THE FESTIVAL OF HIDUR - CHANUKAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALLEL AND HODAAH - CHANUKAH

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

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

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

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

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

In contrast, the miracle of the oil was not of the greatest necessity - without it, the Jewish people would still be free of the Greek yoke. However, the miracle was remarkable in that it represented a clear overturning of the laws of nature. Such a miracle had a particularly powerful effect on the onlookers, in that it made clear Hashem's involvement in an unmistakable fashion.

With this understanding we can now answer why the gemara focuses on the miracle of the oil, whilst the Al HaNissim tefilla emphasizes the victory over the Greeks . When the gemara asked, "What is Chanukah", Rashi explains that it was asking, "for what miracle did they fix Chanukah [as a permanent festival]." The Sifsei Chaim explains that, initially there were numerous events in which miracles took place, and that each one was made into a kind of Yom Tov where it was forbidden to eulogize and fast However, these events became so abundant that the Rabbis cancelled all these days of celebration with two exceptions - Purim and Chanukah. The Sifsei Chaim explains that the miracles that occurred on these days were the ones that most effected the people. In this vein, he writes that the most outstanding miracle on Chanukah was that of the oil, not of the military victory. Thus, when the gemara asked for which miracle did they fix Chanukah, it was asking which miracle was so outstanding that the Rabbis did not annul the festival of Chanukah in the way that they did almost all of the other festivals. Accordingly, the gemara answered by focusing on the miracle of the oils because that was the miracle that broke the laws of nature and therefore had the greatest effect on the people.

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

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

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

YOSEF’S GREATNESS - MIKEITZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOSEF’S STRENGTH - MIKEITZ

Parshas Mikeitz continues the account of Yosef’s remarkable tenure in Mitzrayim; it relates to how he endured terrible suffering, and yet emerged as the Viceroy of Mitzrayim. Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l speaks in depth about Yosef’s unique role in the development of The Jewish nation. It is instructive to analyze Yosef’s contribution and how it was played out by his actions in Parshas Mikeitz.
Rav Hutner notes that whilst Yosef was one of the twelve Tribes, he also seems to play a more significant role than his brothers in the development of Klal Yisroel (the Jewish nation). For example, each brother was represented by one tribe, whereas Yosef, through his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe was represented by two tribes. Rav Hutner also notes a unique fact about Yosef – his death is mentioned twice; once at the end of Sefer Bereishis , and once in the beginning of Parshas Shemos . In contrast, the deaths of all the other brothers are only mentioned in Shemos. How do we understand the nature of Yosef’s role?

Rav Hutner explains that Yosef is somewhere in between the Avos (Patriarchs) and the Shevatim (tribes). In a certain sense he is close to being an Av, but in other aspects he is like one of the Shevatim. Rav Hutner explains that the status of ‘Av’ is ascribed to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, because each played a defining role in creating the concept of Klal Yisroel, and ensuring that it would last permanently: Avraham was the first ‘convert’ and he thereby created the very existence of a ‘Jew’ as someone who follows the will of HaShem. Yitzchak was the first to be holy from birth, thus providing the Jewish nation with a level of purity and holiness that it would need to last. However, Avraham and Yitzchak’s contributions do not necessarily ensure that the Jewish nation will endure because they both had children who are not considered to be part of the Jewish nation. Thus, it would still be possible for their descendants to be unworthy of being part of Klal Yisroel. Yaakov was the first of whom all his children remained part of the new Jewish nation. In doing this, he created the concept that someone born of a Jewish woman will always be a Jew, regardless of his actions.

However, Rav Hutner points out, that Yaakov’s role of ensuring Jewish continuity is still incomplete, due to the halacha (law) that the child of a non-Jewish woman is a non-Jew, even if the father is Jewish. Because of this halacha, the permanence of Klal Yisroel is still not ensured. It is in this area that Yosef plays a defining role. He, unlike his brothers, was alone in an alien atmosphere and subjected to great temptations, particularly the nisayon (test) involving Potiphar’s wife. Through his ability to withstand such challenges, and to maintain his identity as a ‘Jew’, he infused into all future generations the ability to withstand the future challenges of the exiles in which Jews will be under great pressure to assimilate with the other nations. In this way, Yosef’s contribution acts as a completion of Yaakov’s role in ensuring Jewish continuity. Yaakov created the concept that a person born from a Jewish woman is always a Jew, but Yosef ensured that he have the fortitude to refrain from intermarriage.

With this understanding, we can explain why Yosef’s death is mentioned both at the end of Sefer Bereishis, and at the beginning of Sefer Shemos. The Ramban writes that Sefer Bereishis is the book of the Patriarchs, and Shemos is the book of the ‘children’. The deaths of all of Yaakov’s sons, with the exception of Yosef, are only mentioned in Shemos because that is the book of the children. Yosef is also partly considered one of the tribes therefore his death is also mentioned in Shemos. However, he also plays a role as a kind of half-Patriarch, through is completion of Yaakov’s role. Accordingly, his death is also discussed in Bereishis. Similarly, he merits having two tribes descend from him, because he is something more than a regular tribe. The question remains, how was Yosef able to withstand the great tests of being surrounded by an atmosphere that made it so difficult to maintain one’s allegiance to HaShem. Not only did Yosef succeed in remaining strong himself, but he was also able to bring up children in Mitzrayim who would continue the tradition of the Avos.

In these Parshios, we see a number of examples of Yosef’s behavior that can help explain his remarkable adherence to HaShem. At the beginning of Parshas Mikeitz, Yosef was suddenly taken out of prison and placed in front of Pharaoh, the most powerful man in the world. Pharaoh asked him to interpret his dreams. Even before Pharaoh related the contents of the dreams, Yosef boldly asserted; “This is beyond me, it is HaShem who will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare. ” Every year we read this passuk and give it little thought, but with some reflection we can begin to fathom how incredible Yosef’s words are; he had been imprisoned in a hell-hole for 12 years and was finally given a golden opportunity to attain freedom, if only he could appease Pharaoh, he can have a new start in life. He knew that Pharaoh did not believe in the Jewish G-d, indeed he believed that he himself was a god, and his arrogance was unmatched: What would a person say in such circumstances? Yosef would have been justified in thinking that now was not the right time to attribute everything to G-d and that he would surely be justified in selling himself and his talents as much as possible. Yet Yosef did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable lesson in how to act in an alien environment, a test that all the generations of galus (exile) had to face. One could try to hide his Judaism from the non-Jews, in an effort to hide the differences between them. Sadly, history has proven that this approach generally resulted in assimilation. By removing the barriers between Jews and non-Jews, one opens the way for the loss of his Jewish identity. However, Yosef’s confidence in asserting his beliefs proved to be one of the reasons why he and many in the future generations, were also able to withstand assimilation throughout the long Galus.

After Yosef became Viceroy, he had two sons; he names the second son, Ephraim, “because My G-d made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.” Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita, explains that Yosef was calling Mitzrayim “the land of my suffering” even at his present time of being the Viceroy. Thus, whilst he acknowledged that he had become fruitful in Mitzrayim, nonetheless, it remained as the ‘land of his suffering’. In this way, Yosef avoided the trap of feeling comfortable and at home in Mitzrayim, despite his great success. This provides another reason why Yosef was able to remain steadfast in his adherence to Torah values whilst being surrounded by alien influences. History has proven on many occasions, that once a Jew becomes overly comfortable in galus, then he is far more likely to assimilate into the nation that he lives in. This was the case in Germany when the early Reform Jews called Berlin, ‘the New Jeruslaem”; it also proved to be the case in America, of which numerous Jews saw as the land of opportunity. Sadly, in their efforts to succeed as Americans, untold thousands were lost to the Jewish people forever.

We have seen how Yosef exemplified the ability to maintain his values and identity, in the midst of an atmosphere that was foreign to everything he stood for. In doing, this, he infused the Jewish people with the ability to follow in his footsteps and reject assimilation throughout the long Galus. It is no co-incidence that Psrshas Mikeitz always falls on Chanukah – the lessons of the Parsha relate to Chanukah. In this instance, the connection is clear; the Greek exile was the first in which the disease of assimilation posed a major threat to Jewish continuity. Throughout the previous exiles and suffering, the Jews maintained their sense of identity. However, the Greeks were the first nation to offer a genuinely enticing ideology. Sadly, a significant number of Jews failed to learn from Yosef, and gladly tried to remove all vestiges of their Judaism – they even tried to undo their circumcisions! However, the Hashmonaim and many Jews with them, resisted the attraction of the Greek way of life, and risked their lives to maintain their Jewish identity. Like Yosef’s strength in Mitzrayim, the spiritual victory over the Greeks and the Mityavnim can continue to give us guidance and inspiration to withstand the challenges of Galus to this day.

SERVING MAN OR G-D - MIKEITZ

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

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

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

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

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

STEPPING OUT OF OUR OWN WORLD - VAYEISHEV

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOSEPH’S DREAMS - VAYEISHEV

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

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

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

With this understanding the Beis HaLevi answers the initial question of why after the first dream the brothers hated Joseph whereas following the second, they were jealous of him. Hatred results when one resents another person’s actions, whereas jealousy arises when one feels inferior to his fellow. The brothers hated Joseph after the first dream because of its implication that they would need him for their sustenance and he would physically rule over them. However they were not jealous of him because the prospect of his greater wealth did not make them feel inferior to him. They saw physical attainment as something external to a person and therefore not worthy of jealousy. In contrast they were jealous of him after the second dream because that implied that he would be spiritually superior to them and this could indeed arouse their jealousy.

There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the Beis HaLevi’s explanation. Firstly, we learn that the material possessions of a person are of no consequence with regard to his true greatness. A wealthy person may be deserving of respect , but one should not envy his wealth because it does not represent a barometer of his real value. Only the spiritual level of a person determines the true greatness of a person and only that is worthy of envy.

It is very possible for a person to view his sense of importance in terms of his material possessions. One possible way of maintaining a correct perspective to material possessions is to look at what defines a great person in the Torah world. Wealth is of no significance in determining who is a ‘Gadol b’Yisroel’ (a term used to describe the greatest Torah scholars), indeed many Gedolim were extremely poor. What is important according to the Torah definition is the intrinsic spiritual greatness that a person attains. Reminding oneself of the qualities of our Gedolim can help us keep an accurate perspective of the insignificance of wealth to one’s true greatness.

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

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

THE WRONG KIND OF JOY - VAYEISHEV

“And Yosef dreamt a dream, which he told to his brothers, and they hated him even more. And he said to them, ‘please hear the dream that I dreamt: ‘Behold, we were binding sheaves in the middle of the field, when, behold, my sheaf arose and also stood; then behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf.”
The beginning of the Parsha relates the sequence of events that led to the sale of Yosef. The Torah tells us that the brothers hated Yosef because they saw that Yaakov loved him more than all of them. When Yosef related the contents of his first dream to his brothers, their hatred of him increased. The Torah states: “And they hated him more, because of his dreams and because of his words.” The commentaries ask that since the Torah already stated that they hated him because of his dreams, what does the clause, “because of his words”, refer to?

Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita answers this by quoting the Meshech Chachma. The Meshech Chachma writes that three times in Yosef’s account of the dream, he says, ‘Behold!’ ’ He brings a Sifri that when the word’ ’Behold’ is used in the Torah, it is associated with joy. Yosef expressed joy at every stage of the dream, and because of this joy at the events of the dream, the brothers hated him even more. Thus, the clause, “because of his words” does not refer to the actual content of the dream, rather the way in which he told it over to them – with such joy. It still remains unclear why the brothers should hate him for being happy about having success – that would seem to be quite understandable. Rav Sternbuch explains that the brothers perceived that Yosef’s joy was not only because of his own success that was predicted in the dream, rather also the fact that they would not achieve the same success. It was this perceived attitude of joy at their expense that caused them to hate him even more. Rav Sternbuch continues to discuss the Torah approach to this form of joy – joy at the failings of one’s fellow. He writes, “It is a fundamental tenet that when HaKadosh Baruch Hu gives power, wealth, or honor to a person, he should thank HaShem, but if he is only happy because he got it and his fellow did not – this is a forbidden form of joy.”

Whether Yosef really felt this forbidden type of joy is unclear, however, the Netsiv writes that even Yaakov Avinu was susceptible to this challenge: In the episode at the end of Parshas Toldos, Yaakov tricked his father into giving him the blessings. The Netsiv explains that this was a kind of ‘aveiro lishma’ - a sin that was done purely for the right reasons, and thus was the correct way to act in these specific circumstances. The Netsiv notes, however, that Yaakov was punished for the pain that his trickery caused Esav; when Esav heard that Yaakov had taken the blessings, he let out a tremendous cry of pain. Chazal say that measure for measure, Yaakov’s descendant, Mordechai, let out a similar kind of cry when Haman, Esav’s descendant, decreed the destruction of the Jewish people. The Netsiv notes that Yitzchak Avinu also endured great pain when he heard that he had been tricked – he trembled greatly when he realized what had happened. Why, then was Yaakov not punished for the pain he caused Yitzchak, whilst he was punished for that which he inflicted on Esav? He answers that Yaakov had absolutely no pleasure at the pain that he caused Yitzchak in deceiving him, therefore he was not punished for the pain that Yitzchak experienced. However, he felt some small measure of happiness at Esav’s distress. Accordingly, he was punished for that element of joy he felt at Esav’s loss. Thus, we see, according to the Netsiv, that even Yaakov Avinu, on some slight level, was subject to the feeling of joy at success at the expense of someone else.

Rav Sternbuch’s lesson; that joy at someone else’s expense, lies at the very centre of the Torah attitude to interpersonal relationships. It is well-known that the most fundamental Mitzvo in this realm is that of, “Love your neighbor like yourself”. One of the most basic aspects of this Mitzvo is that one should develop a desire for his fellow man to succeed just as much as he wants that for himself.

It seems that an attitude of joy at one’s fellow’s failures represents the antithesis of the essence of the Mitzvo. Indeed, the Rambam seems to express this point in his discussion of this Mitzvo: He ends by saying that a person who feels joy at the failure or degradation of his fellow has no place in the World to Come.
It seems that the secular attitude and the Torah outlook clash greatly in this area. In the secular world, there is a strong emphasis on competition, and the idea of “each man for himself”. Sports, in particular ingrain a desire to “beat” the other person. It is very common for sports fans to be as happy at the defeat of their rival, as they are joyous at their own victory. Moreover, in many areas of life, there is a great stress on succeeding, and this often involves overcoming or defeating others. The Torah outlook also emphasizes succeeding in life, but the Torah’s definition of success does not include ‘defeating’ other people. In fact, a large aspect of a Torah Jew’s success is his ability to work as a unit with his fellow Jews. This is based on a recognition that all Jews are part of one spiritual entity, and therefore the success of one part of that entity, means success for all the other parts as well. This concept is applied to Jewish law. For example, on joyous occasions, the prayer of Tachanun is omitted. This is not limited to one’s own happy occasions, rather if there is a single person in the Minyan who is celebrating a happy event , then the whole Minyan is exempt from Tachanun – this is because his joy is shared by everyone else present. This is even the case, when the other members of the Minyan do not know the person! This teaches us how we should view such events.

We learn from the explanations of the Meshech Chachma and Rav Sternuch that having joy because of the downfall of one’s fellow, is something worthy of disdain. May we all merit to avoid this attitude, and fulfill the Mitzvo to love our neighbor to the fullest extent.

EDUCATION THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT - VAYISHLACH

The Parsha ends with an account of the genealogy of Esav. In the midst of this we are told of the birth of Amalek, the progenitor of the nation that would constantly strive to destroy Klal Yisroel. “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz and Eliphaz gave birth to Amalek.. ” The Gemara in Sanhedrin informs us of the background to this terrible occurrence. “Timna was a Princess, but she wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov [to convert] but they would not accept her . She then became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said that it was better to be a maidservant to this nation rather than be a powerful woman in another nation. [As a result] Amalek, who would cause Yisroel great pain, was born from her. What is the reason [that this incident produced Amalek]? Because they [the Avos] should not have distanced her. ” Rashi explains that the Gemara means that they should have allowed her to convert .

It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature . Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him . It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.

Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’ ” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away .

We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked. ” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.

We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’ . By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.

We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.

THE THREAT OF ESAV - VAYISHLACH

The beginning of the Parsha is dominated by Yaakov’s famous encounter with Esav. On a simple level, the threat that Esav posed was a physical one – that he would destroy Yaakov’s family with his four hundred soldiers. However, the commentaries point out that there was a second, even more pernicious, threat that Esav posed.
The Beis HaLevi discusses this at length. He begins with a novel explanation of Yaakov’s prayer to HaShem before the encounter. “Please save me from the hand of my brother, the hand of Esav.” Why did Yaakov use a repetitive language to describe Esav. He should have said, “save me from Esav”, or “save me from my brother”, what was the significance of both terms? The Beis HaLevi explains that Yaakov was fearful of two different dangers posed by Esav; one was that Esav would act with enmity towards Yaakov and thereby threaten his physical survival. The other danger was that Esav would now act with brotherliness towards Yaakov. Why would he be fearful of Esav’s friendliness? Yaakov did not want Esav to negatively influence Yaakov’s family by the two having friendly relations. Thus, Yaakov had a two-pronged fear – of the physical risk of meeting an antagonistic Esav, and the spiritual danger of encountering Esav as his ‘”brother”. In this vein, the Beis HaLevi explains another repetitive verse in the Parsha; “Yaakov was afraid and distressed…” What do the two similar expressions of fear refer to? The Beis HaLevi writes that Yaakov was afraid of the possibility that Esav may kill him, and was distressed about the risk that Esav would become close to him.

The Malbim continues this theme in his account of Yaakov’s battle with Esav’s Malach (Angel). He writes that Yaakov’s battle with the Malach (angel) was not primarily a physical one, rather it was fought on a spiritual plane that would have repercussions for the future of all of Yaakov’s descendants. In this battle, Yaakov was striving to free himself completely of physicality, and the taivas (desires) connected with it, so that he could totally connect with HaShem. The Malach was trying to prevent him from doing this, by causing him to be bound up in his physicality. He failed in this task, due to the fact that Yaakov had elevated himself to such a high spiritual level. However, the Malach was able to inflict some damage by striking Yaakov’s gid hanasheh . This, the Malbim explains, is because the gid hanasheh is the point of connection to physicality, and even Yaakov was unable to strip himself of that connection. This damage of the gid was the cause of the spiritual weakness in future generations of Jews who would leave Judaism.

We have seen that Esav’s threat to Yaakov was as much, if not more, on the spiritual level than the physical. However, thus far it would seem that Esav’s threat was that he would completely remove Yaakov and his descendants from any connection to G-d and the Torah. The Beis HaLevi brings a Medrash that shows that Esav’s threat was, in fact much more subtle: When the brothers finally met up, Esav’s heart softened towards Yaakov, and he offered for the two of them to travel together. The Medrash elaborates on Esav’s offer: “Esav said to him [Yaakov] that he should make a partnership with him [Esav] of the two worlds – Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba.” The Beis HaLevi explains that Esav was suggesting that they join together by both of them compromising somewhat on their lifestyles. Esav was prepared to accept upon himself the foundations of Torah, and in return Yaakov should give up a little bit of his pure focus on spirituality, and be more involved in this worldly activities for their own sake. Thus, Esav did not necessarily desire to totally uproot Yaakov from Torah, rather, just to dilute his pure devotion to Avodas HaShem.

We see in Yaakov’s earlier words to Esav that he also recognized the more subtle, spiritual threat posed by Esav. He famously tells Esav, “I lived with Lavan, the evil one, and I kept the 613 Mitzvos, and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l points out that the last part of Yaakov’s message, that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways, seems superfluous. Once Yaakov has said that he kept the Mitzvos, it should be unnecessary to say that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways – if he kept the Mitzvos, surely he didn’t learn from Lavan’s evil ways?! The answer is that it is possible to keep the Mitzvos, and yet be influenced by someone like Lavan; a person can ‘keep’ all the Mitzvos and yet have values that are not based on the Torah, rather on those of the outside world. Accordingly, Yaakov was telling Esav that Lavan was completely unable to dilute Yaakov’s Avodas HaShem. So too, Yaakov alluded to Esav that he would also be unable to influence Yaakov.

We learn from Yaakov’s momentous encounter with Esav that the spiritual threat posed by Esav was not limited to destroying Yaakov physically, or to fully diverting him and his descendants away from the Torah. Rather, Esav offered to merely dilute Yaakov’s pure Avodas HaShem with external values. Yaakov’s firm refusal of this offer teaches us that just as one must strive to observe all the Mitzvos, so too he must strive to espouse values that are totally concurrent with Torah do not derive from external influences. This lesson is extremely pertinent today, when the myriad influences of the Western world threaten to greatly affect the outlook and observance of Jews everywhere. For one person, it may mean that whilst he strongly identifies as a Jew, his observance is greatly compromised by the need s to be involved in the secular world, such as the necessity of working on Shabbos or eating in non-kosher establishments. For another, he may consider himself something of a ‘Shabbos Jew’ – someone who keeps Shabbos and some other Mitzvos, but when he is in the workplace, or striving to make money, Torah values take a poor second place to the desire to succeed in his business. For another, the influences may be even more subtle, and he may strive to keep all the Mitzvos, but his true desires are more in line with those of the Western world than those of the Torah. Whatever level we are on, may we all merit to emulate Yaakov Avinu by not learning from Esav’s evil ways.

USING THE YETSER HARA FOR THE GOOD - VAYISHLACH

Upon his return to Eretz Yisroel, Yaakov Avinu sends a peace-making message to his hostile brother, Esav. He begins the message saying, “I lived with Lavan and have lingered here until now. ” Chazal elaborate on Yaakov’s words, “I lived with Lavan and nevertheless I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” The commentaries ask, everything else that Yaakov says to Esav is very conciliatory, but this message seems quite antagonistic - how does it fit in with everything else that Yaakov said? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l answers by interpreting the words of Chazal in a novel fashion; when Yaakov said that he kept the mitzvos but did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways he was criticizing himself. He argued that Esav had nothing to fear from him because, although he had kept mitzvos, he did not keep them with the same zrizus with which Lavan performed his evil acts. When he said that he did not learn from Lavan’s ways, he meant that he did not push himself in his maasim tovim to the same degree that Lavan did in his maasim raaim .

We learn from here that our performance of good deeds is judged in comparison to that of reshaim in committing their aveiros. There is a big kitrug on us if they go about their evil with more zest than we show in doing good. This concept can help explain another difficult Chazal. When Bilaam Harasha set off to curse the Jewish people the Torah tells us that he got up (vayakam) early in the morning. The Medrash Tanchuma says that on seeing this, Hashem exclaimed, “Rasha! Avraham their father already superseded you’ as it says [in the story of the Akeida], “Vayashkem baboker. ” The words ‘vayakam’ and ‘vayashkem’ both mean getting up from sleep, however ‘vayashkem’ implies getting up even earlier than ‘vayakam’, thus Hashem was telling Bilaam that Avraham arose earlier in the morning on the way to the Akeida than Bilaam did on the way to cursing the Jewish people. What is the significance of this Medrash? Rav Chanoch Harris Shlita explains that Bilaam was trying to portray the Jewish people in a negative light by showing that he would act with greater eagerness in his evil than they did in their Avodas Hashem. However, Hashem told him that the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, already demonstrated greater eagerness in doing ratson Hashem than Bilaam did in contradicting it. Consequently, Avraham’s descendants inherited his characteristic of zrizus and possessed enough merit to withstand’s Bilaam’s kitrug.

In the Shema, we say that we must love Hashem with all our hearts . The Gemara darshans from this passuk that we should love Hashem with both our yetsers - our yetser hatov and our yetser hara . One way of utilizing the power of the yetser hara is to observe our zrizus in following its temptations and try to apply that to our yetser hatov. The following true story is an excellent example of the power of the yetser hara. A number of American yeshiva bochrim studying in Eretz Yisroel missed the good food that they enjoyed in America. So they gave $50 each to one bochur and sent him back to America to buy a really good meal from one of the most expensive restaurants there and to come back immediately with the food ! Their love for good food caused them to go to remarkable lengths in order to fulfill their desires. By observing this we can perhaps tap into this drive and transfer it to the realm of ruchnius.

The same applies with regard to people who devote untold hours to try to satisfy their desire for money and honor. People will often endure sleepless nights in order to meet their deadlines - what about doing the same to meet the deadline of learning that we set for ourselves? We too can look into our own lives and find areas in which we feel more excitement and zeal than in Avodas Hashem, whether it be food, work, sport, or something else. We need to try to internalize what we already know - that shemiras hamitzvos provides far more satisfaction than anything else - then we can begin to ‘learn from the evil ways of Lavan and his ilk.’