MOSHE RABBEINU AND PHARAOH - VA’EIRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PLAGUE OF FROGS - VA'EIRA

The second of the ten plagues was that of sefardaya, frogs. Rashi cites a Chazal that describes how this plague manifested itself; at first one single frog emerged from the river, and the Mitzrim tried to kill it by striking it. However, instead of harming it, it split into swarms of frogs each time it was struck until the frogs were so numerous that they inundated the land .

The Steipler Gaon zt"l sees a very great difficulty with this Chazal; the Mitzrim surely saw that the first time they hit the frog they did not succeed in destroying it, in fact their hitting had the opposite result, causing more frogs to emerge. Yet they continued to hit the frog many times, only succeeding in filling the whole of Mitzrayim with frogs! Why did they not learn their lesson and refrain from hitting the frog after they saw its disastrous results?

The Steipler answers with a principle about how the destructive midda (trait) of anger causes a person to act. When one is insulted he feels the need to avenge this treatment, therefore he responds in kind to the aggressor. The aggressor returns the insult, and he in turn feels the need to return the insult again, until both are subject to a vicious circle of fruitless retaliation and a full-blown quarrel erupts with harmful consequences for all involved. In a similar vein, when the Mitzrim were faced with this threatening frog, their instinctive reaction was to strike it, however when more frogs swarmed out of the initial frog, their anger was kindled and in response they wanted to avenge the frog by striking it again. When this failed again, they continued in their aggressive manner, continually striking the frog until their anger caused the whole of Mitzrayim to be engulfed with these pests. We learn from this explanation about the damaging nature of anger, and how it causes a person to act in a highly self-destructive manner .

It is instructive to delve deeper into why a person can act in such a seemingly foolish fashion. When a person is first insulted he feels considerable immediate pleasure by reacting in kind to the person who dared speak to him in such a rude way. However, after that immediate satisfaction, he endures a longer-term backlash which results in the negative feelings that are normally generated by arguments. Logically, it would seem that he should learn his lesson, recognize the long-term damage of reacting strongly, and control himself in a similar future scenario However, this does not normally occur, rather he continually falls into the same trap. His problem is that he has habituated himself to focus on the short-term results of his actions rather than its long-term consequences. It requires great effort and self-growth to break out of this damaging mode of behavior.

It seems that this problem of focusing on the immediate results occurs in many areas of Avodas Hashem with damaging results. The Medrash Tanchuma tells us a dramatic example of this phenomenon. There was a righteous man whose father was a hopeless alcoholic. On one occasion, the son saw a different drunkard lying in a sewer on the street. Youngsters around him were hitting him with stones and treating him in a highly degrading manner. When the son saw this pitiful site, he decided to bring his father to the scene in the hope that it would show the father the degradation that alcoholism causes. He brought his father to see the drunkard. What did his father do? He went to the drunkard and asked him which wine house did he drink the wine! The shocked son told his father that he brought him here to see the humiliation that this man was enduring so that his father would see how he appears when he himself was drunk, in the hope that it would cause him to stop drinking. His father replied that his greatest pleasure in life was drinking . It is very likely that the father was intellectually aware of the harm that his drinking caused him, however he was so preoccupied with the immediate pleasure it gave him, that he was blind to its overall damage.

The yetser hara's strategy of blinding a person to the long-term damage of his behavior is a very significant factor in hindering one's Avodas Hashem. Whether it be in the area of destructive responses or addictions, or any number of other areas, it is essential for a person to address this issue if he hopes to fulfill his potential. It seems that the first stage of this process is to develop an intellectual recognition that the mode of action or reaction that he has habituated himself to, is ultimately detrimental. Using the example of anger, a person must recognize that the short-term pleasure he feels after shouting at his wife, child or friend, is an illusionary pleasure created by the yetser hara and in the long-term it only harms his relationships.

The second stage is to anticipate situations of nisyonos (tests) before they occur so that he can intellectually prepare his response without being swept away with emotion b'shaas maaseh (at the time of the occurrence). Thus when he is insulted he can hopefully offset his natural reaction of anger with a calm countenance, based on his recognition that shouting in response will only aggravate the situation. This is no easy task, but in time one can hopefully internalize this intellectual awareness and react in a calm and measured fashion. The plague of the frogs gives us a vital insight into the destructive nature of anger and focusing on short-term results. May we learn the Steipler's lessons and control our reactions for the good.

LEARNING FROM THE FROGS - VA’EIRA

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

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

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

He explains that whilst HaShem did command the frogs to go into the ovens, He did not restrict the command to ovens – the bedrooms, beds, and kneading bowls were included in the list of the places where the frogs could go to. Therefore, each frog had the choice as to where they would go – he could conceivably decide that he would choose the more comfortable option of going to the bed or kneading bowl. Nonetheless, many frogs did indeed choose to risk their lives in order to ensure that HaShem’s command was fulfilled. Since each individual frog was not commanded to go into the fire and yet many of them still did so, Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learnt that all the more so they should be prepared to be thrown into a fire.
The Darchei Mussar continues that we learn a fundamental lesson from the actions of the brave frogs who went into the ovens. It was possible for them to shift the responsibility onto other frogs, however they declined the comfortable option and as a result, contributed to the enhanced sanctification of G-d’s name. So too, he writes, that when a person is given the opportunity to perform a certain Mitzvo he should not seek to shirk the responsibility placed upon him by hoping that someone else will undertake the Mitzvo. Rather, he should view this as a golden chance to sanctify G-d’s name. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a person to tend to view such opportunities as burdens. This attitude seems to be fundamentally against the Torah outlook. The Torah strongly espouses taking responsibility when things need to be done. The Mishna in Avos states: “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” This applies in both minor daily occurrences and less common but more significant occasions. For example, there may be a general request for people to help in a certain endeavor, it is praiseworthy to assume the responsibility without waiting for others to do so. On a larger scale, there are numerous major problems facing the Jewish world today – instead of waiting for others to take responsibility to rectify these problems, a person should see if there is anything he can do himself. On one occasion, some American Torah students living in Israel discovered that a significant amount of Americans living in Israel were living in extreme poverty but were too ashamed to tell anyone. Rather than merely expressing sympathy for these people, a few men undertook to create a new charity (known as Got Chicken ) aimed at providing basic necessities for people in dire need.

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

GIVING FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING - SHEMOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHEMOS – THE PRECISION OF DIVINE JUSTICE
The Parsha describes Moshe Rabbeinu’s actions in defending the Jews from the oppression of the Egyptians. He sees an Egyptian man beating a Jewish man and kills him: "And it was in those days that Moshe grew up and he went out to his brethren, and saw their suffering. He saw an Egyptian man strike a Hebrew from amongst his brethren. He turned this way and that way and he saw that there was no man, so he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” The simple understanding of this incident is, that after seeing the Egyptian’s actions Moshe looked around to see if there were any onlookers, and when he saw that there were none, he killed the Egyptian. Rashi explains that Moshe was looking at something much deeper; “He saw that no future man would descend from him [the Egyptian] in the future, who would convert.” Rashi further adds that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian in an orthodox fashion, rather he used the shem hamefurash (holy name) to kill him.

Two questions arise from Rashi’s explanations; Firstly, why did Moshe choose to kill the Egyptian with the shem hamefurash? Secondly, the commentaries write that Moshe made a legal ruling on what the Egyptian was doing, and he ruled that the Egyptian was punishable by death. They point out that when punishing sinners, the Beis Din (Jewish law court) does not take into account any consequences of the punishment, such as how it would affect other people, including whether the sinner would have any righteous descendants . Accordingly, why did Moshe need to assess the future descendants of this man?!

The Maharil Diskin answers that the sin the Egyptian was committing was one that was only punishable by death bidei Shamayim (in the hands of Heaven), but not bidei adam (in the hands of man) . Therefore, Moshe could not punish him by physically killing him, rather he needed to utilize a method that would require Heavenly assistance; accordingly he killed him using the shem hamefurash. There is a fundamental difference between how punishments that are bidei Shamayim are determined and how those that are bidei adam are enforced. As we said above, when Beis Din punish someone they do not take into account all the possible ramifications of the punishment, such as how it will affect the sinner’s family, friends and his future descendants. However, when HaShem sends the punishment He takes into account all the myriad effects of the retribution. Included amongst these considerations is how this punishment will affect the future descendants. For example, if one is punishable by death bidei Shamayim but righteous descendants are destined to come from him, then HaShem may alter the punishment so as not to prevent their coming into existence. Since Moshe was using this form of punishment he had to take into consideration such factors as the future offspring of the Egyptian.

This explanation brings to light the difference between Heavenly retribution and human punishment. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l discusses this concept at length. He quotes the verse in Tehillim: “The judgments of HaShem are true, they are correct together.” What does it mean that they are correct together? He explains that when human courts mete out punishments they only take into the account the sinner, but ignore his family and friends. This is unavoidable, since a human judge cannot begin to be able to take such factors into account. However, HaShem, in His Infinite wisdom knows exactly how the punishment will affect everyone involved, and passes judgment accordingly. Thus, His judgments are;”correct together” in that they take into account all the people together who stand to be effected by the punishment. In this vein, Rav Shmuelevitz discusses a number of examples in Tanach and in Chazal, where one’s wife is punished because of the sin of the husband. This does not seem fair, but he explains that the one who suffers is certainly being punished for a previous transgression. However, up to this point, HaShem spared her because her husband did not deserve to endure the pain of losing her. Yet, once he sins and is not worthy of this special treatment, then she is no longer protected from her transgression.

We have seen from the Maharil Diskin’s explanation of Moshe’s punishment of the Egyptian, and Rav Shmuelevitz’ discussion of HaShem’s justice, that it is perfectly measured for all the people connected to the person being punished. One key lesson that can be learned from this principle is that tragedies or challenges are not only for the sake of the person most directly involved: Many people understand that when some type of challenge happens to them, that HaShem is somehow communicating with them and they react by trying to improve their deeds. However, the same attitude should be applied when suffering does not inflict the person himself, rather his family or friends, or members of his community. The closer the person is to the one in pain, the more powerful the communication from HaShem. Therefore, it is essential that the person try to view his family member or friend’s suffering as HaShem communicating with him. In this vein, Rav Yissachar Frand shlita, says that when tragedies afflict a community, it is insufficient to merely recite a chapter of Tehillim but otherwise continue our life as if nothing changed. Rather, we should undergo serious contemplation of why this event took place, and how HaShem wants us to grow from it. It is often impossible to exactly know what HaShem is telling us, however, the main point is that we see this as HaShem directly communicating to us and we try to change our ways in some form.

RESPONDING TO DIVINE PROVIDENCE - SHEMOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACHIEVING SHLEIMUS - VAYECHI

Sefer Bereishis culminates with the eternal brachos that Yaakov Avinu bestowed on his sons. Each son received a unique bracho which catered exactly to his talents and needs. At the end of the brachos the Torah states that Yaakov blessed them again. What was this new bracho? Rashi explains that with this final bracho Yaakov included every son in each other’s bracho so that, for example Yehuda was blessed with the strength of a lion, but with this final bracho, all the brothers also received this mida of gevura . Rashi’s pshat, however, raises a new problem - if every brother was blessed with what every other brother received in his own personal blessing, then what was the significance of blessing them individually at all?!
The Maharal answers that Yaakov’s final bracho did not make them equal in every area - each one was strongest in the area that he was blessed in - this final bracho gave all of them an aspect of each other’s brachos. Yehuda, for example, was blessed with a higher level of gevura than his brothers however this final bracho gave each of other brothers a certain element of that mida of gevura .

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

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

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

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

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

THE ROOT OF SIN - VAYECHI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undertaking the difficult task of fixing one’s character traits requires much thought and discussion but the first phase for each person is to gain a recognition of which midda is holding him back. There may be more than one negative trait that harms him, but very often there is one ikar midda which is at the root of much of his negative behavior and is the key factor that holds him back from fulfilling his true potential. Possible ways to help locate and understand this destructive midda include speaking with one’s Rabbi or friends and learning Mussar Sefarim that discuss the various middos. Once a person develops a deeper understanding of himself he can now begin the daunting task of genuinely improving himself.
m gg Elul is normally the time when discussion of teshuva and tikun hamiddos is most prevalent, however if one only works on himself for one month a year then he will never truly improve himself. The only way of avoiding sin and removing the obstacles that hold one back is to constantly work on improving himself in a genuine, deep way. May we all merit to be truly better people.

SURPASSING OUR POTENTIAL - VAYECHI

In Parshas Vayechi, Yaakov Avinu elevates his two grandsons, Ephraim and Menashe, to the status of Shevatim (tribes). In the course of the process he bestowed on them a blessing that has become the standard blessing by which we bless our sons to this very day. “So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you shall Israel bless, saying; ‘May G-d make you like Ephraim and like Menashe.” The commentaries ask, why did Yaakov instruct the Jewish people to bless our sons to be like Ephraim and Menashe more than anyone else. This question is strengthened by the fact that we bless our daughters to be like the Imahos (Matriarchs). That being the case, it would seem most logical to bless our sons to be like the Avos (Patriarchs).
One of the answers given is that Ephraim and Menashe achieved more than their potential; up to this point, only the sons of Yaakov Avinu merited to be considered among the twelve Tribes. Ephraim and Menashe were not sons of Yaakov, and therefore were not destined to be one of the Tribes. However, because of their greatness , Yaakov elevated them to the status of Shevatim. In this way, they achieved the incredible accomplishment of reaching beyond their potential. Accordingly, we bless our children to emulate Ephraim and Menashe, in that we aspire for them to reach beyond their potential.

The Targum Yonasan writes that Yaakov was saying that one should bless their son to be like Ephraim and Menashe, at the bris mila in particular. It seems that this interpretation fits with the idea that we want our son to emulate Ephraim and Menashe in the area of becoming great. We see this in the prayer that we say at the bris; ‘may this kattan become a gadol’. This doesn’t mean that we want this small boy to grow up into a large man. Rather, ‘gadlus’ in this context refers to spiritual greatness. We bless our child to become truly great, as did Ephraim and Menashe.

This idea teaches a person that he should aspire to surpass his own potential, but it also educates a parent as to his aspirations for his children. He should not suffice in bringing up his child to be an ‘ordinary’ Jew, rather he should aim to facilitate that his child become ‘great’. Moreover, it is insufficient that a parent merely ‘want’ that his child become great, rather he should try to actively facilitate his child’s path to greatness in how he raises him. Rav Yaakov Kamentsky zt”l expresses this idea based on a lesson in Parshas Shemos. When Moshe Rabbeinu as a baby was picked out of the water by Basya, the daughter of Pharaoh, she tried to have the Egyptian women nurse him, but he refused to drink their milk. Rashi explains that this was because, in the future, Moshe “would speak with the shechina”.

Rashi’s explanation has an application in Jewish law. The Rema states that one should not feed a baby with milk from a non-Jewish woman, if possible. The Vilna Gaon comments that the source of the Rema is the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu would not drink from the milk of the Egyptian women. Rav Kamenetsky asks how we can apply Moshe’s case to that of every child. In the case of Moshe, the reason why he wouldn’t drink from their milk was because he would, in the future speak with the Divine Presence, however, that reason is inapplicable to everyone else. He answers, that we learn from here that we must bring up our children as if they could possibly reach the level where they will speak to the Divine Presence. Accordingly, we must raise them in such a way that is congruent with them becoming great people.

Rav Kamenetsky applies this explanation to how careful we should be to bring up our children in the most holy and pure fashion, free from negative influences. This is a most pertinent lesson in today’s environment. A parent may feel that there is little harm in exposing his child to all types of modern technology that infiltrates into every part of daily living. However, such exposure can very easily involve his child being exposed to influences and visions that are not conducive to a person achieving spiritual greatness. Thus, even if they don’t spiritually destroy a child (which they often do), then they will surely hinder him from achieving his true potential, and certainly from overtaking his potential as did Ephraim and Menashe.
We learn from Yaakov’s blessing to his grandsons, that every parent should aspire for his children to reach and even surpass their potential. This aspiration should manifest itself in actions as well as attitude. May we all merit to surpass our own potential and bring up children to exceed all our expectations.