulfillment of Mitzvos and learning Torah. By doing so, the Maharal teaches us that each of us will have great siyata dishmaya in avoiding the others sins that caused the churban. May we all merit to see the rebuilding of the Beis HaMiikdosh speedily in our days.
[1] Yerushalmi, Yoma, Ch.1, Halacho 1.
[2] Yeremiyahu, 9:12.
[3] Nedarim, 81a.
[4] See Orach Chaim, Simun 47, with the commentaries of Bach and Taz, and Maharal, Hakdama to Tiferes Yisroel.
[5] Yoma, 9b.
[6] Hakadama to Tiferes Yisroel.
[7] Pachad Yitzchak, Shavuos, Maaamer 7, quoted by Rav Yehoshua Hartman Shlita, Hakdama to Tiferes Yisroel, Os 55.
[8] Netiv HaTorah, Perek 7.
[9] Nefesh HaChaim, Shaar 4, Perek 6.
[10] Ibid, Perek 7.

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA - PINCHAS

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables[1].” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people[2]? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’[3].

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation[4], however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children[5]. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.

Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara[6]. The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah,[7] and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they[8] made in Charan[9]’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt[10].

The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara[11] derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’[12]’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’[13]

We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin[14] that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem[15].” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment[16]. Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality..[17]”

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

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





[1] Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14.
[2] This question is asked by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita, Divrei Aggada, p.319.
[3] Ibid.
[4] See his continuation in Divrei Aggada, p.319-20 where he elaborates on the necessity to share one’s Torah with those who are distant from the true path. We also learn from his explanation that the ability and willingness to share Torah with others is a key trait in determining an effective leader.
[5] The Mishna in Avos, 1:1 tells us that we must “establish many students.” The Tiferes Yisroel writes that it is not enough to merely teach one’s own children but one must teach other Jews as well.
[6] Avoda Zara, 9a.
[7] Chazal say that Adam HaRishon, Noach and Shem v’Ever learnt Torah.
[8] ‘They’ refers to Avraham and Sarah.
[9] Avraham was 52 years old when the era of Torah began - see Rashi, Avoda Zara, 9a.
[10] One may ask that Avraham was not the first to teach Torah - Shem and Ever had yeshivas where they taught students. The difference is that Avraham taught Torah to those who did not otherwise have any desire to learn it, whereas Shem and Ever waited for people willing to learn to come to them - see Rambam, Hilchos Avoda Zara, Ch.1 Halacha 3, with Raavad and Kesef Misha who elaborates on the qualitative difference between Avraham‘s teaching and that of Shem and Ever. Also see Shut Chasam Sofer, hakdamo to Yoreh Deah, and Chomas Hadas of the Chofetz Chaim who elaborate on the differences between Avraham and the great men that preceded him. Another possible difference between Avraham and Shem and Ever is that taught already righteous people, whereas Avraham drastically changed the direction of people’s lives - this is supported by the Gemara’s citing of the passuk that refers to the souls that Avraham made - this suggests that merely teaching a person Torah is not the end goal, rather this is a means to making people change their lives through the torah that they are taught. Rav Yaakov Emden zt”l writes that when the Mishna in Avos ( 4:6) says that the highest level is ‘lilmod al menas laasos‘, it means learning in order to make others do - this is considered a higher level than lilmod al menas lelamed because the goal of teaching is to cause greater Mitzva observance.
[11] Sandedrin, 99b.
[12] See Iyov, 5:7. Mishlei, Ch.16.
[13] Maharsha, Sanhedrin, 99b.
[14] Sanhedrin, 99a.
[15] Shelach, 15:31.
[16] Included in this list are one who is megaleh panim b’Torah and one who claims that the Torah is not from heaven.
[17] Benyahu, Sanhedrin, 99a, quoted in ‘Peninei Ben Ish Chai, Shelach, p212.

THE TRUE KAN'AOS - PINCHAS

PARSHAS PINCHAS - THE TRUE KANO’US By Yehonasan Gefen

The parsha begins with Hashem rewarding Pinchas greatly for his act of zealousness in killing Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchas was from the tribe of Levi whilst Zimri was from the tribe of Shimon. This is not the first time in the Torah that these two tribes are associated with one another - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l provides an illuminating account of the history of these two tribes and how they developed in such different ways[1].

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

It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticized Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel.[2]” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah[3]. Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi?

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

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

There are numerous lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes.

Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behavior, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel.[4]’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel.

Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today.[5]”

Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world?[6]”

Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularisation that was becoming rampant in their times.
Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashe
[1] Emes leYaakov, Vayishlach, p.188-9. Vayechi, p.237-8.
[2] Vayechi, 49:7.
[3] Emes LeYaakov, Vayishlach, ibid.
[4] Hilchos Shemittah v’Yovel, Ch.13, hal 12.
[5] Zaitchik, Sparks of Mussar, p.41.
[6] Ibid. p.76.

MONEY AND HONOR - BALAK

Bilaam Harasha is considered to be the archetype of a person with bad midos. The Mishna in Avos describes him as having an ‘ayin raah‘ (he looked upon people in a negative way), a ‘ruach gevoah‘ (he was arrogant), and a ‘nefesh rechava[1]’ (he was greedy).

‘Nefesh Rechava’ refers specifically to Bilaam’s love for money; the commentaries derive his greediness from his response to the request of Balak’s ministers for him to curse the Jewish people. They said, “…So said Balak Ben Tsipoor, please do not refuse from coming to me. I will greatly honor you and everything that you say I will do, please go and curse this nation for me.” “Bilaam replied and said to Balak’s servants, if Balak will give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do small or great.[2]” On superficial analysis we learn Bilaam’s greediness from the large sum of money that he alluded to in his refusal to go against Hashem’s words.

However, the commentaries point out that this cannot be true, because there is another example in Chazal where a genuine tzadik used a similar expression to that of Bilaam. The Mishna in Avos[3] describes the account of the great Tanna, Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma, who was approached by a wealthy man to leave his place of Torah to dwell in another city that was lacking in talmidei chachamim. The man offered him an immense amount of money in his attempt to persuade Rebbe Yosse to come to his city. Rebbe Yosse replied, ‘if you give me all the silver, gold and precious pearls in the world I will only live in a place of Torah.” Rebbe Yosse mentioned an even greater amount of money than Bilaam and there is no indication at all that he showed any sign of greediness in his reply. What is the difference between Bilaam’s response and that of Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma[4]?

On deeper analysis it seems that there is a significant difference between Bilaam and Rebbe Yosse ben Kisma. When the man tried to persuade Rebbe Yosse to stay in his city he promised him a great amount of money, and, in response, Rebbe Yosse replied that no amount of money could make him leave a place of Torah. It was appropriate for Rebbe Yosse to refer to money because the man directly mentioned it himself. In contrast, the ministers of Balak never made any mention of money in their attempts to convince Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. Rather, they said that Balak offered to “greatly honor” him. Bilaam replied by saying the even a great amount of money would not enable him to curse the Jews if Hashem did not allow it. From Bilaam’s mention of money we see two things: Firstly that money was something that was so prevalent in his mind that he brought it up even when no-one else had made any mention of it. Secondly, on a deeper level, we see that he related to the concept of “honor” as meaning, ‘financial benefit’ - to Bilaam, honor and money were the same thing. This proves his love for money, because a person who does not love money will not think that it is equivalent to honor.

A difficulty still remains with this explanation. It would have seemed that someone who loves money would not necessarily consider that its main benefit is honor, rather people want money so that they can make materialistic acquisitions. Having money enables a person to satisfy his desires for physical pleasures such as a nice house, a fast car, good food, and lots of vacations. Given this, why did Bilaam equate honor with money? There are two possible motivations behind a person’s love of money; One is an attachment to gashmius, whereby he wants money to fulfill his physical desires. The second is that having a great deal of money can enable a person to receive honor and respect from others. This is not essentially a physical desire, rather it emanates from a spiritual yetser hara. This means that everyone is looking for some kind of meaning - honor is one of the main ways that a starved soul can try to derive some satisfaction. In western society today, having money is probably the greatest way of receiving honor.

This spiritual of desire for money is much more dangerous than the physical love of money. When a person wants money in order to enjoy certain luxuries, once he has them, he is satiated - this is because the goof is finite and can be satisfied. However, if the desire for honor is a ‘spiritual’ desire, then the person will never be satisfied no matter how much money he acquires - for him, money gives him honor, but his soul will instinctively crave more honor as a source of meaning. Consequently he will try to fulfill this desire by acquiring more money, but will constantly feel dissatisfied. It seems that it is this kind of love for money that Chazal refer to when they say that when a person gets 100 maneh he wants 200 maneh, and when he gets 200 maneh he wants 400 maneh. For this person, money is his means to gaining honor but he will always crave more honor, and therefore he will always want more money to satisfy this desire for honor.

From Bilaam’s equating money with honor, it is clear that Balaam’s ‘nefesh rechava’ caused him to have the more pernicious kind of love for money - the kind that emanates from a desire for honor. The Nesivos Shalom zt”l discusses how damaging this can be to a person - in the aforementioned Mishna in Avos the talmidim of Bilaam are compared with those of Avraham Avinu. Towards the end of the Mishna it asks what the difference is between the two groups. It explains that “the students of Avraham eat in Olam Hazeh and inherit Olam Haba… but the students of Bilaam Harasha inherit Gehinnom and go down to the well of destruction.[5]” What is the double lashon used with regard to Bilaam’s talmidim, of ‘Gehinnom’ and ‘well of destrcution’? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the ‘well of destruction’ refers to Olam Haba, whereas ‘Gehinnom’ actually refers to Olam Hazeh - the talmidim of Bilaam do not only experience great pain in the next world, they also suffer in this world. They are so concerned about gaining more acquisitions and more honor that they can never attain satisfaction in their lives to the extent that they live Gehinnom even in Olam Hazeh!

This explanation teaches an obvious lesson that the relentless drive for money can never provide a person with true satisfaction. A certain amount of money is a necessary means to helping people attain the end of a meaningful life, but it is essential to remain vigilant that it remains as a ‘means’ and does not become the ultimate goal in itself. Instead, occupying one’s time with developing a relationship with Hashem can provide the only source of satisfaction that leaves a person truly satisfied.

[1] Avos, 5:22.
[2] Balak, 22:16-18.
[3] Avos, 6:9.
[4] Many commentaries discuss why Bilaam’s response indicated that he was greedy; these include; Mizrachi, Maskil le David, Nachalas Yaakov, Be’er b’sadeh, Emes le Yaakov, and Rav Elyashiv in Divrei Aggadah. They offer a variety of explanations but a different approach will be used here.
[5] Avos, 5;22.

BALAK - LIVING FOR HASHEM

BALAK - LIVING FOR HASHEM

Chazal tell us that Bilaam harasha had incredible powers of prophecy which in some ways were even greater than those of Moshe Rabbeinu. Yet, at the same time, he possessed numerous bad midos. How can these two opposite factors come together in one man? The answer is that Bilaam never worked to attain his madreiga. In contrast to the Jewish neviim who had to climb the ladder of Rav Pinchas Ben Yair and reach the highest levels of tzidkus, Bilaam was given his prophetic abilities without having earned them. He clearly knew the emes, that the G-d of the Jews was the only true G-d, and that keeping the Torah would reap the ultimate reward, but, he never internalised these truths and therefore was unable to match his behaviour with his hasagos.

However, we see from his brachos to Klal Yisroel that he hoped to attain the spiritual reward that awaits tzadikkim. In his first set of blessings he expressed this desire: “May my soul die the death of the upright, and may my end be like his.[1]” The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh writes that Bilaam did not simply hope to get reward without having done any righteous act, rather he intended “that when the day of death would arrive he would improve his evil ways…he desired that at the time of death he would do teshuva and be like the righteous of the nations.” Bilaam realised that he was living a life of sheker and that he would suffer in the next world, so he wanted to do teshuva, but only at the end of his life. The Ohr Hachaim continues with an amazing observation.

“Likewise I have seen reshaim who told me that if they would be certain that if they did teshuva and would then immediately die, that they would do so, but they know that they could not maintain their teshuva for a longer period of time, because the foolish and old king [the yetser hara] dominates them.”[2]

These reshaim, like Bilaam, knew the truth but they were not prepared to live by it, they were only willing to die by it. When a Torah observant Jew sees this attitude he is struck by its foolishness, however, in a certain way, it can effect us all. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l demonstrates this point[3]: He quotes a Medrash that discusses the moments before Krias Yam Suf: It tells us that when the Jewish people were at the sea, each tribe was arguing with the other about who should enter the sea first, no-one wanted to take the first fateful steps, until Nachshon ben Amminadav stepped in first.[4] Rav Shmuelevitz asks, how can it be that no-one wanted to step into the sea? Throughout history Jews have been willing to give up their lives and those of their children for the sake of Kiddush Hashem, how is it possible that the Dor Deah were not able to make the same sacrifice?! He answers that had they been commanded to enter the sea in order to give up their lives then they would have gladly done so, but that was not the test in this instance. Rather, “they were commanded to enter in order to be saved, to jump in in order to live.”
The avoda at the Yam Suf was not to die for Hashem but to live for Him. It is much easier to give up one’s life for Hashem and then be exempt from mitzvos, than to stay alive and face the challenges that life poses.

How is this yesod relevant to us? Rav Noach Weinberg Shlita says that there is a basic question that everyone should ask themselves: ‘What am I living for, what is the purpose of my life?’ This is not such an easy question to answer in a genuine way - Torah observant Jews know that the purpose of life is to get close to Hashem but this can be a vague concept - there are many different ways in which to do this, and it is not so easy to find a specific answer to fit each individual’s unique situation and strength. Rav Weinberg gives one suggestion that can help make it a little less abstract. A person should think what he would be willing to die for. Then, he should say to himself, ‘I want to live for that.’

A good example of this is chinch; we would all willingly give up our lives for our children, yet do we devote enough time and energy towards living for them. There was a baal habayis who worked long hours trying to support his family. He even worked on Sundays. Every week his son would ask him if he had time to play with him on Sunday but his father would always answer that he had to work. One week, the desperate son asked his father, “dad, how much money do you earn on Sunday?” The bemused father answered him, and the son offered to pay the father whatever he normally earned so that he could be free to spend time with his son! This story has a sad irony; the whole reason that the father was working so hard was so as to give his children a good life, but he got so caught up in his work, that he missed the tachlis, he wasn’t being a father to his son.

Another example of this is our attitude towards Klal Yisroel. Most, if not all of us, would be willing to give up our lives for the Jewish people if they were threatened with physical or spiritual destruction. But are we willing to live for the Jewish people? Do we spend some time helping our fellow Jew in need? There are many thousands of Jews who don’t have enough food on the table and millions who have no idea what Judaism is about. Do we take out any time out of our busy lives to help them? Rav Pam zt”l drives this point home in his haskama to the biography of Irving Bunim zt”l.

“We hear so much talk these days about ahavas Yisroel, but if you want to know the real meaning of these words, translated into action, read the chapters in this book on the rescue efforts of Vaad Hatzala, headed by Reb Aron, Rav Kalmanowitz, and Irving Bunim. These men, along with the Sternbuchs in Switzerland and Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandel in Slovakia, knew no bounds in their persistent determination to move heaven and earth tosave lives, to alleviate suffering. Read it! It will move you. It will inspire you. It will give you a deeper understanding of achrayus for Klal Yisroel…But it may also disturb you, for it may be induce some painful soul-searching. Did we really do all we could to save lives then, or, for that matter, are we doing enough today to respond to the crying, desperate needs of Klal Yisroel in this generation[5]?”

We are living in a time where Klal Yisroel needs us, but it doesn’t need us to die by Kiddush Hashem, rather to live by it. Bilaam is described as a rasha despite his lofty hasagos. He knew what Hashem wanted from him, but he wasn’t willing to live by it, only to die by it. We know better than Bilaam, we are prepared to live for Hashem, but sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees and forget the tachlis. By reviewing now and again what we would be willing to die for, we can remind ourselves of what we should be living for. And what is the reward for ‘living’ for Hashem?

At the Yam Suf, no-one wanted to enter until Nachshon be Amminadav went in, he was prepared to live for Hashem, the Medrash tells that that it was because of this act that the tribe of Yehuda was zocheh to Malchus[6]. Rav Shmuelevitz describes the significance of this moment: “At that moment the tribe of Yehuda felt himself responsible for all of Yisroel to do what was required of them, and from this feeling, they became higher and greater than all of Yisroel, and were filled with strength and might to cross the sea as if it was completely dry, and through this, Yehuda was zocheh to Malchus[7]. We too, can be zocheh to greatness if we learn from Nachshon’s lesson and live for Hashem.
[1] Balak, 23:10.
[2] Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh, ibid.
[3] Sichos Mussar, Parshas Beshalach, Maamer 33.
[4] Bamidbar Rabbah 13:7
[5] A Fire in His Soul, p 8.
[6] Tosefta, Brachos, 4:16
[7] Sichos Mussar, Parshas Vayeshev, Maamer20.

ACTIVITY VERSUS ACCOMPLISHMENT - CHUKAS

The Parsha ends with a history of how the Jewish people came to conquer the city of Cheshbon from the Emorim. It had previously been part of Moav until Sichon, King of the Emorim, defeated Moav and acquired Cheshbon. With regard to that war, the Torah tells us, “Therefore say the ‘Moshlim’, come to Cheshbon and the city of Sichon will be built and set up.[1]” The simple understanding of this passuk is that the ‘Moshlim’ are those who say mashalim (poems), Bilaam and Beor, and they were telling Sichon to come and conquer Cheshbon from the Moavim. However, the Gemara sees a hidden message in this passuk: “Therefore, say those who rule their inclinations, come and let us make an accounting of the world; the loss [incurred through doing] a mitzva against its benefit, and the benefit of a sin against its loss[2]”.

The commentaries ask, why is it that only those who ‘rule their inclinations’ say that one should do a cheshbon (accounting), implying that those who do not rule their inclinations do not believe that a person should participate in such a cheshbon[3]. The Mesillas Yeshiarim explains that those who rule their inclinations are people who have developed a deep understanding of the yetser hara and are aware of the need to constantly remain vigilant against its tactics by undertaking a regular cheshbon hanefesh. Consequently they exhort people to make a cheshbon hanefesh. This cheshbon involves a review of what a person’s overall goals in life should be and assessing whether he is living in accord with those goals. A person who does not ‘rule over his inclination’ has no awareness of how the yester hara is constantly tricking him into an undesirable lifestyle. He is so blinded by its powers that he stumbles along life like a person who walks in the darkness blissfully unaware that there are numerous traps awaiting him. He does not recognize the need to do any kind of cheshbon and has to be motivated to do so by one who does rule his inclination.

The Mesillas Yesharim discusses the main factors that cause a person to fail to grasp the true purpose of life. He writes that the most basic problem is that one can become so engulfed in his activities that he never has the opportunity to step back and assess the direction that his life is taking. This is one of the main tactics of the yetser hara - he knows that if one were to step back and analyze his actions then he will recognize that drastic changes are needed. Therefore, it makes him so busy that he does not have any free time with which to think about his life direction. He compares this to the plan of Pharaoh when he perceived a threat that the Jews were beginning to think about freedom. His response was to make their workload heavier so that they would have no time to think about rebelling against him, rather, “he tried to distract their hearts from all contemplation with the sheer constancy of the work which never ceased.”
So too, the yetser hara sends us all kinds of distractions that cause us to be constantly busy to the extent that we can never step back and look at the general direction that our life is taking. One observer, noting this succinctly stated, “there is a difference between activity and accomplishment;” a person may be extremely busy but were they to step back and examine what he is e actually accomplishing in a meaningful sense, they may be disappointed. This dilemma is demonstrated by the following observation by a person who had just arrived at the realization that he was caught in this trap: “I’ m busy - really busy. But sometimes I wonder if what I’m doing will make any difference in the long run.

This busyness can manifest itself in a number of ways. The following stories provide two examples of how his can occur: One father was very involved in his work, to the extent that he even worked on Sundays, the one time when he could spend quality time with his son. Every Sunday his son would ask him if they could spend some time together but the father answered that he had to work. Finally, the son asked his father how much money he earns in one hour of work on a Sunday. The father answered, $100 - the son replied that he had saved $50 and was willing to give that to his father so that he would spend half an hour with him! It may well be that the father’s intentions in working so hard were noble and included providing a stable financial upbringing for his son. However, he missed sight of the fact that he was sacrificing a meaningful relationship with his son and therefore any benefit of the extra work was outweighed by the damage it was causing. Only after the father’s eyes were opened by his son’s desperate efforts was he able to step back and reassess his role as a father.

Another example is about the Rebbe who asked one of his top talmidim how often he thinks about G-d. The talmid answered, “Rebbe, I get up at 3.00am every morning and learn continuously until I daven Neitz, I have a very quick breakfast, and learn all morning, only to stop for a brief lunch and mincha, and then I learn all afternoon and through the night until I collapse with tiredness - Rebbe, when do I have time to think about G-d?[4]!” This talmid had got so involved in his ‘Avodas Hashem’ that he had missed sight of the overall purpose of what he was doing - to develop a relationship with G-d.

If these nisyonos (tests) were so strong in the time of the Mesillas Yesharim[5] then all the more so it presents a formidable challenge in the modern world. Society is saturated with gadgets and technology that can keep people busy and distracted throughout the day[6]. There is barely a conversation that is not interrupted by someone receiving a call on their cell phone or an email on their blackberry. The consequences of such developments are that there is barely a moment where a person is free from all distractions to assess his life direction.

In order to overcome the efforts of the yetser hara to never think about our life direction, The Mesillas Yeesharim strongly suggests that a person make a regular cheshbon hanefesh. The purpose of this is to remind himself of what his goals in life and to assess whether he is living according to them or has lost sight of the overall goal and is caught up in details that are distracting him from his true life purpose. A useful time in which one can escape from the numerous distractions of daily life and contemplate his life is Shabbos. That is the one day when an observant Jew is free from many of the technological advances that hinder cheshbon hanefesh. Therefore, this is a fitting time when one can look back at the past week and assess whether he lived in line with his life goals or not.

As we have seen, the yetser hara is desperate to prevent us from true self-contemplation. As a result, one may find it harder to do a 5 minute cheshbon hanefesh once a week than to learn for 10 hours a day! The yetser hara does not want a person to learn but if it cannot prevent this, then he tries with all his might to prevent a person from utilizing what he learns in order to live a lifestyle with Torah true goals. He primarily does this by stopping a person from stepping back and thinking about his life direction. Consequently, it requires a strong effort to being a cheshbon hanefesh, but as we know, one who tries to purify himself receives great help from shamayim and can surely succeed in this difficult area.

[1] Chukas, 21:27.
[2] Bava Basra, 78b.
[3] See Mesillas Yesharim, Ch.3; Nesivos Shalom, Chukas.
[4] Heard from Rav Moshe Dovid Cohen Shlita.
[5] Its author, Rav Moshe Chaim Luzatto lived nearly 400 years ago.
[6] This is not to say that there are no benefits to such technology. Rather, like everything in life, it can be used for the good or for the bad. The point made here is that the yetser hara tries to utilize the technological advances to distract people from what is meaningful.

TAAMEI HAMITZVOS - CHUKAS

The Parsha begins “this is the chok of the Torah” and proceeds to discuss the laws of Parah Adumah (the red heifer), a mitzvo which is impossible to understand according to human logic. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh asks why this mitzvo is called the ‘chok of the Torah’, it would have been more appropriate to say ‘this is the chok of tahara’. He answers that the Torah is alluding to us that if we fulfil this mitzvo even though it has no reason to it, then the Passuk considers it as if we have fulfilled the whole Torah, because fulfilling a mitzva without reason shows that we are unconditionally willing to follow Hashem’s Ratson.[1]

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that when a person fulfils a mitzvo that has an obvious reason to it, it is still not clear that he is prepared to fulfil the Torah purely because Hashem commanded it. It could be that he is doing it because it makes sense to him. However, once he performs a mitzvo that is without logic that proves that he keeps all the mitzvos, not because they make sense to him, but because Hashem commanded them.[2]

This is a fundamental principle of the Torah - we accept that we must follow Hashem’s will without making any cheshbonos according to our own logic. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that this was Korach’s mistake in his theological attacks against Moshe Rabbeinu. He attempted to expose the fallacy of the mitzvos of tsitsit and mezuza by showing their illogical nature. He argued that the reason for wearing a thread of techeiles on each corner is because it resembles the sea, which resembles the sky, which resembles the Throne of Glory. Based on this reasoning Korach argued that one who wears a garment of techeiles should not need a thread of it on its corner because there is ample reminder of the sea, sky and the throne of glory in the actual garment. In reality, however, the mitzvo applies in all cases, even where the given reason has no apparent application because ultimately all mitzvos must be observed and should be viewed as a gezeira that cannot be questioned.[3]

In light of this principle, a difficulty arises: Many of the greatest Torah scholars such as the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and, more recently, Rav Hirsch zt”l went to great lengths to explain the taamey hamitzvos - the reasons behind the mitzvos. Yet it is clear from Parah Adumah that the ultimate reason behind each mitzvo is beyond human
understanding; Shlomo Hamelech had thought that he understood the deepest reason for every mitzvo until he came to Parah Aduma which he could not fathom. He then realised that he did not truly understand the definitive reason for any of the mitzvos. In light of this, how can anyone claim to understand a taam for any given mitzvo if Shlomo Hamelech, the wisest man, could not?!

My Rebbe answers by explaining that the commentaries are not claiming to understand the ultimate reason behind the mitzvo - we can have no concept of the genuine reason for any mitzvo - that is something that belongs in the highest olamos. However, this does not mean that the ‘taamey hamitzvos’ have no truth to them. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom ‘arranged’ it so that each mitzvo can make sense on many different levels of existence. For example they can help a person develop desirable character traits and can enhance relationships.

We see this in many mitzvos: The laws of tumah and tahara are among the most difficult to fathom. However, the most relevant of these laws today, taharas mishpacha, has obvious benefits. The Gemara explains that it is very beneficial for husband and wife to separate for a certain time every month so that they can avoid the problem of lack of excitement in the relationship[4]. Based on this Gemara, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that this advantage is one of the taamey hamitzvos of taharas mishpacha[5]. This does not mean that the reason we keep taharas mishpacha is because it helps one’s relationship, however, it is no co-incidence that it does so, Hashem clearly ‘intended’ it to be that way.

Another example of this is the mitzvo of shechita. The Ramban writes that it does not effect Hashem whether we kill an animal by shechita, by nichor or by strangling. However, Hashem instructed us to kill the animal in the least cruel way in order to teach us the mida of rachmanus even at the time of killing[6]. Again this does not mean that we slaughter animals the way we do because it will help us be more merciful, we do it that way purely because Hashem commanded us to. Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that Hashem also intended for us to develop favourable midos through observing the mitzvos.

Thus, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot fathom the ultimate reason for the mitzvos, we can nonetheless understand taamim to the mitzvos that are emes on a certain level. With this understanding we can now appreciate why the commentaries held it was so important to teach us taamey hamitzvos. It is true that we keep the mitzvos solely because Hashem instructed us to, however, it is not sufficient that we merely do the mitzvo robotically, without any thought as to what we are doing. Mitzvos are intended to change us into better people, and the way that they do this is through the taamey hamitzvos. The Sefer Hachinuch tells us the shoresh to every mitzvo - why? So that we can have an idea of what we are supposed to gain from performing this mitzvo and we can work towards achieveing that benefit.

The issur of lashon hara demonstrates this idea. Rabbeinu Yonah explains the taam of this issur with a maaseh. A chacham was walking with his talmidim when they came across the corpse of a dead dog. One of the talmidim commented on how disgusting this corpse was. The chacham replied that it had very nice, white teeth[7]. He was teaching his talmid the mida of focussing on the good. This, Rabbeinu Yonah writes, is the taam of shemiras halashon. There is no actual issur of lashon hara for focussing on the unpleasant aspects of a dead dog, however one who sees things in a negative fashion misses the point of the issur of lashon hara. It is not enough merely to not speak badly about others, the root of the mitzvo is to focus on the good in people. In refraining from speaking badly about others, one should strive to transform himself into a person with a positive outlook on life.

Learning from the taamey hamitzvos is not merely a profitable exercise, it is essential to one’s relationship with Hashem. The Ramban in the end of Parshas Bo explains why there are so many mitzvos that relate to Yetsias Mitzrayim. He says that their purpose is to instill in us a deep sense of emuna in Hashem and His hashgacha[8]. It is not sufficient merely to put a mezuza on the doorposts of one home and kiss it now and again. We are supposed to see the mezuza and be reminded of the message inside it, that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim and is continually guiding us in our lives.

The Ramban goes even further and says that, in reality the tachlis of all the mitzvos is to bring us close to Hashem and acknowledge that He is our creator. “This is the purpose of creation, for there is no other reason for our creation, and the only thing that Hashem wants from us is that we know and acknowledge Him.[9]” This process, whereby a person is brought closer to Hashem through observance of the Mitzvos is not automatic. If a person commits mitzvos out of habit then, although he may have technically fulfilled them, he has not utilised them to achieve their purpose; closeness to Hashem. Some mitzvos do this by directly arousing a person to awareness of Hashem and some do it by encouraging development of certain midos. But the common denominator of all of them is developing our emuna.

We have seen how parah aduma teaches us that we are obligated to fulfil mitzvos without questioning their logic, and yet at the same time, we are also obligated to understand the taamim of the mitzvos so that we can grow from them in the intended way.
A recommended way to achieve this is to spend some time analysing the taamey hamitzvos; there are many sources, one can look to the earlier sources such as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Sefer Hachinuch or turn to later commentaries such as Rav Hirsch or Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt”l. By doing this we can remind ourselves that each mitzvo has taamim that we are supposed to be aware of and use to grow from.

This is not an easy task because there is a strong yetser hara that allows us to do mitzvos as long as we miss their intended tachlis. The story is told of a Gadol who visited a home for the Friday night meal. As he and his host entered the house, they saw that the challah had not been covered as is the minhag. The host, upset at this failing in front of his honoured guest, proceeded to berate his hapless wife in front of his guest. After this outburst, the Gadol gently took him aside and asked him if he knew why we cover the challah? The reason is so as not to embarrass it when we bless on the wine before it. By embarrassing his wife the host demonstrated that he had clearly not internalised the message of this minhag. All the mitzvos have internal messages - it is up to us to learn them and use them in their intended way.



[1] Ohr HaChaim Hakados, Chukas, 19:2.
[2] Sichos Mussa,r, Chukas, Maamer 78.
[3] Darash Moshe, Chukas.
[4] Nidda 31b
[5] Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvo 166.
[6] Ramban, Ki Setsey, 22:6.
[7] Shaarey Teshuva, Shaar 3, Maamer 216,217.
[8] Ramban, Parshas Bo, 13:16.
[9] Ibid.

KORACH - THE POWER OF LEITSANUS

When one reads the account of the rebellion of Korach he is struck by his seemingly foolish attempt to challenge Moshe Rabbeinu. Yet it is clear that at the time Korach succeeded in persuading huge numbers of people about the validity of his arguments against Moshe and Aron. Although the rebellion began with a relatively small number of people, by its climax, the Torah tells us that he gathered together “all of the assembly[1]” against Moshe and Aron. How was he able to initiate such a powerful uprising against the men who had guided the Jewish people through countless miracles in the desert?

In order to answer this question, it is instructive to examine another problem in the parsha. One of the main arguments of Korach and his assembly was his opposition to the appointment of Aron to the position of Kohen Gadol. They argued that Moshe had personally made this appointment as an act of favoritism towards his brother. After the rebels were punished through various terrible yissurim, Hashem ordered Moshe to prove that Aron had been divinely appointed to his position through the test of the staffs whereby Aron’s staff miraculously blossomed proving conclusively that he deserved to be Kohen Gadol. After this test, all the discontent disintegrated

Rav Leib Chasman zt”l[2] asks, why did Hashem order the test of the staffs only AFTER the awesome punishments that He meted out. Had the miracle of the staff blossoming taken place right at the beginning, it could have convinced the people of the invalidity of the arguments against Moshe and Aron, thus rendering the punishments unnecessary. He answers by teaching an important yesod in human nature. Korach knew that he could not defeat Moshe in a battle of logic, he knew that Moshe’s case was far too strong, and that Moshe was far too wise for Korach to rationally defeat him. Thus he resorted to the devastating weapon of leitzanus (mockery) through which he could belittle Moshe and Aron without having to logically justify his arguments. We see this in the words of Rashi when he explains how Korach was able to persuade so many people to side with him; The Torah says that he gathered the people against Moshe and Aron. The obvious question is how was he able to achieve such a monumental task; Rashi explains that he as able to do so through, “divrei leitzanus.[3]”

Rav Chasman continues that leitzanus ignores the power of sechel and arouses the animalistic part of man where logic is meaningless. This explains the concept in the passuk in Mishlei that exhorts us not to rebuke the leitz; the leitz is not interested in any form of logical argument, rather he wants to continue with his own lifestyle and will belittle any attempts to change him. Another passuk in Mishlei tells us that the only way to humble the leitz is through yissurim; “Prepare punishments for the leitz.[4]” The Mesillas Yesharim explains that ideally a person is supposed to grow and learn from his mistakes through Talmud Torah and chesbon hanefesh (self-contemplation), however the leitz is immune to such methods and therefore the only thing that can effect him is yissurim.

This, writes Rav Chasman, explains why Hashem only sent the miracle of the staffs after the punishments that struck Korach and his main supporters. The power of leitzanus to ignore logic is so great that it can even dismiss open miracles if they conflict with the leitz’s self-interest. Had the miracle taken place before anyone had been punished, the rebels would have found a way to dismiss it and ignore its ramifications through a mocking comment. It was only after the devastating punishments that the power of leitzanus was broken and the survivors could internalize the lesson of the blossoming staff.

This explains how Korach was able to persuade so many people to follow such a foolish course of action and challenge Moshe Rabbeinu. By nullifying their sechel through divrei leitzanus they became blinded to the dangers of following Korach.
The Mesillas Yesharim writes very strongly about the damaging nature of leitzanus[5]. He argues that it is one of the main factors that prevents a person from developing the trait of zehirus (alertness against sin). Leitzanus prevents him from seriously analyzing himself by belittling that which is important and turning everything into a joke. He will not follow the rebuke of anyone, rather he will use mockery as a tool to escape serious self contemplation. Indeed it seems that leitzanus stems from a desire to escape the serious issues that a person must face if they want to serve Hashem in the best way. It is far easier to laugh off any possibility of growth rather than to face the challenge of dealing with one’s problems.

Korach used leitzanus to trick others but the yetser hara also utilizes it in order to make us trick ourselves into avoiding growth. We learn from Rav Chasman that the only way that the power of leitzanus can be weakened is through punishments. Rather than having to suffer unnecessarily, it is surely far more advisable for a person to go through the far lesser ‘pain’ of mussar[6]. This can be done in a number of ways; learning mussar sefarim such as Mesillas Yesharim who discuss leitzanus in great detail; accepting rebuke from one’s Rabbanim and friends; or by making a simple cheshbon hanefesh and honestly examining himself. Surely such strategies are more desirable than the alternative of going through real suffering. a person opens himself up to genuine



[1] Korach, 16:19.
[2] Ohr Yahel, 3rd Chelek, quoted in Lekach Tov, Bamidbar, p.186.
[3] Rashi, 16:19.
[4] Mishlei, Ch.19.
[5] Mesillas Yesharim, Ch5.
[6] The root of the word ‘mussar’ is the same as that for yissurim (punishment), because real self-analysis and growth is painful and causes a certain degree of suffering.

MACHLOKES - KORACH

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos describes the machlokes that Korach instigated against Moshe Rabbeinu as one that was ’sheloh leshem shamayim’.[1] Sheloh leshem shamayim refers to selfish reasons such as desire of kavod. However, Chazal tell us that Korach and his cohorts confronted Moshe not with personal attacks but with genuine ideological issues. They argued that all the nation are holy and that they all heard Hashem give the Torah. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon had no right to take for themselves the two highest positions in the nation, rather everyone should equally share power. Although ultimately misguided, this argument seems understandable - how did the Mishna know that it was sheloh leshem shamayim? The answer is found in other sources in Chazal which tell us of Korach’s true motives in attacking Moshe and Aharon. Korach felt that he was next in line to be the leader of Kehathite family and was angered when his cousin Elizaphan was appointed to this position ahead of him. This triggered Korach to attack the leadership of Moshe and Aharon.[2] Thus, it is clear that his ideological crusade was really a pretext for his desire for kavod - he posed as a genuine ‘defender of the people’ when in truth he was merely seeking out his own selfish interests.[3] This led to the terrible aveiros that Korach committed and the devastating punishment that he and his supporters suffered - being swallowed in the ground for all eternity. Yet if one were to ask Korach himself if he were acting leshem shamayim or not then he would surely answer that he was - he convinced himself that he was right in his machlokes because he saw prophetically that among his offspring would be the great prophet Shmuel and twenty-four groups of Leviim who would prophesy with ruach hakodesh. Therefore he reasoned that he was surely justified in his argument with Moshe and Aharon. He failed to foresee, however, that his sons would repent and survive whilst he would disappear into oblivion.[4]

There are many lessons that can be learned from Korach - one of the most important is that a person can be convinced that he is acting leshem shamayim in criticizing others whilst in reality he is simply being misled by his yetser hara. This nisayon is especially common in the Torah world - observant Jews believe that there is right and wrong - we reject the secular notion of relativist morality; that whatever one believes has validity. We believe in the truth and we are willing to fight for that belief. However, this hanhaga brings with it a great risk that, like Korach, the real kavanna behind it can be sheloh leshem shamayim and consequently it can lead to damaging machloksim . Rav Leib Gurwitz zt”l discusses this phenomenon in his sefer Meoray Shearim[5]: He says that on leil Shabbos we praise Hashem as “He who spreads the shelter of peace upon us, upon all of his people Israel, and upon Yerushalayim.” Why do we specifically mention Yerushalayim, it should be automatically included in ‘Israel’? He answers that Yerushalayim is the home of talmidey chachamim who “commonly get involved in machloksim that, in their eyes, are leshem shamayim, and their kina is in their eyes leshem shamayim, therefore Yerushalayim needs a special tefilla for itself” to protect itself from the wrong type of machlokes. It is very easy to justify criticising individuals or groups of people on the grounds that it is leshem shamayim, however it requires a great deal of self-analysis for a person to be sure that he is indeed acting leshem shamayim, for if he is not, then the damage caused can be great. Moreover, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz Shlita points out that to criticise another group is considered lashon hara letoeles and like all toeles, one needs to fulfill the seven conditions that the Chofetz Chaim enumerates in order to be allowed to speak such criticism. One of those conditions is that the speaker feel no sense of enjoyment that he is criticising others. This is a very hard condition to genuinely fulfil, therefore, generally it better be left to Talmidey Chachamim to decide when it is appropriate to speak negatively about different groups within Klal Yisroel and for us to remain quiet. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal zt”l echoed this sentiment. On one occasion “he said that only an exceptional tzaddik can dare speak critically of a group within Torah Jewry or its leader. Everyone else would do well to remain silent regarding such differences and focus their efforts on self-growth and yiras shamayim.[6]”

However, even if we do not get involved in ideological disagreements ourselves, Gedolim and Roshei Yeshivah have, at times, deemed it proper to speak out against attitudes or movements from within the Torah world that they have felt are wrong. It is clear that they were purely leshem shamayim in their intentions, not tainted by a desire for kavod or enjoyment of criticising others. Yet, there remains the risk that we misunderstand their words and apply it in a more personal way than was intended, again falling into the trap of lashon hara and machlokes. Consequently, there is always the risk that different groups within Torah Judaism can look down on one another and label them with negative descriptions. This is not just a mildly negative outcome, the Netziv writes that this was the attitude that led to the destruction of the 2nd Beis Hamikdash. Even though the people of that generation were tzadikim and ameilim b’Torah because “they had sinas chinam in their hearts and suspected anyone who they saw not acting in the way that they felt correct, as being a Tzadukki and Apkorus.[7]”

What is the correct way to approach disagreement? The answer to this can be seen in the other machlokes which Chazal contrast to that of Korach - the machlokes between Hillel and Shammai. Their machlokes is described as one which was leshem shamayim, there was no underlying personal motives in their disagreement, only the desire to get to the truth. A simun of this is that, despite the fact that they argued strongly in areas of halacha, that did not prevent their children from marrying each other.[8] There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but only if it is based on a sincere desire for emes. If it is, then the participants will not confuse ideological differences between personal hostility.

This attitude is exemplified in the following story involving Rav Segal zt”l. On one occasion, he had voiced criticism of a certain organisation and his opinion was greeted by some with great disfavour. The Rosh Yeshivah was unmoved by such opposition and held his ground. Finally, one of the oranisation’s directors decided to visit the Rosh Yeshivah and discuss the matter. Upon the man’s arrival, the Rosh Yeshiva presented him with a gift - a volume of Sefer Chofetz Chaim which he had inscribed with a warm blessing. The man stood dumbfounded, not comprehending why his adversary would want to offer him a gift. The Rosh Yeshivah explained, “It was R’Yisroel Salanter’s way to present a gift to someone with whom he had engaged in ideological debate , in order to make clear that the disagreement was purely ideological and not personal.”[9]
We have seen that the key to preventing ideological disagreements from degenerating into personal hostility is to separate the individual from his behaviour or attitude. One can be wrong but at the same time still be a good person. This is not an easy separation to make. My rebbe suggests one way of making it easier is to study the hashkafa and halacha of bein adam lechaveiro - these give a person the Torah outlook of how to look at one’s fellow Jew, even if he acts in a way that you deem to be wrong. Beyond this, as we stated earlier, it is very advisable to not get involved in attacks on other organisations without strict guidance from a competent Rabbiniic authority. By working in this area then we can begin to metaken this type of sinas chinam - that which the Netziv said was the cause of the Churban Beis Ha
[1] Avos 5:17
[2] Bamidbar Rabbah 18:2
[3] This explanation was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita.
[4] Tanchuma 5 quoted by Rashi 16:7 and Bamidbar Rabbah 18:8.
[5] Quoted in Hameor Sheb’avos, p.405.
[6] Finkelman & Weiss, The Manchester Rosh Yeshivah, p.355.
[7] Emek Davar, Hakdama to Parshas Bereishis.
[8] Yevamos 13a,b.
[9] Ibid, p.279.