PURIM - MISHLOACH MANOS AND MATANOS LA’EVYONIM

Among the unique features of Purim are the mitzvos of giving to one’s fellow Jew. We are obligated to give mishloach manos and matanos la’evyonim. No other festival requires such chesed. What is the thematic connection between these mitzvos and Purim?

When Haman approaches Achashverosh with a plan to destroy the Jewish people, he outlines why they do not deserve to live: “There is one nation scattered and dispersed among the peoples.” The commentaries explain that Haman’s criticism of the Jews was accurate and helped convince the king that Hashem would not protect them. Haman argued that the Jews were not unified, so they lacked the Divine protection they merited when they were.

Accordingly, one of the most powerful ways of annuling the decree of destruction from Above was to reunify the Jewish people. Rav Yehonasan Eibschutz, ztz”l, explains that this was Esther’s intention when she instructed Mordechai: “Go, assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan, and fast for me.” She recognized that only a concerted effort could overturn the decree.

This approach succeeded. Indeed, according to the Vilna Gaon, ztz”l, several verses in the megillah demonstrate that the Jews displayed great unity when they finally gained the upper hand against their enemies. “The rest of the Jews throughout the king’s provinces gathered together and defended themselves (amad al nafsham).” The Gaon notes that the verb amad is singular, for they were completely unified, as if they were one entity. Soon afterward, when Mordechai instituted the festival of Purim, “The Jews undertook (kibel) to continue the practice they had begun….” Again, the word kibel is singular. The Sifsei Chaim adds a similar explanation to the famous verse in which, according to Chazal, the Jews willingly reaccepted the Torah: “They affirmed and undertook… to observe these two days….” The Hebrew term for “undertook” is read as kiblu, in the plural form, but it is written as kibel, in the singular, because they accepted the Torah in complete unity.

Given the significance of unity in the Purim story, it is easy to understand why Chazal instituted mitzvos in the interpersonal realm. Purim reminds us of the importance of unity within the Jewish people. Giving to our fellow Jews helps us care more about them. Moreover, it is not enough to give to one’s friends; he must not ignore the destitute, who are easily forgotten. Therefore, in addition to mishloach manos, Chazal obligated us in matanos la’evyonim.

We now understand that disunity was a key factor in the decree against the Jews and that unity played a significant role in averting this decree. However, why were the Jews were so lacking in unity, and how were they were able to rectify this flaw? The Sifsei Chaim addresses this issue by citing Rabbeinu Yonah’s interpretation of a verse in Mishlei. Shlomo HaMelech writes: “L’ta’avah yevakesh nifrad….” Rabbeinu Yonah explains this verse to mean that a person who follow his desires will become alienated from his friends. For one’s natural desires are inherently self-serving and clash with everyone else’s. Accordingly, if a person cares only about himself, his goals will diverge from others’. A society full of such people possesses no unity. Haman understood that the Jewish people had become influenced by the ideologies and desires of its various host countries. Therefore, says the Sifsei Chaim, Haman stressed to Achashverosh that the Jews were “scattered and dispersed among the nations,” for that was the cause of their disunity. Each Jew’s goals were influenced by those of the surrounding societies, so there was no unity within the Jewish people as a whole.

Rabbeinu Yonah continues that the key to unity lies in a common goal: serving Hashem. The Jews’ role in the world is to promote this goal. When they do so, contention and competition dissipate, allowing them to focus on Hashem’s will. Thus, when the Torah was given at Sinai, the Jews were so unified that they were “like one man with one heart,” for they all focused on accepting the Torah; had they quarreled, they could have accepted it properly.

Esther recognized that the Jewish people’s disunity stemmed from divergent goals, which in turn stemmed from self-interest. Accordingly, she gathered the people together to fast. Abstaining from food and drink can reduce a person’s attachment to his physical desires and help him focus on Hashem. Thus, fasting helped the Jews reconnect with their true, common goal of doing Hashem’s will.

Similarly, it is no coincidence that the unity the Jews achieved when they fought their enemies came about after fasting on the thirteenth of Adar. Again, fasting weakened their own selfish desires and focused everyone on Hashem. Moreover, this level of unity enabled them to reaccept the Torah.

With this insight into the connection between physical desires and disunity, we can now gain a deeper understanding of mishloach manos and matanos la’evyonim. To reattain the level of unity that the Jews reached, we must detach ourselves from these desires. This task is especially difficult on Purim, when we greatly involve ourselves in the physical world. Giving gifts and money to our fellow Jews is an excellent way of not getting pulled down into the selfishness that results from self-gratification. By thinking about and giving to others, we can ensure that our eating and drinking place us closer to Hashem, not farther from Him.

Purim reminds us of the importance of Jewish national unity. May we focus all our energies on the common goal of fulfilling Hashem’s will.

PURIM - KEEPING HOPE

The Gemara tells us that the terrible decree to destroy the Jewish people in the Purim story was a punishment for the Jews’ partaking of the banquet of Achashverosh. Throughout the period of the first Beis HaMikdash, the prophets rebuked the Jewish people for terrible sins, including idolatry, yet the nation never sentenced to universal destruction. Why such a drastic punishment for the seemingly minor offense of eating at the king’s banquet?

To answer this question, let us first discuss Achashverosh’s intentions in throwing such a lavish party. Chazal tell us that the drinks were served in the vessels used in the Beis HaMikdash. The king even donned the clothes of the Kohen Gadol. What was Achashverosh trying to achieve? Rav Chaim Halpern, shlita, explains that until this point, Achashverosh had been worried about the prophecy of Yirmeyahu that the Jewish people would return to Eretz Yisrael and rebuild the Beis HaMikdash seventy years after its destruction. The king calculated that seventy years had now passed without any sign of the prophecy’s fulfillment. Consequently, he held the feast on the exact day that he had calculated was the “deadline.” He was telling the Jews to give up on the Beis HaMikdash and focus on an alternative source of happiness: his kingdom. Therefore, he dressed up as the Kohen Gadol to show that he was their new leader, and he gave them the Temple vessels to show that there was no point in waiting any longer for the Beis HaMikdash to be rebuilt.

Unfortunately, the Jewish people accepted the king’s message and joined in the banquet, even drinking from the holy vessels. The Jews lost hope. They abandoned their desire for a second Beis HaMikdash and turned to a new future, as loyal subjects of the king and his empire. In effect, they gave up on their unique role as the Chosen People, the “light unto the nations.” They forsook any hope of returning to Eretz Yisrael and the Beis HaMikdash. They did not realize that the Jewish people’s very right to existence is based on its unique role in the world. Hashem cherishes this nation because of its willingness to serve as an am segulah, teaching the world about Him. Having rejected this role, the Jews automatically lost their reason to be. Measure for measure, they were sentenced to destruction.

How did the Jewish people overturn this decree? The Gemara tells us of the conversation that took place when Haman came to inform Mordechai of how the king wanted to honor him. Haman found Mordechai learning Torah. Haman asked, “What are you learning?” Mordechai answered, “When the Beis HaMikdash existed, a person who gave a minchah offering would bring a handful of flour, and it would atone for him.” Upon hearing this, Haman replied, “Your handful of flour will come and overturn my ten thousand silver shekalim.” The Gemara is very difficult to understand here. What was the significance of what Mordechai was learning, and why did it make Haman realize he would be defeated? The Ponevezher Rav explains that Haman knew his hope of success lay in the defeatism expressed by the Jewish people at the banquet. When he saw Mordechai teaching about the Beis HaMikdash, Haman realized that the Jews had repented and rekindled their desire for a new Temple. They still hoped to continue being the “light unto the nations.” And if the Jews had not given up on Hashem, He would not give up on them.

The nisayon of the Jews in the time of Purim was to maintain hope during trying times. This challenge continues to this very day, and when we fail, our enemies conclude that they can defeat us. The story is told of an infamous Arab terrorist serving time in an Israeli prison. While there, he considered renouncing terrorism, feeling that he could never succeed in destroying Israel. However, one Pesach, he saw an Israeli guard eating a pitah. Knowing that chametz was forbidden on Pesach, he asked why the Jew was not observing this law. The guard replied that such laws were no longer important. The terrorist then decided that a people that had given up its heritage could indeed be defeated.

In stark contrast, Napoleon was amazed to discover that the Jews still mourned the Beis HaMikdash on Tishah b’Av though it had been destroyed nearly 2,000 years earlier. A people so connected to its heritage would never be destroyed, he exclaimed.

We live in a time when despair threatens on many levels. For nonobservant Jews, the test is obvious: not to abandon their heritage by assimilating into secular culture. But the challenge applies to everyone in some form. First, one may be tempted to give up on the millions of secular Jews, arguing that they are irretrievably lost to assimilation. This attitude is of course incorrect, and experience has proven that secular Jewry can be quite easily reconnected to Judaism. Second, observance does not preclude despair. Indeed, the Jews who partook of the king’s banquet ate kosher food. A person can keep mitzvos and still wonder if there will ever be a third Beis HaMikdash and if Mashiach will really come. Moreover, despair can plague our personal lives, persuading us that we will never achieve greatness. Purim teaches us never to give up, both on the Jewish people and on ourselves. As long as we seek to remain part of Hashem’s nation, He will protect us from all our enemies.

THE BEHALA OF THE PERSIANS - INSIGHTS INTO THE MEGILLA

- There are numerous lessons that can be gleaned from a close analysis of Megillas Esther. One of the less discussed aspects of the Megilla is the fact that it is one of the main accounts of the second Galus (exile), that of Paras and Madai. It is extremely important to understand the nature of the four exiles because they represent the basic forms of evil in the world. We see this from the Medrash's explanation of the second verse in Chumash. The Torah states: "And the earth was tohu and bohu , with darkness upon the surface of the deep; and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The Medrash reveals to us a deeper allusion of the passuk. "..'The land was tohu', this is the Kingdom of Bavel, as it says, 'I have seen the land and behold it is tohu.' And bohu, this is the kingdom of Madai, as it says, 'And they rushed (vayavheelu) to bring Haman.' ...

The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.

Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.

We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.

It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.

We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.

PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS

One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?

Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.

Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!

Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).

On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.

THE MEIL AND THE KETORES - TETZAVEH

"You shall make the Robe of the Ephod entirely of turquoise wool.... You shall make on its hem pomegranates of turquoise, purple, and scarlet wool, on its hem all around, and gold bells between them, all around; a gold bell and a pomegranate, a gold bell and a pomegranate on the hem of the robe, all around. "

One of the Vestements of the Kohen Gadol was the Meil, a robe that was adorned with bells and rang whenever the Kohen Gadol walked. The Gemara in Arachin discusses how all of the Kohen Gadol's Vestements atoned for a particular aveiro; the meil atoned for the sin of lashon hara. The Gemara explains that the meil, which made a loud kol (sound) should atone for lashon hara which makes a loud kol. However, the Gemara brings a seemingly contradictory braissa that says that the ketores (incense) that was used in the Mishkan atones for lashon hara. It answers that there are two different types of lashon hara; the ketores atones for a more 'quiet' form lashon hara, when the speaker hides his true feelings from the subject of his criticism and therefore the 'victim' of the lashon hara has no awareness that someone is criticizing him. In contrast, the lashon hara that is atoned for by the meil is characterized by the speaker making no secret of his true feelings about the victim to the extent that the victim is very likely to be aware of what is being said about him .

However, this explanation of the Gemara seems to pose a new difficulty; why is it necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for the single sin of lashon hara; why can't either the meil or the ketores atone for both 'loud' and 'quiet' lashon hara? Moreover, it would seem that loud lashon hara is significantly more damaging than 'quiet' lashon hara. Therefore, if the meil has the power to atone for the more severe form of lashon hara, then it should surely be able to atone for the seemingly less damaging 'quiet' lashon hara?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand more specifically the negative aspects of these two forms of lashon hara: Loud lashon hara is very damaging in that the victim is aware of the evil speech that is directed towards him and this naturally causes him great pain. In this aspect, loud lashon hara is considered more destructive than its quieter counterpart. However, there is a certain way in which 'quiet' lashon hara is more pernicious than loud lashon hara. Quiet lashon hara is characterized by the perpetrator of this grave sin behaving in a two-faced manner towards his victim; in front of him he is very friendly, but behind his back he slanders him mercilessly and instructs the listeners not to reveal his true feelings to his unfortunate fellow. Since the victim is totally unaware that he is being vilified, he makes no efforts to protect himself from these attacks and they may continue unabated. In contrast, the victim of 'loud' lashon hara is far more likely to find out about the lashon hara spoken about him, consequently he will be able to protect himself.

With this understanding we can now explain why it is necessary for there to be two separate functions of the Mishkan to atone for lashon hara. Each form of lashon hara is more detrimental in some way than the other. Consequently, whilst the meil has the capacity to atone for the damaging aspect of 'loud' lashon hara it cannot atone for the harm caused by quiet lashon hara. Similarly, the ketores can atone for the pernicious features of 'quiet' lashon hara but it cannot do so for the areas in which 'loud' lashon hara is more damaging.

What is particularly striking about this explanation is that in some ways speaking lashon hara in a hidden fashion is worse than doing so in a blatant manner. The Chofetz Chaim zt"l discusses how speaking lashon hara of the 'quiet' kind can also involve a transgression of the Mitzvo, "do not hate your brother in your heart (loh sisna es achicha bilvavecha) ." The simple understanding of this Mitzvo is that one only transgresses it when he keeps his hatred in his heart and does not reveal it to anyone, including the subject of his hatred. However, if he expresses his hatred even in a negative way, he does not transgress 'loh sisna' because he did not keep the hatred in his heart .

The Chofetz Chaim argues that this is not necessarily the case; a person may hate his fellow and tells others of his hatred, but act towards him in a friendly manner. This, the Chofetz Chaim writes, is also a transgression of keeping hatred in one's heart. He explains that the root of the sin of keeping hatred in one's heart is that the subject of the hatred is unable to protect himself from the person who despises him. Consequently, if the 'hater' hides his true feelings to his fellow he is guilty of loh sisna even if he tells others about his hatred. We learn from the Chofetz Chaim the above concept that 'quiet' lashon hara has a particularly insidious aspect to it, in that its victim is totally unable to protect himself from the silent bombardments that he is subjected to.

There may be occasions in a person's life where he develops a dislike for someone. It is self-evident that this loathing does not justify speaking lashon hara. We learn further from the Gemara in Arachin that acting towards him in a two-faced manner makes the lashon hara even more destructive. Chazal tell us that Yosef's brothers were wrong in hating him, but to their credit they did not act in a hypocritical manner towards him. The lesson we derive from the brothers' behavior towards Yosef is that whilst it is wrong to hate someone, it is far worse to hide that hatred of him and speak badly about him behind his back. This hanhago only succeeds in causing enmity and machlokes. The ideal course of action is to try to resolve the situation by speaking to the subject of his hatred in a calm and reasonable manner and strive to resolve the issue in a mature fashion. By acting in an honest and candid manner, one can greatly improve his relationships with those around him.

THE ROOT OF LASHON HARA -TETZAVEH

Chazal tell us that the various items of clothing of the Kohen Gadol served as atonements for the sins of Klal Yisroel. The meil atoned for lashon hara. One of the striking features of the meil was that it was fully techeiles, the color that resembles the Kisay HaKavod. What is the connection between the techeiles of the meil with atonement for lashon hara? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l explains by quoting a Tana d’bey Eliyahu that says that lashon hara rises up to the Kisay HaKavod. This means that a person who speaks lashon hara will have to face judgement in front of the Kisay HaKavod. The techeiles on the meil of the Kohen Gadol would serve as a reminder that our words have great spiritual power .

Thanks to the drive against lashon hara there is far more awareness as to the halachos and hashkafo of shemiras halashon. Nonetheless, lashon hara remains as being one of the most difficult aveiros to avoid - there are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that we speak so much and that there is strong social pressure that makes it very hard to avoid negative speech.

However, perhaps there is a deeper cause to lashon hara that lies at the root of much of the lashon hara spoken. Halacho acknowledges that we derive pleasure from speaking negatively about others - we see this in the laws of constructive speech: There are times when it is permissible and even required to speak lashon hara in order to prevent damage, however even this is forbidden if the speaker is pleased in his heart to cast the perpetrator in a bad light. This is difficult to understand - there are many aveiros for which there is an obvious taiva, such as arayos, however there is no obvious physical pleasure derived by speaking lashon hara. Why is there such a drive to speak negatively about other people?

It seems that the root cause of the pleasure of speaking lashon hara is that it provides an artificial boost to our self-worth: If we feel a lack of self-worth there are two ways in which we can boost it - one is to get involved in constructive activities and improve our character. In this way we feel more fulfilled and positive about ourselves. However, there is another, easier option; We often tend to value ourselves in relation to others, consequently our self-image is often dependent upon how we compare to those around us. By criticizing them we knock them down, thereby we now see ourselves in a more favorable light in comparison. For example, if we feel lacking in a mida such as intelligence, by criticizing someone else in that exact same area can help us feel better about our own level of intelligence.

This would seem to the explanation of Chazal’s statement that a person only criticizes others about a flaw that they themselves possess. Chazal understood the psychological needs of people to feel good about themselves and that a prime way of trying to do so is by knocking down others in their very own areas of weakness.

Of course the rise in self-worth derived from speaking lashon hara is artificial and very short-lived. After a short while the speaker’s true sense of inadequacy returns and he feels the need to criticize more in order to boost himself. Any person who has tried to refrain from lashon hara can testify that on the occasions when they held themselves they did not feel any lacking - on the contrary they felt better about themselves for doing the right thing.

There are two important lessons that can be dreived from this understanding of lashon hara. Firstly we must be highly vigilant of our intentions when we speak negatively for a constructive purpose. This is especially true in the delicate area of criticizing other groups or ideologies within Judaism. Indeed the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Segal zt”l said that only great tzaddikim can speak critically of other groups. One reason for this may be that tzaddikim are secure in themselves and have no psychological need to criticize people. However, everyone else is prone to feelings of lack of self-worth and we may express righteous condemnation of those that we disapprove of for reasons that are not leshem shamayim. This constitutes lashon hara midoraysa and it is surely wise to heed the words of Rav Segal and to never risk transgressing such a serious aveiro.

The second lesson is that if we see in ourselves the desire to disparage others then we must do a cheshbon hanefesh to discover its source. Very often, it may arise because of a lack of self-worth. But instead of putting down others, we can feel better about ourselves by improving our midos and striving to be active and productive members of society. May we all be zocheh to purify our speech and learn the lesson of the meil.

TERUMAH - THE POWER OF LAZINESS

The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan (tabernacle). "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ."

The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He answers by bringing the Medrash that informs us of the background to the donation of the precious stones. They were brought by the Nesi'im (princes) after everything else had already been donated. The Nesi'im had initially planned to wait for everyone else to bring their contributions to the Mishkan, and whatever was lacking, the Nesi'im would then give. However, their plan backfired when the people, in their great enthusiasm, gave everything that was needed with the exception of the precious stones. The Medrash goes on to say that Hashem was displeased with them because they were so late in giving to the Mishkan. Their 'punishment' was that the 'yud' in their name was omitted at one point in the Torah . Accordingly, the Ohr HaChaim explains that since the donation of the precious stones involved some kind of error, they are mentioned last in list of the materials given to the Mishkan, Despite their great material value, the spiritual failing that resulted in their donation by the Nesi'im meant that they were inferior to all the other materials in the list.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l asks that it is still unclear why Hashem was displeased with the Nesi'im. Their reasoning for delaying their donation seems to be very understandable - why are they punished for a seemingly innocent miscalculation? He answers by quoting Rashi's explanation for their punishment: Rashi states; "because they were initially lazy, they lost a 'yud' in their name ." Rashi is revealing to us that the real reason that the Nesi'im tarried in bringing the gifts was because of laziness! Beneath all their seemingly valid justifications for their actions lay the trait of laziness.

The Mesillas Yesharim writes at length about how laziness can prevent a person from fulfilling his obligations properly. He writes: "We see with our own eyes many many times, that a man can be aware of his obligations, and he is clear about what he needs for the goodness of his soul... yet he weakens [in his Avoda] not because of a lack of recognition of his obligations or any other reason, rather because of the powerful laziness that overcomes him." He continues that what is so dangerous about laziness is that one can find several 'sources' to justify his inaction. "The lazy one will bring numerous sayings of the Sages, verses from Tanach, and 'logical' arguments, all of them justifying his confused mind into lightening his burden ... and he does not see that these arguments do not come from his logical thought, rather they stem from his laziness, which overcomes his rational thinking. " Accordingly, he warns us that whenever we have two choices we should be very weary of choosing the easier option, because our root reason for doing so may very likely be laziness.

The Mesillas Yesharim is teaching us that even the most 'valid' arguments may simply be veils for a person's desire to avoid pushing himself. We see a striking example of this in the Introduction to Chovos HaLevavos. He writes that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons: “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings... Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited why he should not write the sefer seem fair and logical, but he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. If someone as great at the author of Chovos HaLevavos nearly fell victim to the yetser hara of laziness, how much is everyone at risk of being ensnared by this destructive trait. A person generally does have seemingly valid reasons for why he may choose to ignore possible avenues in which he could improve hs Avodas Hashem but he must be aware that his true motivation may be laziness.

The yetser hara of laziness is so cunning that it can clothe itself in some of the most admirable of traits, in particular that of humility. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l addresses a common tendency of people to underestimate themselves by claiming that they are greatly limited in their talents and that they can never achieve greatness. He writes that this kind of humility really emanates from the yetser hara. It seems that this attitude actually derives from laziness, which is really a manifestation of the desire for comfort. It is not easy to achieve greatness; it requires great effort and the willingness to face setbacks and even failure. This is difficult, therefore it is very tempting for a person to ‘write himself off’ and thereby exempt himself from even trying - this is certainly the more ‘comfortable‘ option.

Constantly, throughout a person's life he is given the opportunity to improve himself and attain great heights in his own Avodas Hashem and his influence on others. We see from the lesson of the Nesi'im that perhaps the single most powerful factor preventing him from achieving his potential is a desire for comfort that stems from laziness. This causes a person to 'create' numerous 'reasons' as to why he does not push himself in the way that he could. The Mesillas Yesharim teaches us that he should recognize that these excuses are very often simply the atsas yetser hara and that he should disregard them and proceed in his efforts to grow and accomplish. May we all merit to overcome this powerful yetser hara and make the correct choices even if they are difficult.

PURE INTENTIONS - TERUMAH

Parsha Terumah describes the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the various keilim (vessels) that were to serve in it, such as the Aron HaKodesh (Ark), the Menorah and the Shulchan. The Rabbis teach that there is great symbolism in each vessel in that they represent various aspects of the spiritual world. Accordingly, the commentaries closely analyze the descriptions of the Mishkan in order to derive important lessons. In this vein, the Kli Yakar notes a difficulty with a verse in the description of the Aron HaKodesh. The Torah states: “And you shall cover it [the Aron] with pure gold from the inside; and on the outside you shall cover it…” The Kli Yakar points out that HaShem twice instructs Moshe to cover the Ark; once on the inside, and once on the outside. This teaches us that the Ark had both an inner and outer layer of gold. However, with regard to the inner layer, the Torah says that the gold must be pure, whereas when mentioning the outer layer, there is no mention that the gold need be pure. The Kli Yakar argues that it was certainly required for the outer layer of gold to also be pure, therefore he asks why the Torah davke stressed the pure nature of the gold with regard to the inner layer.
He answers that the Torah is teaching us an important lesson in Avodas HaShem. He explains that the inner gold covering alludes to performance of Mitzvos done in a private fashion where no one else sees, whilst the outer gold covering alludes to public performance of Mitzvos. With regard to private observance, it is quite conceivable that one have completely pure intentions when performing the Mitzvo seeing that that nobody else will be aware of the Mitzvo. Therefore, when describing the inner gold, the Torah can attach the description of pure. However, when a person does a Mitzvo in public, there is always a very strong possibility that his intentions are not totally pure, as there may be an element of a desire that other people witness his righteous act. Accordingly, when discussing the outer gold It cannot say that it was pure.

The Kli Yakar’s explanation illuminates us as to the great power of the yetser hara (negative inclination) involved in doing Mitzvos in public. The following story involving the Kotsker Rebbe demonstrates even further the full power of this yetser hara. The Kotsker Rebbe was on his deathbed surrounded by many people. The time came when it seemed certain that he was about to pass away. At that moment, he said Shema Yisroel with great fervor. Yet, to everyone’s surprise he did not die at that time. His students asked him what he was thinking whilst he was saying the Shema. He answered, that he was thinking that everyone would say about him that the final words he uttered were ‘Shema Yisroel’! If, at the powerful moment before death, the great Kotsker Rebbe acknowledged that he had some level of interest in what people would say about him, then all the more so, ‘ordinary’ people would be highly subject to this yetser hara throughout their lives.

Because it is so difficult to maintain completely pure motives when doing Mitzvos in public, it is often praiseworthy to strive to do Mitzvos in private. Likewise, it is commendable to hide one’s spiritual achievements from others when there is no benefit in publicizing them. The Baalei Mussar in particular went to great lengths to hide their true spiritual level. One of the leading Baalei Mussar was Rav Yitzchak Blazer zt”l; on one occasion he joined a gathering of great Torah scholars led by the Beis HaLevi, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l. The Beis HaLevi had heard that Rav Blazer was a tremendous Torah scholar as well as being a great Mussar personality, and wanted to see how Rav Blazer would contribute to a Torah discussion. The Beis HaLevi asked a very difficult question which resulted in heated debate amongst the scholars. Eventually, the Beis HaLevi offered two brilliant solutions to the problem, one of his own, and one from his renowned son, Rav Chaim zt”l. However, during the whole discussion, Rav Blazer remained quiet. Surprised at Rav Blazer’s apparent inability to answer the question, the Beis HaLevi perused Rav Blazer’s commentary on the Gemara, known as, Pri Yitzchak, to see what he wrote with regard to the topic that they had debated. The Beis HaLevi was shocked to see that not only did Rav Blazer ask the same question as the one that the Beis HaLevi posed, but also gave both answers that the Beis HaLevi had suggested! He recognized Rav Blazer’s humility in remaining quiet and hiding his Torah greatness. Of course, on many occasions it is important for one to contribute to Torah discussions, however, evidently Rav Blazer felt there would be no benefit in adding his opinion to the distinguished group. In a similar vein, the great Alter of Slobodka, Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel zt:l, was rarely seen with a Gemara, however, late at night in his room, he would learn from the gemara in a hidden fashion, and if anyone came in he would pretend to be asleep.

We learn from the above sources, that it is extremely difficult to perform Mitzvos in public without having some focus on the honor or praise that one would receive. One lesson to be derived from this is that one should strive to perform at least some Mitzvos in private, where there is no chance that the purity of his intentions is tainted by desire for recognition . This includes giving charity , learning Torah, and other Mitzvos. May we all merit to serve HaShem with the purest intentions.

STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE - TERUMAH

The Torah states regarding the walls of the Mishkan: “The center crossbar shall go through the middle of the beams, from one end to the other. ” The Targum Yonasan writes that the center crossbar was made with wood that came from the trees that Avraham Avinu planted for the purpose of doing chesed for the travelers. Why was this wood in particular used to take such a prominent position in the Mishkan? Rav Zelig Pliskin Shlita explains that it is to remind us that even whilst we are devoting ourselves to Hashem, we should never forget to have compassion for our fellow man, who is created in G-d’s image .

This lesson is stressed in the teachings by the Baalei Mussar: One of the great contributions of Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was that whilst it is highly commendable to place great care on dikduk hamitzvos in the realm of Bein Odom leMakom nevertheless we should be very careful that this should not be at the expense of others. There are numerous examples of how he put this teaching into practice. On his way to get water for netilas yedayim, a talmid passed through some rooms in which people were sleeping. “Netilas yadayim is a mitvo instituted by our Sages,” commented, R’Yisroel, “but robbing others of their sleep is forbidden by the Torah. ” On another occasion a talmid began davenning a spirited Shemoneh Esrei whilst standing by the open window on a hot day. R’Yisroel scolded him for blocking the air for the other people in shul. Another of the great Baalei Mussar, the Alter of Slobodka, also placed great emphasis on mitzvos’ bein odom le chaveiro. He taught that, in doing a mitzvo, we must be very careful not to cause unpleasantness or harm to anyone to avoid forfeiting its rewards. He never gave shmusen during mealtimes and when he prayed with a minyan, either he finished the Shemoneh Esrei with everyone, or he knocked on his shtender to indicate that the congregation should not wait for him .

On one occasion one talmid standing in prayer among the others was fervently shaking in every direction with his whole body. After the tefillo, the Alter called the talmid over and said to him, “A person who hits another, even without inflicting damage, is called a ‘rasha’ and is punishable by malkus. Now when you shake you are liable to bump into our neighbor who is standing beside you, and thereby commit - in the midst of your fervent tefillos - a serious transgression for which you will be called a ‘rasha’ !

We may never daven in such a way but there are situations where we may unwittingly cause pain or inconvenience to others amidst our Avodas Hashem: For example, it is not uncommon for a person in shul for Shacharis to suddenly be struck by the flying tallis strings of someone who is donning his tallis - this is a classic example of how we must maintain our awareness of others during our own Avoda. Another case is when the Sefer Torah is brought out. It is certainly praiseworthy to kiss it, however, if one is likely to push or shove others on the way then the poskim write that the hidur of kissing the sefer Torah is over-ridden by the requirement not to risk harming our fellow Jew . Another common example of this is that a person who davens a long Shemoneh Esrei can cause a considerable amount of inconvenience to the person standing in front of him. The poskim say that it is recommended for a slow davenner to pray in a place where there are no passers-by .

Another aspect in which bein adam lechaveiro can sometimes take second place behind bein adam leMakom is in the areas of chumros. There is a well-known Ramban on the passuk of “be holy” where the Ramban tells us that it is not enough to keep the ikar hadin in terms of our Avodas Hashem, rather we should strive to reach ever higher levels in our relationship with Hashem. There is a less well-known Ramban that makes a similar point with regard to bein adam le chaveiro. The Torah says, “And you should do what is fair and good in the eyes of Hashem..” Chazal say that this passuk teaches us that we should go beyond the letter of the law in our dealings with other people. The Ramban explains that it is not enough to simply keep the ikar hadin of mitzvos bein adam lechaveiro, rather we must realize that Hashem wants us to treat people with a heightened sensitivity to their needs.

A person may have a tendency to emphasize chumros in mitzvos of bein adam leMakom such as kashrus. The Imrei Emes understood that the concept of ‘hiddur mitzvo’ applies just as much to our dealings with other people as to out relationship with Hashem. A chassid once asked him if he could borrow a pair of tefillin since he had misplaced his own. The Rebbe lent him a pair, but not just any pair. It was his own set of tefillin, which had belonged to his father, the Sfas Emes. When asked why he gave the chassid his most precious set, he answered that, “the passuk says, ‘Zeh Keili v’anveihu’ from which we learn that one must do a mitzvo in the most beautiful way possible. This concept applies to chesed as well. That is why I gave him the priceless tefillin. ” The center crossbar in the Mishkan stood as an eternal reminder that there are two pillars of Avodas Hashem - bein adam le Makom and bein adam lechaveiro, and even at times of the highest devotion to Hashem it is essential to remember our obligations to our fellow man. May we all be zocheh to strike the right balance.

TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD - MISHPATIM

“Distance yourself from falsehood.”

It is well known that honesty is one of the most important character traits and its antithesis, falsehood, is one of the most undesirable. The Sefer Hachinuch speaks very strongly about how disdainful it is to lie: “falsehood is abominable and disgraceful in everyone’s eyes, there is nothing more disgusting than it,... Therefore the Torah exhorts us to greatly distance ourselves from falsehood, as it says, 'distance yourself from falsehood.' ” He then explains that the Torah does not use the language of ‘distancing’ with regard to any other negative mitzvo which indicates its severity. Moreover, this teaches us that we should distance ourselves from even the slightest possibility of falsehood. Given the severity of lying, it is worthwhile to clarify what is included within the prohibition of 'midvar sheker tirchak'.

It is instructive to analyze the following scenario: Reuven owes Shimon money and the date for repayment has already passed. Shimon phones Reuven to request his money, but Reuven’s wife answers the phone. Reuven does not want to speak to Shimon but he also does not want his wife to lie and say that he is not home when he really is. Therefore Reuven steps just outside his house and instructs his wife to tell Shimon that Reuven is not home - this is technically true, Reuven is now not in the house, even though he could speak to Shimon if he so desired. One may think that this does not constitute falsehood because no false words were spoken. Is this indeed the case?

The Gemara in Nedarim discusses a case in which a man was owed some money so he brought the borrower before Rava’s Beis Din and said to him: “Pay me back.” The borrower responded: “I already paid you.” Rava said to the borrower: “In that case, you must swear an oath that you have given him the money.” The borrower went to get his cane, hid the money he owed inside its hollow, and leant on the cane as he returned to the courtroom. He said to the lender: “Hold this cane in your hand,” ostensibly in order to free his own hands to take hold of the Torah scroll. He then took a Torah scroll and swore that he had already given the money into the lender’s hand. The lender, incensed at the man’s chutzpah, broke the cane. Suddenly all the money inside spilled to the ground and it emerged that he had indeed sworn the technical truth!”

The borrower was obviously guilty of terrible midos but did he actually commit a genuine transgression? The Gemara concludes that he did because an oath taker must adhere not only to the plain definition of his words, but also to the meaning they are meant to convey as well. Consequently, he was guilty of swearing falsely by taking an oath that was technically truthful but deceptive .

We learn from here that saying words that are technically true does not mean that a person can deceive others by saying true words with a misleading message. Therefore, it would seem that Reuven’s strategy of standing outside the house does not help avoid the transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak.” The words that he is not home may be true but the message is not - Shimon is not interested in the technical location of Reuven; he wants to know if Reuven is present so that Shimon can speak to him. Thus, by saying that he is not present is a misleading message. One may argue that the case in Nedarim was that of an oath, but that in day to day life, perhaps it is allowed to deceive others on condition that words we say are technically true.

The Gemara in Shevuos disproves this theory: The Gemara discusses a number of cases that involve a transgression of 'midvar sheker tirchak'. One is the case where a talmid chacham claims that someone owes him money but he does not have any witnesses to support his claim. Accordingly he tells his talmid that the 'borrower' is clearly lying so he suggests a plan to influence the borrower to admit to the truth. He asks his talmid to come with him to court so that he would appear to be a witness to the loan. The borrower, seeing the prospective witness will realize that he can not escape from the truth and will admit that he does indeed owe the money. The Gemara says that the talmid transgresses, ‘midvar sheker tirchak’ by his actions . In this case, the talmid did not even say anything - he merely walked in with his Rebbe and sent an unsaid message to the borrower that he was a witness to the loan. Moreover, in this case, there is no oath being taken and nevertheless it is an example of falsehood. This proves that even if a person does not even say anything but his actions imply a false metsius then he is considered to be lying. This is all the more so the case where a person says words that are technically true but are also misleading .

However, if we analyze one of the most famous incidents in the Torah it would seem that saying technically truthful words is allowed. When Yaakov Avinu pretends to be his brother, Esav, Yitzchak asks him for his identity and he answers, “I am Esav your firstborn.” Rashi explains that he meant by this, “It is I who bring this to you, Esav is your firstborn.” Consequently his words were technically true although Yitzchak could only understand their simple meaning - that he was claiming to be Esav. This would seem to strongly question the premise that has been thus far established. My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that Yaakov’s deft wording in and of itself did not justify lying to Yitzchak. Rather, the commentaries explain that Yaakov was justified in deceiving Esav because Esav himself was a trickster and it is allowed to use deceit in order to overcome a deceitful person . Why then did Yaakov need to resort to the 'word games'? The Orchos Tzaddikim writes that even when it is permissible to lie it is still nonetheless preferable to say words that are technically true . As a consequence, Yaakov did not want to release false words from his lips.

Nonetheless we should not be mistaken into thinking that saying words that are technically true justifies misleading others when there is no valid justification to do so and it constitutes a clear violation of midvar sheker tirchak. It is very important to educate our children on this point so that they realize that the prohibition to lie is not avoided by clever wording . Moreover, it is necessary for us to clarify the gedarim of this easily misunderstood mitzvo. The Chinuch stresses that Hashem is a ‘G-d of Emes’ and that bracho only comes to a person who strives to emulate Hashem. May we all succeed in living lives of genuine emes.

COMPLETE KINDNESS - MISHPATIM

In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "

On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:

"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.

"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.

Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.

We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.

One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.

APPRECIATING NATURE - TU B'SHVAT

The first Mishna in the gemara of Rosh Hashana informs us of various 'new years'. These are times of the year that are considered the beginning of the annual calendar with regard to various laws. The Rosh Hashana for trees is the fifteenth day of the month of Shvat, more famously known as 'Tu B'Shvat'. This day is considered a festive day, therefore the prayer of tachanun (supplication for forgiveness) is not recited. Further, there is the universal custom to make blessings on, and, eat a variety of fruit. The overall focus of the day is to thank HaShem for the gift of trees to the world and to recognize the wonders of nature.

Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l asks, why is there no similar concept of a celebratory day for the 'birthday' of vegetables? There is also a date for the new year for vegetables which has halachic (legal) ramifications. That being the case, why is there no festivity on their 'birthday' ? He explains that there are numerous remarkable aspects about nature, that merit contemplation of the wonder of creation. Many 'miracles' occur with regard to both vegetables and trees. For example, the taking root of a seed and its development into a tree, bush or vegetable is truly miraculous - it is only its regularity that takes away from our wonder at this astonishing occurrence. Moreover, the process of photosynthesis that enables plant life to use the energy from the sun is another miracle that demonstrates the complexity of nature.

However, there is an additional miracle that is found specifically with trees. The process of nourishment for a vegetable is relatively straightforward; it is drawn directly from the ground into the vegetable itself. In contrast, the process of nourishment for a tree is far more complicated. The tree needs to be able to take the nourishment from the ground, draw it all the way up the trunk to its branches, and then to the fruit. Rav Weinberg explains that every stage in a plant's development is a miracle, therefore we are instructed to be thankful for HaShem's numerous gifts in this area. Since trees are subject to more miracles than vegetables, it is appropriate that their 'birthday' is considered more worthy of celebration than that of vegetables.

Rav Weinberg's explanation reminds us of the importance of focusing on the details of creation - it is very easy to ignore the numerous miraculous aspects of all of the natural world. Tu B'Shvat awakens us to the importance of appreciating HaShem's gifts, particularly in the form of fruit. It is instructive to offer one small example of this, in order to arouse us to take note of the numerous miracles that surround us.

When a person eats a peach, he pays little attention to the hard stone that lies beneath the tasty fruit. However, Rav Avraham Katz shlita teaches us about the great significance of this seemingly bland aspect of nature. Like all fruit, the peach has a great problem - that is, how to ensure its continuity. Since it is completely immobile it has no way of spreading its seed so that it can procreate. Therefore, the peach seed develops a tasty flesh that surrounds it. This will cause humans and animals to eat the peach, thereby transferring it to other locations where it may be able to take root. However, there remains the difficulty of how the seed will not be consumed by its eater along with the rest of the fruit. Accordingly, the peach seed surrounds itself with a very hard casing that cannot be broken by the strongest teeth. In this way, the precious seed is safe. Nevertheless, the problems do not end there. If the casing is so strong, how will the seed be able escape so that it can take root? The remarkable answer to this, is that the casing is lined with a seam running along its length, which is bounded by a powerful adhesive. Not even a metal hammer is able to crack it. And yet, when the case falls to the ground, there is a special enzyme in the soil that dissolves the glue and allows the seed to exit its casing! This mundane seed is the subject of numerous miracles, and if any of them did not take place, then the peach would cease to exist. This is just one example of the testimony to the wonders of HaShem's creation.

On Tu B'Shvat we take numerous fruits and say blessings on them before we eat them. This custom can help us focus on the numerous acts of kindness that HaShem performs for us in ensuring the creation of these wonderful fruit. As a person goes through his daily routine, it is very easy for him to inadvertently close his eyes to the wonders around him. The analogy is given of a person who visits the Louvre art gallery, and complains that all the paintings look like yoghurt. After some time, he takes of his glasses, only to realize that they had yoghurt on them! He was unable to appreciate the beauty of the paintings because his vision was blocked. So too, a person can go through life with the proverbial 'yoghurt' blocking his vision, causing him to be blind to the numerous marvels that surround him. Tu B'Shvat gives us the opportunity to open our eyes and appreciate some of HaShem's wonderful gifts.

RAV NOACH WEINBERG ZT"L - YISRO

"I am the Lord, Your G-d, who took you out of the land of Mitzrayim from being slaves. "

The First of the Ten Commandments is the Mitzva of Emuna, to believe in the one G-d as the first cause of all existence, who constantly creates and sustains all of creation . There is another fundamental concept that is connected to Emuna, that of Bitachon, trust in G-d. Is trusting in G-d a part of the Mitzva of Emuna or is it a separate concept that is not included in any specific Mitzva? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Bitachon is not separate at all, rather it is the natural outgrowth of genuine Emuna; The obligation to have Emuna requires that one believe in the fundamental tenets about G-d such as First Cause and Hashgacha (Divine Providence), whereas Bitachon is applying that belief in practice. If a person cannot do this then it reveals that his Emuna is severely lacking. The Chazon Ish gives an example of Reuven who is constantly expressing his Emuna and how everything that he has is from Hashem; he proclaims his recognition that his livelihood emanates purely from Hashem and that there is no need for anxiety. However, when someone else opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future. Reuven's Emuna seemed to be strong when everything was going smoothly, but when he was put to the test he failed to show sufficient Bitachon. This in turn demonstrates that his Emuna was never genuine .

We learn from the Chazon Ish that an essential aspect of Emuna is bitachon, which means applying one's Emuna to real life situations. The Nesivos Shalom zt"l develops our understanding of Bitachon by explaining that there are two levels of Bitachon. There is an inactive kind of Bitachon and there is a proactive Bitachon. Inactive bitachon applies when one finds himself in a difficult situation in which there is nothing he can do - in such circumstances his Avoda is to trust that everything that happens will ultimately be for the good. Proactive bitachon becomes necessary when a person is required to do something that demonstrates his trust in Hashem. He cites the example of Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds); Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were crying out to Hashem to save them from Pharaoh's advancing army. In response, Hashem told them to stop praying and to go into the sea. The Nesivos Shalom explains that in order for the Jewish people to merit Hashem transcending nature through Krias Yam Suf they had to demonstrate a trust in Hashem that transcended the normal laws of nature. They had to believe that if the Ratson Hashem (will of Hashem) was for them to cross the sea then they should trust that He had the ability to enable them to do so, even if they had no idea how it was possible. Accordingly, their stepping into the raging sea before it split was a display of proactive bitachon that earned them the right to the great miracle of Krias Yam Suf .

By combining the lessons of the Chazon Ish and Nesivos Shalom we conclude that genuine Emuna can only manifest itself in a person who is willing to act with an unswerving trust in G-d; a belief that if Ratson Hashem dictates that he act in a certain way, then he can and must take the required action, and that Hashem will enable him to succeed in whatever he endeavors to do. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l epitomized this attribute to a great degree. He is most well-known for his incredible feats in kiruv rechokim (outreach) however, as one of his closest friends pointed out, all his accomplishments emanated directly from his deep Emuna and Bitachon.

I merited to learn in Yeshivas Aish HaTorah for four years, and in that time I was fortunate to experience Rav Weinberg's greatness first-hand. I never forget how he made a bracha - he spoke to Hashem as if He was really in front of Him, a demonstration of 'shivisi Hashem kenegdi tamid' (I constantly place Hashem in front of me) . When he talked about trusting in G-d, it deeply influenced his listeners, not because he said anything so unusual, but because he lived such Bitachon and the fact that he internalized it so greatly enabled it to rub off on others just by observing him.

Because his Emuna was so genuine he was able to apply it in practice and thereby express the high level of proactive Bitachon that the Nesivos Shalom described . He used to say that if we see problems in the world there is no reason that we shouldn't go out and tackle them if we believe that Hashem so desires. Hashem is willing and able to help us achieve his Ratson even if it demands superhuman achievements. If we demonstrate proactive Bitachon then Hashem could make miracles happen for us. This is exactly what took place in Rav Weinberg's life. At a time when kiruv was virtually unheard of, he saw a dire need to bring back the countless Jews who knew nothing of Torah observance. Many people mocked his dreams as being completely unrealistic and called him a fool. Nevertheless, his conviction that he was fulfilling Ratson Hashem enabled him to overcome numerous setbacks and perform miracles in creating a movement that saved thousands upon thousands of unaffiliated Jews from begin totally lost to Judaism . His son, Rav Hillel Weinberg Shlita described how he began his quest with three young men in a small room in Kirayt Sanz. No-one could have imagined how those humble beginnings could culminate in Aish HaTorah and its offshoots. No-one, that is, except for Rav Noach himself; those closest to him testify that he genuinely believed that he would bring Moshiach through his efforts - his extensive achievements were small in his eyes because he knew that Hashem wanted so much more. At the funeral, his son, Rav Hillel, told us what Rav Weinberg would tell us if he were standing in front of us. He would say that we could be bigger than him, we could be as big as Moshe Rabbeinu! Chazal's words to this effect were not some vague saying, rather they were real and should be taken seriously.

I heard an incredible story about how Rav Weinberg put his Emuna into practice; At the shiva his daughter told over that once a chess champion came to Aish, learned for a few days, and decided to leave. Rav Noach challenged him to a game of chess, on the basis that if the student won, he could leave, but if Rav Noach won, he would stay. Rav Noach won. When asked how he could have had the audacity to propose such a deal, he said that he knew Hashem wanted the young man to stay, so he trusted that Hashem would make him win .

It is appropriate to end with one of his oft-told stories, one that I have discussed before, but one that should never fail to arouse us. Many years ago, Rav Shach zt"l came to Aish HaTorah for a bris. Upon seeing numerous baalei teshuva, people who had come from the most distant backgrounds, Rav Shach told over an idea that he had never expressed before . He quoted the Navi, Hoshea; "Return, Yisroel, to Hashem, your G-d because you have stumbled in your sin ." He asked that the Navi implies that the reason that Yisroel should return to Hashem is because they stumbled in sin - why is the stumbling in sin the reason that Yisroel should return to G-d? He answered by explaining that we know that however powerful evil is, the power of good is greater. Accordingly, the very extent to which Yisroel sinned is the proof that they have the power to do teshuva, because however powerful a person's yetser hara, their yetser tov is greater. Based on this, Rav Shach said, that if one man can destroy six million lives, then one man can save six million lives. He was clearly aroused to express this idea by the remarkable feats that Rav Weinberg had already performed. Rav Hillel added, that the man who caused so much destruction, Hitler, yemach shemo, was not a particularly talented or intelligent person and yet he was able to do so much harm. Therefore, each of us, no matter how ordinary we consider ourselves, have the potential to do more good than the evil that he perpetrated. How can we achieve this? By learning from Rav Noach and developing an Emuna and Bitachon that will strengthen us with the belief that we can achieve incredible feats if Hashem so wills it.

It seems difficult to aspire to the level of Emuna and Bitachon that Rav Noach Weinberg attained. However, his greatness in this and all areas did not come about as a result of his natural talent - it was a result of years of hard work in developing his relationship with Hashem. He constantly exhorted us to learn about and internalize the Six Constant Mitzvos, the Mitzvos that encapsulate a Jew's relationship with Hashem. An appropriate way of remembering him would perhaps be to listen to his teachings and strengthen ourselves in our relationship with Hashem through learning about these Mitzvos, beginning with Emuna . This is the key to achieving the level of proactive Bitachon that the Jews reached at Krias Yam Suf and that Rav Noach Weinberg epitomized throughout his life. May we all merit to learn from Rav Noach Weinberg and ensure that his dreams are fulfilled and that every Jew will return to his Father in Heaven.

SHABBOS AND HONORING ONE'S PARENTS - YISRO

The highlight of Parshas Yisro is the Ten Commandments. The fourth Mitzvo is to remember the Shabbos , and the fifth is honoring one’s parents . This juxtaposition may not seem to be of great significance, however, this is not the only time in the Torah that these two seemingly unrelated Mitzvos are juxtaposed. In Parshas Kedoshim, the two Mitzvos are actually mentioned in the same verse: “Every man: Your mother and father shall you revere; and My Sabbaths shall you observe – I am HaShem, your G-d.” Chazal do indeed extrapolate lessons from this verse – they explain that even though one must honor and revere his parents, this obligation does not extend itself to the point where he should listen to his parents’ command to break Shabbos or any other Mitzvo in the Torah. The commentaries ask why the Torah chooses Shabbos in particular to teach that honoring one’s parents does not override other Mitzvos. Indeed, Shabbos is considered one of the most severe Mitzvos to transgress in terms of its punishment.

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l offers a drush explanation as to the juxtaposition of these two Mitzvos. This explanation can perhaps also be used to answer why the verse chose Shabbos in particular when informing us that honoring parents does not override Mitzvos. In his old age, Rav Kamenetsky was once on an airplane with some of his grandchildren. He was sitting next to another elderly man who was a secular Israeli professor. The professor noticed how much Rav Kamenetsky’s grandchildren were honoring and serving him. He told Rav Kamenetsky that his own grandchildren did not give him any honor or respect; he asked the Rabbi what was the difference between the two of them? The Rav answered, that the secular belief is that man originates from apes, therefore each generation is one step further from being an ape. It is logical that each generation is more advanced than its predecessors and consequently there is no reason why young people should honor old people, in fact it should be the reverse – the old should look up to the more ‘advanced’ young. That is why the professor’s grandchildren accorded him no honor.

In contrast the Torah point of view is that the further one goes back in history, the closer one gets to the Act of Creation and Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon was the most holy man, being that he was created by HaShem himself, so-to-speak. Each generation after him is one step further away from that great Act of Creation. Accordingly, each generation views the previous ones as being superior. That, Rav Kamenetsky explained, was why his grandchildren gave him so much respect.

With this elucidation, Rav Kamenetsky explained the juxtaposition of the Mitzvos of honoring one’s parents and keeping Shabbos. Shabbos represents belief in the Act of Creation in that it commemorates how HaShem created the world in six days and then rested. Observing Shabbos demonstrates a recognition that HaShem created the world. When a person has that recognition, he will automatically come to the accompanying realization that each generation is closer to that Act of Creation and therefore worthy of respect. That is the connection between the two Mitzvos – they both emanate from a belief in HaShem’s creation of the world.

Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation can also be used to explain why Chazal chose Shabbos in particular when teaching that honoring parents does not override the Mitzvos of the Torah. As the Ohr HaChaim explains, the end of the verse, “I am HaShem” shows us that honoring one’s parents does not override any Mitzvos because all Mitzvos come from the necessity to do HaShem’s will, including honoring one’s parents. Yet the Torah made a specific mention of Shabbos because the message of Shabbos is intrinsically connected to honoring one’s parents. A person who honors one’s parents recognizes Creation, and it follows that he should also observe the Shabbos which represents the ultimate commemoration of Creation.

This view of elder generations illuminates to us the Torah attitude towards the past, and its stark contrast to that of the secular world. The secular view emphasizes the value of progress whilst often deemphasizing adherence to past values. The Torah view stresses adherence to the values that were passed down since Mattan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). It approaches changes in the modern world in the context of those values. Thus, whilst there have often been valid new approaches and movements in Jewish history they always stay within the context of the values of Mattan Torah. This ides is demonstrated by the Hebrew word for progress – kadima. The root of this word is kedem which means the past. This teaches us that the Torah view is that progress is based on adherence to the values of the past. Those values are very much relevant to the present. We have seen how the Mitzvos of Shabbos and Honoring one’s parents are intrinsically connected – both emphasize the belief in the act of Creation. In turn, they teach us to rest on the seventh day and to respect our elders as being closer to the great moment of Creation. May we all internalize these lessons and keep both Mitzvos to our greatest ability which in turn will strengthen our recognition as G-d as the sole Creator.