PERFECTLY IMPERFECT - CHANUKAH

Chanukah is one of the most observed of all the Jewish festivals - everyone enjoys lighting pretty menorahs and eating lots of doughnuts! But beneath the enjoyable remembrance 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 towards the purpose of life. There is a Gemara in which a Roman leader 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 produces inedible produce such as a kernel of wheat which serves of no benefit, whereas man takes this kernel and, through much toil, makes it into bread. The Gemara tells us that Rabbi Akiva knew that the Roman expected him to say that Hashem’s creation was greater, and the Roman was ready to ask that if that is so then why did Hashem create a human being and then 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 thereby avoided this by stating that man’s creation is indeed greater. How can we understand this Gemara - 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 emphasised the perfection of man. The Greeks idolised the human body and human intellect, man was naturally perfect and the Romans basically represented a continuation of that ideology. Consquently, 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. That is why Hashem creates a useless kernel of wheat; of course Hashem is infinitely greater than mankind, however, He wants man to 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 - he has much work to do - in particular to harness and control all his powerful drives and use them for the good of growth or improvement. Life is one big opportunity to satisfy all of one’s natural drives.

Given all this, it should be of little surprise that one of the three mitzvas that the Greeks forbade the Jews from keeping was Bris Mila. They sought to uproot the idea that man is NOT made perfect, that life is about developing oneself, striving to remove his negative traits and improve 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 live in a society that places little or no emphasis on the concept of improving one’s character - instead it focuses far more on deriving physical pleasure. We, however know that the only true satisfaction is derived from growing, from becoming a kinder, more spiritual person, a more thoughtful spouse, a more attentive parent, and, most importantly, a better Eved Hashem.

THE DESIRE FOR GREATNESS - VAYEITSEI

“And Hashem remembered Rachel, and Hashem listened to her, and opened her womb. And she became pregnant and she bore a son, and she said Hashem has gathered in my disgrace. And she called his name Yosef , saying, ‘May Hashem bear me another son. ”

After many years of barrenness, Rachel Imanu finally merits to give birth to a son. She reacts to this joyous event by asking for another child. This reaction seems somewhat surprising - It appears analogous to when a parent gives a child a gift, the child asks for another one instead of thanking the parent ! However, in truth, it seems that Rachel’s desire for more children was not merely a desire for more in the realm of gashmius (physicality), rather it was a result of her great sheifa (desire) to strive in ruchnius (spirituality); for Rachel, having children meant playing a key role in the building of Klal Yisroel. Her request to have more children was a reflection of her own desire to merit to play a greater role in building Klal Yisroel. Thus it was not comparable to a child asking for another gift, rather it was more akin to one who has just completed a piece of learning asking Hashem to help him complete another one; that is not a sign of ingratitude, rather it is an expression of the person’s desire to grow more in ruchnius.

This idea can also help us understand another difficult passage in the Parsha. After Leah gives birth to four sons in quick succession, the Torah tells us that Rachel was jealous of her elder sister . Rashi explains that Rachel was jealous of Leah’s good deeds, because she felt that it was in the merit of her righteousness that Leah was granted so many children. Based on this reasoning, it would seem logical that Rachel strive to improve her own maasim. However, she does not seem to do this, rather she requests from Yaakov Avinu that he pray for her to have children. Why does she not immediately strive to improve her maasim instead of asking Yaakov to help her ? Perhaps we can explain that included among the ‘good deeds’ that Rachel was jealous of was Leah’s intense desire and efforts to have children and thereby play a part in building Klal Yisroel. Consequently, Rachel strived to emulate Leah’s great desire to have children. One way of doing this was to request of a great Tzaddik, Yaakov Avinu, to pray for her to have children - this action in and of itself represented a way of improving her own maasim tovim.

In yet another section in the Torah we learn a further lesson about the power of the desire of the Imahos to build Klal Yisroel. After Leah has four sons, the Torah tells us that she stopped giving birth . Nonetheless she did not stop in her efforts to have more children. She was even willing to give her son’s dudaim to her sister Rachel in exchange for an extra opportunity to have more children. After these intense efforts the Torah writes: “And Hashem heard Leah and she became pregnant, and bore a fifth son to Yaakov. ” The commentaries note that there is no mention of Leah praying to have more children, so why does the Torah say that Hashem heard Leah - she didn’t say anything?! Rashi explains that in this sense, the word ‘vayishma’ refers to ‘perceiving’ - “Hashem perceived that Leah desired and strived to create more tribes and as a result of that desire He granted her another child. ” We learn from here that Hashem responds to an intense desire for spiritual accomplishment which is accompanied by great effort, even when a person does not pray to Hashem.

These examples demonstrate the importance of developing an intense desire to grow in spiritual matters. Without such a desire, a person can not achieve anything of great significance in the spiritual realm. The following story gives a great example of the importance of desire and a willingness to attain great achievements in the spiritual realm. There was once a meeting of many of the Gedolim of the generation and the descendants of the leaders of the previous one, including the Chofetz Chaim zt”l. Rav Yechezkel Sarna zt”l, the great Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron stood up to speak and he surprised everyone, saying that there was one person who had achieved more for Klal Yisroel than everyone present and their illustrious ancestors. Moreover, this person never learnt a daf of Gemara. And he confidently asserted that once he would tell the audience who it was, they would all agree. Who was this great person? It was Sarah Shenirer; she was a seemingly ordinary woman who lived at a time where there was no formal Torah education for Jewish girls. Consequently, young women from observant families were leaving Torah in great numbers. The scale of this tragedy was magnified by the fact that many Torah scholars were unable to find a good shidduch given the lack of suitable women. It is no exaggeration to say that the very future of Yiddishkeit was in great danger. Sarah Shenirer recognised the threat and founded the first network of Torah schools for girls, Bais Yaakov. She faced great opposition at the time but, with guidance of Gedolim such as the Chofetz Chaim and Gerrer Rebbe, she succeeded beyond her wildest expectations and, effectively assured the future of Torah observance. Thus, when Rav Sarna revealed to the audience the identity of this saviour of Klal Yisroel they unanimously agreed with his assertion that she had done more for the Jewish people than anyone else. How did she merit this? Rav Sarna explained that it was because she was willing to cry for the Jewish girls who were being lost to Klal Yisroel . Her pain at the churban that was taking place and her desire to improve the situation was the key in giving her the impetus to save them. Moreover, it seems clear that Hashem ‘heard’ her intense desire to improve the situation and gave her great siyata dishamaya in all her efforts.

A person can live an observant life and, to a certain extent, live on a kind of ‘automatic pilot’- going through the motions of keeping mitzvos but without any great desire to achieve spiritual greatness. We learn from the Imahos that the only way to achieve greatness is to develop great sheifos in ruchnius and to act upon them. May we all merit to emulate the Imahos and attain true greatness.

THE KEY TO MESIRAS NEFESH - VAYEITSEI

Chazal tell us that when Yaakov Avinu left his parents to go to the home of Lavan, he learnt Torah in the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever for fourteen years. During that time he was so engrossed in his learning that he never once slept ! This poses a difficulty - the Torah tells us that for the previous 63 years of his life Yaakov was a ‘yosheiv ohalim’, he spent all his time learning Torah. However, it does not say that he never slept. What happened that enabled Yaakov to attain such level of mesiras nefesh to forgo sleep in those 14 years that surpassed what he had achieved up till that time? My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Bervkovits Shlita answers that Yaakov knew that he would be faced with great challenges during his time living with the evil Lavan; Lavan would provide great tests to his midos and his spiritual level and he would need to rise to a higher spiritual level in order to be able to withstand being influenced by Lavan. Consequently, he recognized that he had to utilize every available second in these 14 years of Torah learning. There is no doubt that in the previous 63 years of his life, he learnt with great hasmada, but there was a far greater sense of urgency that permeated his learning in the 14 years before he went to live with Lavan. We learn from here that being in a challenging situation can be a great motivating factor in increasing the amount of mesiras nefesh in one’s Avodas Hashem.

This can also help explain an interesting halacho brought by the Rambam. A common tactic in war is to besiege the enemy, thus starving him of vital supplies. The Rambam writes that a Jewish army may not besiege the enemy from all four sides, rather it must leave one side open so that the enemy soldiers have the option of fleeing to safety . This seems like a strange hanhago in the midst of a war! Rav Dovid Dunner Shlita explains that this is indeed a shrewd tactical move; when a person is placed in a highly pressurized situation such as being besieged on four sides he has no option but to find new cochos that can enable him to fight with far greater courage and zeal . Consequently the Torah commands us to leave one side open so that the enemy will not be forced in a situation where it can pose a real threat.

Rav Yissochor Frand Shlita explains that this phenomena was the cause of the incredible mesiras nefesh of Jews who lived through the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. The following story demonstrates how far their mesiras nefesh went. It was forbidden to perform bris mila on babies, but many Jews tried to do so at great risk nonetheless. On one occasion a baby boy had been unwell for the first several months of his life, until finally, aged 10 months the bris was performed. After the bris, the baby’s mother went up to him and kissed him, she then promptly fainted! When she came to she explained to the bewildered onlookers what had led her to faint. When her baby was born she promised herself that he would have bris mila. But she knew that this was no easy task and she feared that she may not have the courage to go through with it. In order to ensure that she would not give up, she swore that she would never kiss or hug her baby until the bris was performed! That is why, after waiting so long, she fainted after kissing her little boy! Rav Frand wonders whether we -who are able to practice our religion with ease and in freedom - could contemplate not kissing or hugging our children for so long for the sake of a mitzvo. We do not live with that same sense of urgency that YaakovAvinu felt as he headed to the house of Lavan,, and we cannot relate to the levels of mesiras nefesh that the Jews in the Soviet Union attained.

But how can we tap into the coach of urgency to help improve our own Avodas Hashem? The Mishna in Avos provides a number of answers: “Rebbi Tarfon says; the day is short; the workload is great; the workers our lazy; the reward is great; and the Baal Habayis is pushing. ” In this Mishna, Rebbi Tarfon is trying to imbue us with that sense of urgency that will motivate us to learn and grow more. He begins that “the day is short.” Life is short, before we know it, it has passed us by and all of that time is lost forever. Moreover, we never know when our life will end - a recognition of this should certainly help motivate us. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l notes that the Mishna does not say that our ‘days’ (in the plural) are short, rather, “the day.” He says that this comes to teach us that each individual day has its own function and potential - if a person wastes one part of one day then he has lost that time forever - when a person recognizes that each moment is passing by and will never return he will surely be more careful with his time .

The Mishna continues that, “the work is great. It is self-evident that every area of Avodas Hashem requires great effort for the workload is endless. This most obviously applies to learning where there is no limit to the depth and breadth that a person can attain. But it also applies to growth - the ladder of Avodas Hamidos is never-ending - there are always more opportunities for character refinement. Moreover, we are also judged as to whether we fulfill our potential - Chazal tell us that there is a heavenly image of each person - this is the image of what he can become if he reaches his full potential. When we proceed to shamayim at the end of our lives, we will be shown that that image and judged as to why we did not fit it.

“The reward is great.” If we were would be more real with how much reward we receive for mitzvos then our Avoda would drastically improve. Other Mishnas in Avos discusses this concept: “Be careful with a light mitzvo just as you are with a serious mitzvo, because you do not know the reward for the mitzvos. ” Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the reason one should be extremely careful with even the ‘lighter’ mitzvos is because he has no real conception about how great the reward is even for that. Later in Avos, we are told that, “one moment of peripheral pleasure in Olam Haba is greater than all the pleasure of Olam Hazeh. ” Rav Dessler zt”l goes to great lengths to demonstrate how all the pleasure that was ever experienced in Olam Hazeh cannot match one ‘whiff’ of Olam Haba .

It is understandably, difficult to make this concept real but we can at least act in accordance with an intellectual recognition of this.
Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l suggests a way of doing this; when a person is tired and ready to head off for bed after the Friday night meal, he should try to motivate himself to learn for an extra five minutes and say to himself - “if I could receive $1000 to learn for another five minutes then I would certainly do so. I realize, at least intellectually, that the reward in Olam Haba for doing so is worth infinitely more than that .”

“The Baal Habayis is pushing.” Hashem is expectant of us to do our job and play our role in perfecting the world. The Gemara says that each person should say that “the world was created for me” - this means that responsibility for the world is placed upon me and I must act with that recognition. Hashem expects a great deal from us and we must produce results.

Baruch Hashem, Jews who live in democratic countries can practice our religion with total freedom. However this can lead to a sense of comfort that can prevent us from tapping into the sense of urgency that is needed to motivate ourselves to strengthen our Avodas Hashem. Gedolim became who they were because they did feel this sense of urgency. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt”l was once asked how he became such a great talmid chochom. He answered that he looked at every day of his life as if it could be his last. With such an outlook he was able to push himself to reach incredible heights. May we too find it in ourselves to tap into this tremendous coach.

WAITING - VAYEITSEI

Soon after coming to work for Lavan, Yaakov Avinu agreed to work for seven years in exchange for Rachel’s hand in marriage. The Torah tells us that this period passed very quickly for Yaakov. “And Yaakov worked seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him a few days because of his love for her.” Many commentaries point out an obvious difficulty. Usually, when a person is eagerly awaiting a specific event, the time in between seems to move very slowly. However, in this case, the Torah states that the seven years of waiting to marry Rachel seemed like a few days. How can this be?

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to understand why, normally, the waiting period does seem to be painfully slow. In most cases, the person is anxiously waiting for a specific event to take place – he views the time in between as a mere impediment to the object of his desires. It is well known that when something is unpleasant or painful, it seems to last a long time. Thus, a person for whom the waiting period is an obstacle, views it as something unpleasant, therefore he feels that it takes a long time to pass by. However, Yaakov Avinu had a very different approach to the seven year waiting period for Rachel. His love for Rachel was not based on lust, rather a deep sense of love, whereby he recognized her greatness, and wanted to be as good a husband as possible. He understood that the time that stood in between his marriage to Rachel was not an obstacle, rather it constituted a great opportunity to improve himself. Therefore, he viewed each moment as a priceless opportunity to further prepare himself for marriage. With such an attitude, the time itself was not viewed with a negative attitude, rather Yaakov saw it in a very positive manner as an opportunity to ready himself for marriage. Since he valued this time, he did not see it as something painful, rather he actually appreciated it. And just as we know that unpleasant situations move slowly, we also know that enjoyable circumstances move very quickly. Therefore, the seven years seemed like a few short days.

Yaakov Avinu demonstrated the correct attitude to waiting for a specific event, however, there is another famous incident in the Torah, where the Jewish people seemed to have stumbled in this very area. In Parshas Ki Sisa, after having received the Ten Commandments, Moshe Rabbeinu spent forty days on Mount Sinai, where he learnt the entire Torah and received the luchos (Tablets) that he would bring down to the people. However, the people miscalculated when the forty days should end and expected Moshe to come down earlier than he said he would. Chazal tell us that the Satan showed them that Moshe was dead. This began the chain of events that resulted in the Sin of the Golden Calf. The question is asked, that it seems unfair that the people should be subject to such a difficult nisayon (test) of seeing a vision of their beloved leader, Moshe, no longer alive – why did they have to be subjected to such a nisayon? The answer is that the Satan could only have the power to effect the people when they showed a lacking in a certain area. The yetser hara only has power when there is a weakness in a person; in such a case he can then expose that weakness. In the case of the build-up to the Golden Calf, it seems that the peoples’ failing was in their impatience for Moshe to return and give them the Torah. This impatience led them to begin to panic when Moshe did not return at the time that they expected. Consequently, the Satan now had an opening which he could exploit.

Thus, we see that the root weakness that began the course of events that led to the Golden Calf, was the incorrect approach to the period of Moshe Rabbeinu being on Mount Sinai. The people’s attitude was that of anxiously waiting for the time to pass, so that they could move on to the next stage in their acceptance of the Torah. They should have viewed that time in the same way as Yaakov used his time waiting to marry Rachel; as an opportunity to work on themselves so that they would be more ready to receive the luchos (Tablets). Had they had such an attitude, they would have been less focused on the end of the waiting period, and more focusesd on utilizing it as much as possible.

We have seen examples in the Torah of the correct and incorrect ways to approach waiting for specific events. It is obvious that the challenge of dealing with waiting periods is one that people constantly face. It may be in the areas of waiting for major events to take place, such as someone dating, eagerly awaiting the time when they find their spouse. Or it may be in daily occurrences such as traffic jams, or frustratingly long lines in the supermarket. Whatever the length of, and reason for, the wait, the underlying principle is the same – that one should not look at these occurrences as mere nuisances that prevent a person from attaining his goal. Rather, one should realize, everything is from HaShem, including annoying or painful periods of waiting. One must make the decision to avoid wasting such time periods, or, even worse, getting frustrated and angry; instead he should recognize that they are G-d given opportunities to grow closer to HaShem. Thus, a person who is waiting to find the right shidduch, should realize that this time period in his life, is not merely a time when life stops until he finds his match. Rather, this is a precious time, when he can work on his character traits to prepare for his future marriage. And, when one finds himself in a line, he could use such time to learn Torah, or for other necessary purposes.

We learn from Yaakov’s attitude during the long seven year wait for Rachel, that waiting periods are opportunities for growth, not burdens to overcome. May we all merit to use such time in the optimum fashion.

YITZCHAK AVINU - TOLDOS

The Torah devotes three parshios to Avraham Avinu and Yaakov Avinu. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Yitzchak Avinu. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Yitzchak and no other Av; the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Phlishtim. Yitchak is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rivka, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Plishtim sealed wells that Avraham had dug, and how Yitzchak re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Plishtim and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Yitzchak Avinu.
The most striking aspect of Yitzchak’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Avraham’s time he headed for Mitzrayim; Yitzchak planned to do the same thing until Hashem told him not to leave Eretz Yisroel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them . Rabbeinu Bachya statest that from Yitzchak’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Yitzchak did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita explains Yitzchak’s role among the Avos: Avraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Yitzchak’s avoda was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of mesora. Yitzchak’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine comes to the land, he immediately thinks of going to Mitzrayim because his father did so. And when he comes to Gerar he digs the same wells and gives them the same names that Avraham had given them .

However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha . This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to be deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path toward Avodas Hashem.

We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is clearly no contradiction here; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many different approaches to Judaism that emphasize different areas and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity .

There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality . Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression .

Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than even the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva !

The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jews to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, including development of character traits, limud haTorah and hashkafa: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths.

Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel . Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else . And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora.

How important is it that a person be encouraged to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim . And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of giving ourselves, our children and our students happier and more successful lives.

USING STRENGTH IN THE RIGHT WAY - TOLDOS

“And Isaac loved Esau for game was in his mouth, but Rebeccaa loved Jacob.”

One of the most difficult aspects of Toldos is Isaac’s preference for Esau over Jacob. How could such a great man as Isaac believe that Esau was virtuous and more fitting to receive the blessings than his righteous brother? The Be’er Yosef offers an interesting approach to these issues. He explains that there are two types of righteous people. One is a person whose natural character traits are very refined and pure. The other, is one whose natural tendencies are negative, and therefore has to work hard to overcome his yetser hara (evil inclination). He quotes the Yaavetz, who states that the person whose natural inclination is negative is greater.

He explains further that Isaac believed both his sons were tzaddikim (righteous), however, he saw that Jacob was the kind of tzaddik who is born with a natural leaning to good character traits, whereas, Esau was an example of a tzaddik who had to overcome his yetser hara. Isaac’s mistake was that he believed Esau had successfully overcome his natural tendencies, where in truth, they had overcome him, driving him on a course of destruction. How could Isaac be blind to Esau’s true character?

The Be’er Yosef continues that Isaac recognized that Esau was born with the sign of redness, which the gemara tells us is an indication of a bloodthirsty nature. The gemara says that one who is born with this tendency will direct his energies to some form of activity related to spilling blood. If he applies it in a negative way, he will be a thief, however if he directs it positively he will be a shochet or a mohel . Esau became a hunter which the Be’er Yosef equates with a shochet. Isaac viewed this as being Esau’s way of channeling his violent tendencies to a positive use. Moreover, he used his hunting to fulfill the Mitzva of honoring one’s father, by providing Isaac with food. In this way, Isaac believed that Esau had reached a level of righteousness that was greater than that of Jacob. He saw that Jacob’s natural leanings were towards righteousness, therefore Yaakov was less meritorious than Esau, whom, Isaac believed, had overcome his yetser hara to become a tzaddik.

It is possible to further develop this idea that Isaac preferred Esau’s perceived form of righteousness. It is well-known that each of the Avos (Forefathers) excelled in one particular character trait. Abraham’s trait was chessed (kindness), Isaac’s was gevura (strength) , and that of Jacob was emes (truth). The commentaries explain that both Abraham and Isaac bore sons who also had a leaning to the same trait as them, however, they misused that trait, and therefore it became expressed in a negative way. Ishmael epitomized misuse of the trait of chessed , whereas Esau personified the misapplication of gevura. It is instructive to analyze more deeply, the positive aspect of gevura embodied by Isaac, and contrast it to its negative application by Esau.

Isaac exercised great internal strength throughout his life. His strength was in his ability to conquer any negative inclinations that he may have had, and to nullify his own selfish desires and needs. This resulted in a great level of self-discipline and pure Avodas HaShem whereby Isaac’s whole being was fulfilled solely to fulfilling God’s will. Isaac saw in Esau the potential to also excel in this trait, and perhaps even to develop it further than Isaac could. As the Be’er Yosef explained, Isaac saw that Esau had powerful inclinations driving him towards evil, however he felt that if Esau used his natural gevura in the correct way, he could excel greatly in that trait. However, Isaac did not realize that Esau directed his gevura for selfish purposes. Instead of utilizing it in the correct way, by controlling himself, Esau used it to control others. Rather than expressing his power through self-discipline, he did it through dominating and overpowering other people. This is most obviously apparent in his profession of hunting, which involved overcoming mighty animals. Moreover, Rashi tells us that Esau was a murderer. Needless to say, Esau paid no heed to strengthening himself internally to control himself, rather the sources tell us that he was extremely immoral.

Esau’s descendants, in particular, the Romans, emulated him in their misuse of the trait of gevura. They were a nation bent on conquering the world for the sake of having immense power. Moreover, like Esau, they had absolutely no interest in the internal strength that involved self-control, rather they were extremely immoral in their lifestyle.

We have seen how Isaac excelled in the trait of gevura, and that he believed that his son Esau could also exercise this trait to overcome his natural inclinations. However, Esau chose to use his gevura to further his own desires and dominate others. The Torah outlook clearly emphasizes the value of self-control, and deemphasizes the importance of external power. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Mishna in Pirkei Avot. “Who is strong? He who subdues his inclination, as it says, ‘He who is slow to anger is better than the strong man, and a master of passions is better than a conqueror of a city.” We learn from here that the strength that the Torah acclaims is that which Isaac excelled in – overcoming one’s natural inclinations in order to do God’s will. This form of power, the Mishna tells us, is what we should aspire to.

It is true that just as the Forefathers made particular emphasis on one particular trait, so too each person naturally leans to one such trait. Nevertheless, it is also clear that no matter what one’s natural inclination is, each person needs to express all these traits at some points. Thus, each person must apply the lessons with regard to gevura to his own life. We see from the contrast between Esau and Isaac, that one must be very careful to express the trait of gevura in the correct way. It is far easier to apply it in the wrong fashion, using it to dominate or control other people. It is far more difficult, but ultimately far more rewarding, to control oneself. A person who dominates others will still feel himself a slave to his passions, and satisfying these passions will never provide him with true contentment. Whereas, one who has true self-control of himself, can be free to express himself in the optimum fashion.

THE SOURCE OF BRACHA - TOLDOS

When famine strikes Eretz Yisroel, Yitzchak Avinu plans to go to Mitzrayim. However, Hashem instructs him to remain in Eretz Yisroel and go to the land of the Plishtim. Hashem assures him of great blessing: “I will increase your offspring like the stars of the heaven; and I will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring. Because Avraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards (mishmarti), My Commandments, My decrees and My Torahs.”

The commentaries differ on the meaning of the word “mishmarti” in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s righteousness. The Seforno offers a novel interpretation of “mishmarti.” He writes that this refers to the trait “that is guarded (mishmeres) to me,” which is that of chesed. Thus, Hashem is praising Avraham for being so proficient in emulating Hashem’s own mida of chesed. The whole foundation of Hashem’s creation is chesed, and Avraham emulated this trait by doing the greatest possible chesed of giving others the opportunity to get close to Hashem.

The Seforno continues in the same section to address a very difficult problem with this passuk. On two occasions in the Parsha, Hashem blesses Yitzchak, but only in the merit of Avraham. The first is the passuk above. The second is after Yitzchak’s travails with the Plishtim: “I will bless you and increase your offspring because of Avraham my servant.” The Seforno contrasts this with both Avraham and Yaakov who were always blessed in their own merit and not in that of their fathers. He explains that Avraham and Yaakov were both involved in teaching others from early in their lives. Avraham’s exploits are well-known and Seforno writes with certainty that Yaakov taught people who came to the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever. Accordingly, they were blessed in their own merit throughout their lives. In contrast, up to this point, Yitzchak did not call out in the name of Hashem, and consequently did not warrant to be blessed in his own merit. He is blessed in his own merit only after he emulates his father by calling out in the name of Hashem: “He built an altar there, and called in the name of Hashem.” Soon after, Avimelech approaches him to make peace and ends by calling him the “Blessed of Hashem.” It is at this point, the Seforno writes, that Yitzchak is blessed in his own merit.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita comments on the implication of this Seforno. He points out that Yitzchak Avinu was one of the three Avos, that he had been willing to give up his life for Hashem in the Akeida, and that he was so holy that he could never leave Eretz Yisroel. Yet the Torah writes about him as if he has no merit until he calls out in the name of Hashem! Rav Elyashiv writes: “We see from here the incredible merit and reward that one receives for spreading Yiras Hashem to the people.”

The foregoing idea raises two fundamental questions. First, why did Yitzchak, despite his lofty accomplishments, not achieve the level of being blessed in his own merit until he spreads Hashem’s name. And second, why did Yitzchak refrain from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point?

Rav Chaim Volozhin, zt”l, explains the supremacy of spreading Hashem’s name. He writes that “bracha” means “ribui”, which we translate as “abundance.” Thus, the purpose of bracha is to cause an increase or continuation in something. Based on this, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits, Shlita, explains that a person is only worthy of receiving the bracha of ribui if he himself contributes to causing ribui and continuity in the world by causing others to follow the derech Hashem. Accordingly, despite all his great acts, Yitzchak only received blessing in his own merit when he himself contributed to the increase of people who would follow the derech Hashem.

Why then did Yitzchak refrain from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point? Rav Elyashiv suggests the following explanation. Since Yitzchak’s father Avraham had already spread awareness of Hashem, there was no need for Yitzchak to do so. However, Rav Elyashiv points out, we see the great reward that Yitzchak received for doing so even though his father had already done so.

We learn from here a lesson that is highly relevant in the world today: The fact that there are some people who devote time and effort to spreading Torah does not exempt everyone else from also contributing in some form. A person may argue that since there are people already involved, there is no need for him to do so. The problems with this argument are twofold: Firstly, we see from the Seforno that a person needs to be involved in bringing others close to Hashem for his own benefit and to be worthy of bracha. Secondly, the number of people who are involved in any form of kiruv rechokim - including part-time kiruv, such as learning a few hours a week with a beginner or having secular people for Shabbos - is tremendously low, in comparison to the secular Jews who are leaving Judaism in the millions. The only possible way to stem the tide is if every Jew takes upon himself to devote some amount of time to kiruv.

Indeed a little known fact is that Gedolim have demanded that every ben-Torah must contribute some of his precious time to being mekarev secular Jews. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, issued a “call to action” to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigor. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no one else, so too must our yeshiva students. … There are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.” Other gedolim have issued similar “calls to action.” In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe, zt”l, exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visiting the homes of secular families and showing them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit.

Great talmiday chachamim have always taken every opportunity to emulate Avraham Avinu’s efforts to bring people close to Hashem. The well-known Maggid Shiur, Rav Mendel Kaplan, zt”l, made great efforts to befriend and teach secular Jews whenever he encountered them. His outreach even extended to children. A non-religious secretary in the yeshivah once brought her nine-year-old son with her to work. When Reb Mendel saw the little boy playing in the hall, he called him over, pointed to a Chumash and asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Sure,” the boy answered, “it’s a Bible.” “No,” answered Reb Mendel, “this is a Chumash.” He then pulled up two chairs and sat with the boy for an hour, teaching him Chumash on a level that the child could understand and appreciate. Later that day someone asked him why he had devoted so much of his precious time to a nine-year-old boy. Answered Reb Mendel, “I hope that I’ve a planted a seed that will grow years from now.” We may think that we cannot have any positive effect on unaffiliated Jews. However, one can never know whether and when the seeds that he plants now may bloom in a seemingly unconnected way many years later. Rav Kaplan was a great talmid chacham who reached great heights in his own Torah learning and general righteousness. However, he recognized that this did not absolve him of his responsibility to look for opportunities to “call in the name of Hashem.”

We learn from the Seforno that even a great tzaddik is not worthy of bracha unless he spreads the awareness of G-d in the world. Rav Elyashiv further teaches us that there is no validity to the argument that others are already doing so is.

May we all be zocheh to play our roles in being vayikra b’shem Hashem.

CHESED AND CHACHMA - CHAYEI SARAH

Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ she, You will have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master. ”

The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly .

In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak .

The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to perceive Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.

The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people . The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them .

The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding people's needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink the four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!

Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this man did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.

THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL - CHAYEI SARAH

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction ! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.

We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.

The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!

We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.

Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.

What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.

The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH

After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.

There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.

It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.

According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.

Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.

We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.

There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.

The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.

UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA

The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?

Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their well being.

We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why is this such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.

We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.

Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.

There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.

There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.

KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA

One of the most famous episodes in the Torah Portion is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?

Rav Yitzchak Berkovits explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.

The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that God punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that God was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.

The nation of Sodom was so wicked that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?

It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat) and Oneg Shabbat (enjoying Shabbat) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?

The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed.

REACTING TO SUCCESS AND FAILURE - AVRAHAM

There are many aspects of Avraham Avinu’s greatness that are discussed a great deal, in particular his perfection in the trait of kindness. However, on deeper examination we see other, more subtle facets of his greatness. Throughout his life, Avraham underwent numerous difficult challenges and setbacks. Some of these tests ended with great success but others did not necessarily culminate in the way that Avraham would have hoped. The way in which he reacted to these events teaches us tremendous lessons in how to respond to both success and adversity.

Surely the most difficult challenge that Avraham ever faced in his eventful life was that of the Akeida, whereby he was commanded to slaughter his only son despite having no understanding of the reason for doing so. Finally, at the end of the arduous test he is told by the Malach that he has passed the test and thereby merited the blessing that his descendants will be like the stars of the Heavens. Avraham’s measure of success is further elucidated by a Yalkut Shimoni quoted by Rav Yissochor Frand shlita. When Avraham was about to slaughter his son at the Akeida, the Malach called to him, “Avraham,Avraham” Why did the Malach say his name twice? The Yalkut explains that there are two images of each person - his worldly image and his heavenly image; his worldly image is what he makes of himself in this world, and his heavenly image represents what he could become if he fulfill his potential. Avraham, after he passed the last of his ten tests, finally reached his complete potential and consequently his two images became identical. The Malach mentioned the two ‘Avrahams’ together, the Avraham of olam hazeh and the ideal Avraham of olam haba, indicating that the two of them were now the same. Thus at this point in time Avraham had reached the pinnacle of greatness, indeed he had attained spiritual perfection.

How would a person react after such a momentous event? A little pride in his achievements would be understandable; Or at least a feeling of elation and celebration would be reasonable. Yet Avraham’s reaction was very different. The verse immediately after the Akeida tells us: “Avraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer Sheba and Avraham dwelled in Beer-Sheba.” The commentaries note the Torah’s wording that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, Eliezer and Yishmael. This wording denotes a sense of being on the same level or with the same feelings. Thus, here the Torah is telling us that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, in that just as they had not undergone any great experience at the Akeida, so too Avraham travelled as if he had not faced and passed the most difficult test that any man had ever faced. He felt no sense of pride and even no sense of celebration, rather he returned to Beer-Sheba to continue his holy work of teaching the world about the Divine Presence.

Avraham’s greatness with regard to the aftermath of the Akeida is further demonstrated by his conduct in the subsequent incident discussed by the Torah; that of his dealings with the wily Efron in his efforts to acquire the Maaras HaMachpeila as a burial place for his wife, Sarah Imanu. Rabbeinu Yonah makes a seemingly baffling point – the Mishna in Avos tells us that Avraham faced ten extremely difficult tests, and most commentators explain that the Akeida was the final test. However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes that Avraham’s difficulties in finding a burial plot for Sarah constituted his final test. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita asks how it is fathomable that after the ultimate challenge, that of the Akeida, there could be yet another challenge that Avraham needed face – surely the Akedia represented the pinnacle of human achievement and no further tests were necessary!

He answers that of course the Akeida was the most difficult test that Avraham faced, however the final test offered a different challenge. It is human nature that after a person succeeds in a difficult endeavor he may have a tendency to want to rest on his laurels, and to feel that he has a right to relax a little. After enduring the incredible challenges involved in the Akeida it would have been understandable for Avraham Avinu to hope for a little respite. Accordingly, when he was immediately faced with the tragic death of his wife and the subsequent difficulties in acquiring a burial plot for her, he could have easily become frustrated with the course of events and harbored feelings of complaints towards HaKadosh Baruch Hu. However, Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us, he succeeded in this very different kind of test, by accepting that even after he reached his full potential, he was still liable to face new challenges. This teaches us a further dimension in Avraham’s greatness in his response to success. Not only did he remain humble, but he also remained prepared to face whatever new challenges could arise.

We have thus far seen how Avraham reacted to success without letting it affect his humility or hindering his Avodas HaShem. Yet how did Avraham react on the rare occasions where he did not succeed in his endeavors? One such instance occurred when HaShem informed Avraham of His plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of their evil behavior. Avraham launched into a lengthy attempt to rescue the people of Sodom. He argued that if there were fifty righteous people then HaShem should save the whole city, and so on until it became clear that there weren’t even ten. Once this had been determined and the decree had been issued the Torah makes a seemingly superfluous comment. “HaShem departed when He had finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his place.” What is the significance of the fact that Avraham returned to his place; what lesson is it teaching us?

The Steipler Gaon zt”l addressed this question in making a vital point to Rav Elazar Shach zt”l. On one occasion the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah made a certain decision in opposition to the views of Rav Shach and the Steipler. The matter was of such importance to Rav Shach that he felt a great sense of despair and his spirits were broken. Rav Shlomo Lorincz zt”l writes that soon after this incident he visited the Steipler who asked him how Rav Shach was faring. He answered that Rav Shach was thoroughly dejected and did not know which way to turn. So great was his disappointment that he said he had no more strength to continue. The Steipler listened to this sadly and said, “I would like you to go to Rav Shach for me and tell him the following.” The Steipler proceeded to ask the aforementioned question as to the significance of the fact that “Avraham returned to his place.” He answered with the following words. “What this means is that the Torah wants to teach us – tell Rav Shach this – that when one has done everything in order to save a situation and the goal has not been achieved one must implement, ‘And Avraham returned to his place’. One has to go back and resume the activity that one is obligated to engage in, continuing as though nothing untoward has happened. Under no circumstances whatsoever does lack of success justify a person giving way and being unable to carry on his holy work. Repeat this, word for word, on my behalf. He has done everything without missing a single detail, therefore he must also fulfill, ‘And Avraham returned to his place,’ and continue leading Klal Yisroel as before.” Rav Lorincz reports that when he conveyed this message to Rav Shach, Rav Shach replied that he accepted this lesson and would return to his work on behalf of Klal Yisroel.

The Steipler’s astute observation demonstrates Avraham’s attitude to failure – he recognized that he did his utmost to achieve his goal but when he failed he did not let that failure prevent his holy work. By the fact that a man as great as Rav Shach faced great difficulty in overcoming this challenge, it is clear that this is a test that can affect everyone. Avraham’s reaction to his setback teaches us the proper way to react to failure.

We have seen yet another facet to the greatness of Avraham Avinu – he excelled in his reaction to both success and failure. Perhaps the underlying trait that enabled him to succeed in all the tests that we have mentioned was his great humility. That taught him not to become haughty or complacent in the face of success, and not to despair when, through events beyond his power, he could not fulfill his goal.