THE FREEDOM OF TORAH - NASSO

The parsha discusses the mitzva of Nezirus, whereby a person takes a vow to abstain from wine, to avoid coming into contact with a dead body, and to let his hair grow . The author of Toras Avraham, Rav Avraham Grodzinki zt”l , discusses a number of difficulties with regard to the spiritual standing of the Nazir. He notes that at one point the Torah describes him as ’holy’ for depriving himself of physical pleasure . However, soon after, in the process of describing the sacrifices that he brings, it tells us that he must bring a sin-offering to atone for a certain aveira that he has committed. What is that aveira? Rashi brings the opinion of Rebbe Elazar Hakappa that his sin was that he caused himself pain by depriving himself of the enjoyment of drinking wine . Thus there is a blatant contradiction as to whether the Nazir is doing a great mitza or is in fact committing an aveira. The Toras Avraham answers that the Nazir is doing the right thing - he is someone who feels an unhealthy tendency towards physical pleasure, and therefore deems it necessary to make the drastic step of taking a vow of Nezirus. However, there is an element of sin in this action that requires atonement. The Toras Avraham explains that G-d created man with a body and soul and that it is wrong for man to totally neglect his body. Man‘s job in this world is to live in the physical world but to elevate it. The Nazir feels that he cannot do this without totally abstaining from wine. He is correct for acting this way, but in doing so, he causes his body considerable discomfort because it has a certain level of shibud (attachment) to the physical world and feels pain at being deprived of the pleasures that the physical world has to offer. Consequently, he is considered ‘holy’ for undertaking such a bold process of purification, but simultaneously needs to bring a sin offering for causing pain to his body . Having explained the duality in the act of Nezirus, the Torah Avraham then poses a new problem. He brings the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim who writes that it is not sufficient to merely observe mitzvas but live a life full of indulgence, rather the Torah requires us to ’be holy’. To fulfill this mitzva, he writes that one must abstain from physical pleasures. He even equates the holy man to the Nazir who is described as being holy for abstaining from wine. However, he makes absolutely no allusion to any sin committed by abstaining from physical pleasures even though it seems to cause pain to the ’holy’ man’s body. The Toras Avraham writes that this Ramban is discussing the level of a ‘Talmid Chacham’, a person who strives to separate himself from the luxuries of this world. This leads to the obvious question: What is the difference between the Nazir who sinned by abstaining from wine, and the Talmid Chacham who commits no sin in following a similar process?! The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the prishus (separation) of the Nazir and that of the Talmid Chacham. The Nazir is subject to a strong physical drive for the baser pleasures such as wine. It is painful for him to withdraw from partaking of them, therefore he is considered to be sinning by causing himself pain. In contrast the Talmid Chacham feels no pain at avoiding physical self-indulgence because he is not bound to his physical drives. He has such a strong recognition of the futile and transient nature of physical pleasures that it is not difficult for him to abstain from them. Thus, whilst the Nazir needs atonement for causing himself pain, the Talmid Chacham is not considered to have committed any kind of misdemeanor. We learn from here a fundamental principle; that the ideal way of separating from physical pleasures should not involve a painful process of self-deprivation. Rather it should emanate from a natural sense of the ultimate futility of physical gratification. This stands in stark contrast to the secular attitude to self-deprivation. This is most manifest in the widespread attempts of people to lose weight through intense diets. These largely fail and it seems that a significant reason for this is that denying oneself food is a cause of great self-affliction. The dieter does not free himself of a desire for pleasant tasting foods, rather often his craving for them actually increases. Thus he goes through a painful process of self-deprivation which invariably cannot last indefinitely. It seems that the Torah approach to food should automatically enable a person to eat healthily and even lose weight . If a person frees himself from his shibudim to physical pleasures, then abstaining from them will become a painless process. One ben Torah who was somewhat overweight and was known to eat large amounts of food, undertook to reduce his food intake through a gradual process of reducing his shibudim to food - in the process he lost about thirty pounds in a few months! It still needs to be understood how a person can reach the level of the Talmid Chacham and be able to separate from physical pleasures without causing himself discomfort. The key seems to be that if one develops a strong appreciation for spirituality then he automatically frees himself of a shibud to physicality. A yeshiva bachur once asked Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he change this? Rav Orlowek answered him that he should deepen his appreciation for tefilla and by doing so he would automatically reduce his preference for lunch. This dichotomy is highly relevant to our relationship with Torah that we celebrated on Shavuos. The Mishna in Avos exhorts us that the way of Torah is to eat bread and salt, drink water and sleep on the ground . This does not necessarily mean that to become a Talmid Chacham one must live in this fashion, rather the Mishna is telling us that we should develop such a deep appreciation for Torah that the baser pleasures become meaningless. Consequently, for a person to aspire to be a Talmid Chacham he must be willing and able to live in a sparse way. Thus, even if he does have access to a higher standard of living he will nevertheless be able to focus on the higher pleasure of learning Torah. However, if he feels a great pull to physical comfort then it will be impossible for him to sufficiently devote himself to Torah. We have seen how there are two ways in which a person can deprive himself of physical pleasures. The Nazir’s self-deprecation causes him considerable discomfort, whilst the Talmid Chacham feels no pain in refraining from such pleasures. Our goal is to reduce our shibudim to the physical world through a heightened sense of appreciation for spirituality.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL - NASSO

Towards the end of Parshas Nasso, the Torah describes at great length the offerings of the Nesi’im (Princes) on the day that the Mishkan was sanctified. What is unusual about this section is that every Nasi offered exactly the same offerings, yet the Torah describes each one separately in virtually identical verses. We know that there are no extra words in the Torah, accordingly, the commentaries ask why it was necessary to enumerate the same information twelve times; why could the Torah not simply mention the offerings the first time and then simply say that all the other Nesi’im brought the exact same offerings?! The Darchei Mussar, quoting the Alter of Kelm zt”l, answers this question: He writes that the Torah is coming to teach us how to relate to the individual’s performance of Mitzvos within the Jewish nation. A person may think that when a large number of people perform the same Mitzva then they are all subsumed within the group and there is no focus on each individual’s performance of the Mitzva. However, this is not the case; rather HaShem is happy at every single Mitzva that every single Jew performs. This is because HaShem’s capacity to love and care for each Jew is infinite and is not hindered by the fact that He also loves so many other Jews. Accordingly, to the same extent that HaShem was gladdened because of the offering of the first Nasi, Nachshon ben Aminadav, He was also joyful at the offerings of all the Nesi’im. Therefore, the Torah deemed it appropriate to specify each set of offerings in and of itself. This teaches a fundamental lesson about Jewish thought in contrast with that of other belief systems. The atheist, for example, cannot believe that each individual has any intrinsic worth. He is merely one of several billion human beings who are made up of flesh and bone just like all other living beings who reside in a small, insignificant planet in a minor Solar System that is located in one of millions of galaxies. If an atheist would take this belief to its logical conclusion he would feel a great sense of lack of self-worth because he is indeed insignificant. In contrast, according to the Torah view, each person is of Infinite worth because he is made in the image of G-d and is beloved by Him. This is expressed in a number of Rabbinic sources: The Mishna in Pirkei Avos says: “Man is beloved because he was created in the image [of God]...” This Mishna is teaching us that since every person has a soul he is dear to G-d. The Mishna in Sanhedrin is even more explicit about the individual importance of every person. The Mishna discusses why, of all living beings, only man was created alone, whereas with regard to all other creatures were created in large numbers. The Mishna explains: “Man was created alone to teach that about whoever destroys one soul from Yisrael the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world. And about whoever saves a soul from Yisrael, the Torah considers it as if he saved the whole world.” These sources emphasize the great value of each individual and teach us the logical consequences of this belief. Firstly, as we discussed above, one should realize his own self-worth. But moreover, this teaches us that .no person is insignificant in the eyes of God, and therefore each person is obligated to view everyone else in this fashion and treat them accordingly. The following story demonstrates the lengths to which this obligation applies. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l was in his home with some of his talmidim. One of them looked out of the window and saw a man approaching the house who appeared to be the great Brisker Rav, Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik zt”l. The talmid told Rav Meltzer who quickly put on this Shabbos clothes in honor of the esteemed visitor. He then rushed outside to greet the Rav. As they approached the man it became evident that this was not the Brisker Rav, rather a simple Jew who bore a resemblance to the Rav. However, Rav Meltzer continued acting towards the man in the way that he would have had it been the Brisker Rav. He treated him with great honor, placing him at the head of the table and offering him food. The man, surprised at this royal treatment, said that Rav Meltzer need not burden himself in such a way. He had come to request a recommendation from the Rav for a certain matter. The Rav gladly fulfilled his request, and then accompanied him all the way out of the house. When the Rav returned, the astonished students asked why he went to such extremes to honor the mane even after they realized that it was not the Brisker Rav. He explained that in truth the Mitzva of honoring Jews is so great that in truth we should honor every simple Jew in the same way that we honor great Torah scholars. However, due to our low level, the Mitzvos are not so important to us, and we do not treat each Jew with the honor he deserves. However, in this instance Divine Providence decreed that he should prepare to welcome a great Rabbi and why should he lose out on this great Mitzva just because the visitor was simple Jew. Moreover, he continued, how do we know that this man is a simple Jew. This story teaches us the extent of the value of each Jew, no matter who he is. We have seen how the Torah went to great lengths to enumerate the offerings of twelve Nesi’im to teach that HaShem cares about every individual’s actions. This makes it incumbent upon us to respect ourselves and to treat others with the respect due to them. There is one final outcome of this tenet of Judaism; since God cares about every single action that every single person takes, each person must develop an acute sense of responsibility for his actions. In this vein the Rambam writes that each person should view the world as being constantly on a weighing scale of Mitzvos versus sins, and that every Mitzva that he does could tip the scales for the good, and every sin that he commits could have the opposite effect. This should imbue us with a recognition of the importance of each and every action that we take.

PARSHAS BAMIDBAR - YEHUDA AND YISSOCHOR

PARSHAS BAMIDBAR - YEHUDA AND YISSOCHOR The Parsha devotes considerable time to describing the formations of the tribes. They were arranged in groups of three. The commentaries point out that they were deliberately placed in such a position so as to be able to exert influence on each other. The first formation was that of Yehuda, Yissochor and Zevulun. Yehuda was directly next to Yissochor. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l writes that Yehuda’s distinguishing characteristic was the ability to take achrayus (responsibility), both for himself, and for others. He exercised this mida when he took achrayus for the incident with Tamar, when he accepted the consequences of bringing Binyomin down to Mitzrayim and when Nachshon ben Amminadav, the Prince of Yehuda, was the first person to step into the sea at the Yam Suf before it had even split. Yissochor is known to represent Torah; he devoted himself to Torah study whilst his brother Zevulun provided for his physical needs , furthermore, many of the leading members of the Sanhedrin were from Yissochor . In this article we will focus on how Yehuda was intended to exert a positive influence on Yissochor. In Parshas Vayigash, the Torah describes how the Bney Yisroel left Eretz Yisroel to live in Mitzrayim. We are told that Yaakov Avinu sent Yehuda ahead of him to prepare the way in Goshen. Rashi explains that he was sent to start a Beis Talmud. This set a precedent for all Jewish history that the first priority of a Jewish community should be Torah education. However, it is difficult to understand why Yehuda was sent to establish the Beis Talmud - would not Yissochor have been a more appropriate choice, given that his ikar mida is learning Torah? The Tiferes Shlomo answers that Yehuda was the first person to take achrayus for another to the extent that he was willing to give up his own life. We see this when Yehuda guaranteed to Yaakov that he would protect Binyomin from any danger in Mitzrayim. This was an act of incredible self-sacrifice emanating from Yehuda’s deep feeling of responsibility for others. Consequently, the reason that Yaakov sent Yehuda to open the Beis Talmud was so that it’s guiding principle would be a sense of achrayus for the well-being of one’s fellow Jew. This idea can help us explain why Yehuda was placed next to Yissochor in the tribe formation - it is not sufficient merely to learn Torah for one’s own spiritual benefit, rather one must have the attitude that he is learning Torah so that he can pass it on to others. Moreover, the greater one’s ability to learn and understand Torah, the greater the obligation is upon him to be mashpia on others. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l epitomised such an attitude. “After resolving a difficulty in Rambam, R.Yisroel fainted. “If I have such talent,” he explained upon coming to, “I have a tremendous responsibility. The Heavenly Court will demand of me, “Why didn’t you get the whole world to do teshuva?” How significant a part of our Talmud Torah is the necessity to pass it on to others? The Mishna in Avos states: “If you have learnt much Torah, ‘al tachzik tova’ to yourself, because that is why you were created.” The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach.” It is clear from this explanation of the Mishna that passing on Torah is not merely an aspect of one’s Talmud Torah, rather it is part of the very foundation of one’s learning. In this vein, Rav Wolbe zt”l expressed his views on educating our children in their attitude to learning Torah. “I think that we must teach this to youngsters already from the time that they enter into yeshiva katana. Immediately in the first year, we must say to them that they are intrinsically connected to Klal Yisroel, and that they are obligated to give over to Klal Yisroel all the Torah that they will learn in yeshiva katana and yeshiva gedola. This is their avoda - not just to think about themselves. One must know that he must give over his Torah to Klal Yisroel.’ It is clear that Rav Wolbe believed that approaching our learning with a sense of achrayus is not just a good mida, rather it is a prerequisite to our relationship with Torah. If a person does bear this sense of achrayus then he receives a reward over and above the normal reward for Talmud Torah. The Mishna in Avos states that one who is mezakeh the rabim is saved from chet and he receives reward for every mitzva that he caused to be done. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Zev Segal zt”l would say that if one’s years of learning are a preparation for his disseminating Torah in the years to come, the Torah student is already considered a mezakeh es harabim during his years of learning. Since his learning is done with the intention of enabling him to pass on more to others, then the learning itself provides him with the inestimable merit of one who helps many. Hashem intended for Yehuda to influence Yissochor to learn Torah in order to share it with others. So too we must learn this lesson and approach our own learning with a great sense of achrayus for our fellow Jew, if we do so, then the benefits for ourselves and Klal Yisroel are endless.

במדבר – שתי דרגות בעבודת ה' יהונתן גפן

במדבר – שתי דרגות בעבודת ה' יהונתן גפן בעת שמונה התורה את תולדות שבט לוי, היא מזכירה את האירוע הקשה בו נפטרו שני בניו הצדיקים של אהרן הכהן, נדב ואביהו. בפסוק זה מוסיפה התורה לסיפור מותם פרט שלא היה ידוע עד כה – העובדה שהם נפטרו ללא ילדים . הגמרא לומדת מכך, שלו היו להם ילדים – הם לא היו נענשים במיתה . החת"ם סופר זצ"ל מסביר שנדב ואביהו הגיעו לדרגת קרבת אלוקים כה גבוהה, עד שהשיגו כבר את מטרתם ותכליתם בזה העולם, לא נשאר להם תפקיד עלי אדמות ולכן נפטרו. אולם, אילו היו להם ילדים – היה צורך שיישארו בחיים כדי לגדל את ילדיהם ולספק להם את צרכיהם. לומדים מכך שאף אם אדם יגיע לשלמות מוחלטת בעבודת ה' הפרטית שלו, הוא בכל זאת יישאר בחיים על מנת להיטיב עם צאצאיו. יתירה מזאת, מדברי החת"ם סופר משתמע שקיימות שתי דרגות בעבודת ה' – הראשונה היא התעלותו בתורה, במידות, ביראת שמיים ובקרבת אלוקים, והשניה היא האחריות כלפי ילדיו. ב"פיתוחי חותם" מוסיף עוד החת"ם סופר ואומר שצדיק גדול יכול להישאר בחיים גם על מנת להנהיג את תלמידיו, נוסף לילדיו, כלומר דרגה שנית זו בעבודת ה' אינה מסתכמת רק לחוג המשפחה של האדם, אלא גם לעדת התלמידים הסובבת אותו. בפרשת וישלח מצינו דוגמא לכך שעבודת ה' אינה מסתכמת אך ורק בין אדם לקונו – אלא מתפרשת על סביבתו: לאחר שיעקב אבינו יצא מהנסיון הקשה של חיים בצילו של לבן הרשע, והתמודדות מול אחיו העוין – עשיו, מתארת אותו התורה כ"שלם" – חז"ל מסבירים שהכוונה היא שהוא היה במצב של שלמות רוחנית; הוא עמד בגבורה בפני הסכנות הרוחניות שארבו לו בדמות לבן הרשע ועשיו אחיו, ויצא מכך כשהוא טהור ונקי מכל חטא ופגם. שנותיו הבאות עדיין לא התנהלו על מי מנוחות אלא הוא סבל רבות כתוצאה מטעויותיהם של הסובבים אותו – יציאתה של ביתו החוצה שנבעה מחֶסר בצניעותה וגרמה ללקיחתה בידי שכם, ובסופו של דבר להריגת כל העיר בידי שמעון ולוי. לאחר מכן הגיע המקרה בו העביר ראובן את מיטתה של בלהה, ואז נמכר יוסף. בולט מאד הפער בין גדולתו המיוחדת של יעקב המתוארת בתחילה, לבין ההמשך המתאר את חסרונותיהם ואי שלמותם של הסובבים אותו. ניתן ללמוד מכך שלמרות שהוא היה שלם בעבודתו הפרטית, הוא נשאר בעולם על מנת לתקן את חסרונותיו של העולם הסובב אותו. גדולי ישראל רבים השקיעו נתחים גדולים מחייהם בהתמקדם בעבודת ה' הפרטית שלהם, אולם כאשר ראו שהגיע הזמן הנכון, הם הקדישו כוחות עצומים מעצמם ומאישיותם על מנת לדאוג לעם ישראל. הר' שך זצ"ל מהווה דוגמה מובהקת לכך, הוא ישב ולמד ללא הרף במשך שנים ארוכות, אולם כאשר הפך להיות גדול בישראל, הוא הקדיש את כל כולו למען כלל ישראל, ומעולם לא סירב לסייע לכל אחד ואחד בצרכיו. שתי דרכי העבודה דורשות מהאדם שתי יכולות וגישות שונות; ניתן לראות זאת מיצירתו של האדם. בעוד כל בעלי החיים נוצרו במאמר אחד, האיש והאישה נוצרו בשני מאמרים נפרדים; מורי ורבי ר' יצחק ברקוביץ שליט"א מסביר שכל מאמר מייצג דרגה חדשה נוספת בבריאה. המאמר בו נוצר האדם מייצג את דרגת העבודה של האדם בהתקרבותו האישית והפרטית אל הקדוש ברוך הוא. ואילו המאמר בו נוצרה האישה הביא לעולם רמה חדשה, יצירה חדשה שנקראת – חברה. מצב בו האדם נדרש לתקשר עם הסובבים אותו. שתי דרגות אלה דורשות כל אחת יכולת אנושית שונה: ביחס לעבודתו הפרטית, נדרש האדם לנהוג במידה מסויימת של דין עם עצמו, לנהוג בביקורת כלפי עצמו ולשאוף לתקן ולשפץ עוד ועוד את אישיותו. כאשר בא על האדם מצב של סבל וקושי מסוים, עליו להתמקד בחיובו להאמין בהקב"ה למרות הכל, ולתקן ולשפץ את דרכיו. בניגוד מוחלט לכך, ביחס לסובבים אותו על האדם לנהוג בדרך שונה לחלוטין. כאשר אדם אחר סובל ממשהו, אסור לחברו לומר לו שהסבל מגיע לו מאת ה', והמטרה היא לעוררו לתקן את דרכיו, אלא עליו להתמקד בנשיאה בעול עם חברו, ועליו לנהוג עם חברו כאילו אין מי שדואג לו ומשגיח עליו – כולל הקב"ה. הרב מבריסק התייחס לרעיון זה בדרך זו באופן מיוחד. הוא יצא מתוך הנחה שלכל תכונת אופי שלילת יש גם ביטוי חיובי כלשהו – כשנשאל מהו הצד החיובי של כפירה, הוא ענה שתכונה זו מסייעת לאדם לנהוג כפי הנדרש ממנו כאשר חברו נמצא בצרה. אסור לו אז לומר שהוא מאמין בה' שהכל יהיה לטובה, אלא עליו לפעול ולעשות את המוטל עליו, כאילו אין יד ה' מעורבת בעניין, והוא ורק הוא מחויב לקחת את כל האחריות על כתפיו . גדולי ישראל שילבו באישיותם את שתי הדרגות בעבודת ה' - ביחס לעצמם נהגו בביקורת חדה ונוקבת, ברחו מפני הכבוד וסירבו לקבל כל עזרה מאחרים, בעוד שכלפי זולתם נהגו בטוב לב מאין כמוהו, נשיאה בעול, סבלנות רבה ויחס של כבוד והערכה עצומים. נדב ואביהו מעולם לא נשאו באחריות של הנהגת אחרים, ולכן עבודתם הסתכמה אך ורק בגבולות עצמם, ורק בה קנו שלמות מוחלטת. מי ייתן וכולנו נזכה לפתח שלמות בשתי הדרגות של עבודת ה' – שלמות עצמית, ודאגה לעולם הסובב אותנו.

THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM - BAMIDBAR

BAMIDBAR - THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM By Yehonasan Gefen BS"D In the Torah’s account of the Tribe of Levi it reviews the tragic deaths of Aaron Hakohen’s righteous sons, Nadav and Avihu. On this occasion it adds a hitherto unmentioned detail - that they died without any sons . The Gemara extrapolates from here that had they had sons then they would not have died . The Chasam Sofer zt”l explains that Nadav and Avihu had reached such a high level of closeness to Hashem that they had fulfilled their potential, and there was no further need for them to live in Olam Hazeh. However, had they had children then they would have been needed to stay alive in order to bring them up and provide for their needs. We learn from here that even if a person reaches total perfection in his own personal Avoda, he is nevertheless kept alive so that he can benefit his children. Moreover, it seems from the yesod of the Chasam Sofer that there are two levels in Avodas Hashem - the first is a person’s development of his Torah, midos and relationships to Hashem, and the second, his responsibility to his children. In the ‘pisuchay chosam’, the Chasam Sofer adds that a great tzaddik can be kept alive in order to guide his talmidim as well as his children, implying that a person‘s second stage of Avoda is not limited to helping his children, but also his talmidim . We find an example of the dualistic nature of Avodas Hashem in Parshas Vayishlach. After Yaakov Avinu emerged from the tremendous challenges of living with Lavan and facing his hostile brother Esav, the Torah describes him as being ’shalem’ - Chazal understand this to mean that he was spiritually complete; he had withstood the spiritual threats of Lavan and Esav and emerged totally pure of any lacking. Yet, the rest of his life was plagued by the difficulties he endured as a result of the mistakes and shortcomings of people around him - his daughter’s lack of tznius in going out resulted in her abduction by Shechem and its eventual destruction by Shimon and Levi. This was followed by the incident with Reuven moving Bilhah’s bed, and the sale of Yosef. It is striking that after emphasizing Yaakov’s individual greatness, it then outlines in great depth the imperfections of the world around him. This shows us that whilst he had completed his own personal Avoda, he remained on this world in order to rectify the lacking of those around him . Many Gedolim spent a great portion of their lives focused largely on their own personal avoda, but when the time was right, they devoted great amount of energy into serving the Jewish people. Rav Shach zt”l is a perfect example of this, he continuously for many years but when he emerged as a Gadol he totally devoted himself to Klal Yisroel, and never turned away people in need of his help. The two forms of Avoda also require two different attitudes and approaches; this is demonstrated in the creation of mankind. Whilst all the animals were created in one maamer, man and woman were created in two separate maamarim (sayings); my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that each maamar represented a new stage in creation. The maamar creating man represented the aspect of man’s avoda as an individual and his relationship with himself. The maamar creating woman led to a new stage of creation known as society, whereby man has to interact with those around him. These two stages require very different mindsets - with regard to his attitude towards himself, man has to apply a certain degree of din on himself., involving self-analysis an striving to improve oneself. When he endures suffering he should stress the need to trust in Hashem and to strive to improve his ways. In contrast, man must have a very different view towards other people - when someone else suffers, he must not tell them that it is all from Hashem and that they should strive to grow, rather he should focus on caring for them and acting as if they are not being looked after by anyone, including Hashem. The Brisker Rav zt’l made this point in a remarkable way. He posited that every negative trait has a positive aspect to it - when asked what was the positive aspect of the trait of kefira (denying G-d), he answered that it helps us act properly when out friend is in need. We cannot tell him to have trust in Hashem that everything will be fine, rather we must act, so to speak, as if G-d is not involved in his life and we must take responsibility . Gedolim also demonstrated a dualistic attitude in their lives - to themselves they were demanding and self-critical, hiding from kavod and refusing help from other people, but to their fellow man, they were kind, caring, tolerant, and full of praise. Nadav and Avihu never had the responsibility of guiding others, and therefore their avoda was limited to self-perfection. May all of us merit to perfect ourselves in both levels of Avodas Hashem - perfecting ourselves and the world around us.

MOSHE'S "SONS" - BAMIDBAR

BAMDIBAR – MOSHE’S “SONS” By Yehonasan Gefen In its account of the genealogy of the tribes of Israel, the Torah outlines the offspring of Moshe Rabbeinu and Aaron HaKohen Gadol. The Torah includes Aaron’s sons as being part of the offspring of Moshe, as well as of Aaron. Rashi explains that Aaron’s sons are described as the offspring of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah, and one who teaches Torah to his friend’s son is considered to have given birth to him. Therefore, since Moshe taught Aaron’s sons, they are considered to be his sons. The Maharal asks that Moshe did not only teach Aaron’s sons, rather he taught all of Klal Yisroel, and yet we do not see that Moshe is considered to have given birth to all of the Jewish people. He answers that Moshe was commanded to teach the Jewish people, and he taught them that which he was instructed. However, he taught the sons of Aaron over and above what he was commanded. It is this Torah that he voluntarily taught them that earns him the merit of being considered to have given birth to them. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita proves from another episode in Sefer Bamidbar, that HaShem, b’davke wanted Moshe to give of himself from his own volition. In Parshas Pinchas, Hashem instructs Moshe to appoint Yehoshua bin Nun as his successor. He tells Moshe to place his hand on Yehoshua, but Moshe places both hands on Yehoshua. Why did HaShem only ask Moshe to use one hand and why did Moshe use both? Rav Berkovits answers that HaShem wanted Moshe, of his own volition, to lay the second hand on Yehoshua, so that a significant part of Moshe’s transmission to Yehoshua would be voluntary . Moshe understood this and acted accordingly. It still needs to be explained why only a person who teaches someone voluntarily is considered to have given birth to him, but one who does so out of obligation is not given this accolade. Rav Berkovits Shlita, explains that a when a person has a child he gives part of himself into the new offspring, in that his genetic make-up constitutes a very significant part of this new being. When a person teaches someone Torah, he gives of his own spiritual make-up and puts that into his student. In that way, he is similar to one who has children, the only difference being that the true parent gives of his physical self, whereas the teacher gives of his spiritual self. The Maharal’s explanation demonstrates further that a teacher is only considered to merit this level of giving of himself when he does it purely out of a ratson (desire) to teach the person, and not simply because of obligation. This is because when a person teaches another out of a sense of obligation he is unable to totally give of himself, because his intention is not purely to be mashpia (spiritually influence), rather it is to fulfill his chov (obligation). As a result, there is a qualitative lacking in the transmission process, to the extent that the Torah of the teacher is not fully internalized by the student. Therefore, the student is not considered to be the offspring of the teacher. However, when one teaches because of a desire to share the spiritual wonders of the Torah with another, then he is giving over of his own spiritual essence and this is transmitted to the student. Accordingly, the teacher is equivalent to the child’s parent. The principle that there is a qualitative difference between Torah taught out of obligation and Torah taught out of one’s own volition, applies to a wide variety of people and situations: A parent is obligated to teach his child Torah, but if he only acts out of his sense of chiyuv then the child will surely sense it and the transmission process will be hindered. Another common example relevant to this topic is when a person who has spent most of his life in yeshiva and kollel may, for a number of reasons, decide to look into a career that involves teaching of some kind. It seems that the main kavannah that motivates him will play a significant role in determining how effective he becomes as a teacher. A person who does so because he feels compelled to do so for financial or other reasons, will not reach his potential as a conveyor of the Mesorah. In this vein, Rav Nochum Pirtzovitz zt”l stressed to his students that parnassa should not be the primary motivation for taking a position in teaching. This lesson seems to also be relevant to a person who is not in a position to teach children or students on a fixed basis. Firstly, we are all placed in situations where we need to teach others some kind of lesson, and the motivating factors in doing this will play a key role in the effectiveness of the lessons transmitted. Secondly, the principle applies to all forms of giving, not just teaching Torah. Giving out of obligation is far less praiseworthy than giving out of a desire to help one’s fellow. The recipient of the chessed will often sense any feelings of compulsion in the giver and will feel discomfort for placing the giver in a situation he would rather not be in. Furthermore, it seems clear that Rav Dessler’s principle that the great benefit of giving that it leads to greater love for the recipient is only limited to cases where one gives out of volition, and not out of obligation. Indeed, giving because one has no choice, often causes resentment. We have seen how Moshe Rabbeinu merited to have been considered to have given birth to Aaron’s sons because he taught them over and above his actual obligation. May we all merit to emulate Moshe and voluntarily give over of our Torah and ourselves.

RUTH – ACQUIRING MEANING THROUGH YISSURIM

RUTH – ACQUIRING MEANING THROUGH YISSURIM Every Shavuos, we read Megillas Ruth, the story of the conversion of the Moabite Ruth, and her subsequent marriage to Boaz, which led to the birth of David HaMelech and ultimately the future Mashiach. Analyzing aspects of the story can help us deepen our understanding of the lessons that we can learn from Shavuos. One of the striking features of the Megilla is the self-sacrifice that Ruth demonstrated in her decision to join the Jewish people. The gemara in Brachos tells us that HaShem gave the Jewish people three “matanos tovos” (special gifts); and all of them are only acquired through yissurim . The three gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba. The story of the Megilla shows how Ruth acquired two of these gifts (with the exclusion of Torah ) and had to undergo the yissurim that the gemara promises. The difficulty of acquiring Eretz Yisroel is seen at the beginning of the Megilla. The story opens with the yerida of Elimelech and his family to Moav. The process of leaving Israel is covered in one short passuk, “…a man and his family left Beit Lechem to live in the fields of Moav...” In contrast ,the return of Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah to Eretz Yisroel, is expressed in a much lengthier manner: “And she and her daughters-in-laws rose up and returned from the fields of Moav… and she left the place where she had been and her two daughters-in-law were with her, and they went on the way to return to the land of Yehuda.” It is noteworthy how many verbs are used that indicate the travelling involved in the journey back to Eretz Yisroel. The Megilla then describes at length the discussion between Naomi and her daughters-in-law about whether they would accompany her back. Finally, Naomi and Ruth, return to Israel. The stark contrast of the single passuk recounting their leaving of Israel, to the lengthy account of their return, teaches us that it is much easier to leave Eretz Yisroel than to come to it. Moreover, after Ruth and Naomi return to the land, the Megilla describes their great difficulties in supporting themselves there. In this way, Megillas Ruth demonstrates a striking example of how Eretz Yisroel is only acquired with difficulty. In a similar vein, a key feature in the story is Ruth’s willingness to undergo a great deal of discomfort and difficulty in order to join the Jewish nation, and, consequently, merit a new portion in Olam Haba. Chazal tell us that Ruth and Orpah were daughters of the King of Moav. Accordingly, they merited to have a very high stature in Moav. In contrast, by joining Naomi, they faced a life of poverty and the prospects of a low standing in society. This was because at that time there was a great dispute as to whether the Torah prohibition to marry a Moabite convert, also applied to female Moabite converts. Indeed, later in the Megilla, we see that the closest relative of Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, refused to marry Ruth because of her Moabite origins. In addition to these obstacles, lay the numerous obligations involved in becoming a Jew. Chazal tell us that Naomi stressed this to Ruth and Orpah; she mentioned a number of Mitzvos that would cause them to undergo great restrictions to their life. Indeed, her arguments persuaded Orpah to return to Moav. Ruth, in contrast told Naomi that she was willing to undergo all the difficulty involved in converting. Because of her willingness to undergo yissurim, Ruth merited a very unique place in Olam Haba. It still needs to b explained why the matanos tovos of Torah, Eretz Yisroel, and Olam Haba are only acquired through yissurim. This can be explained through a principle that Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would constantly emphasize. He taught that genuinely meaningful pleasure could only be acquired through challenge. For example, when people look back at the most satisfying moments in their lives, they usually mention times when they had put great effort into achieving something, such as passing a difficult exam, or they choose a happy occasion such as marriage or having children. Anyone who has experienced such times of happiness, knows that marriage and child rearing involve a great deal of difficulty and challenge. Yet, they are causes of great joy for those who make the effort. In this vein, Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba are the most meaningful things that a person can acquire. Precisely because of their great value, they can only be acquired with great difficulty. Ruth recognized this fact, and made the decision to forego the less ‘painful’ pleasures that life had to offer, for the meaningful experience of joining the Jewish nation in Eretz Yisroel. This lesson is highly relevant to Shavuos: Chazal tell us that HaShem offered the Torah to the nations of the world, but they refused when they saw how difficult it would be to observe its laws. The Jewish nation realized that despite the responsibilities that came with accepting the Torah, it was the greatest gift possible. Their decision to choose the more difficult and more meaningful option, is one that every Jew must strive to emulate. We must realize that keeping the Torah is the only way to achieve true life fulfillment.

SHAVUOS - STAYING AWAKE

SHAVUOS - STAYING AWAKE One of the most prominent features of Shavuos is the universal Minhag (custom) for men to stay awake all night learning Torah. The Magen Avraham explains the reason for this Minhag; he brings Chazal who say that the Jewish people went to sleep on the night of Matan Torah (the giving of the Torah) and Hashem had to wake them up in order to receive the Torah. Accordingly, we stay up all night in order to rectify this failing of our ancestors . The Arizal states that one who stays awake learning Torah on Shavuos night is guaranteed that he will complete the year without experiencing any harm . This explanation seems quite difficult: How can we understand that such great people would oversleep on the most momentous occasion of their lives ? We know that they were willing to receive the Torah to the extent that they accepted its laws before they were even aware of its content so why would they act in such an unenthusiastic fashion on the night leading to Matan Torah?! It also needs to be understood how staying awake all night rectifies their error. The commentaries explain that the Jewish people deliberately went to sleep on that night; they felt that they could reach a higher level of connection to G-d in a state of sleep. This explanation fits with an important principle that whenever great people sinned, they had seemingly valid reasons for choosing their course of action. Nonetheless, the fact that they ultimately sinned indicates that on a subtle level, there was some kind of yetser hara that pushed them towards their error . What was this underlying motivation that caused them to sleep on this fateful night? The Jewish people clearly wanted to receive the Torah, as indicated by their pronouncement of 'Naaseh v'nishma' (we will do and we will hear). However, it is possible that on a subtle level they also felt a degree of uneasiness about receiving the Torah. They realized that accepting the Torah would enforce numerous obligations and responsibility upon them. It is certainly true that whilst the life of a Torah observant Jew provides the ultimate satisfaction, it nonetheless involves a great amount of effort and self-growth. Thus a person may be tempted to ‘escape’ these challenges in various manners. One of the most common forms of ‘escape’ is sleep - by sleeping a person can, at least temporarily, avoid the challenges of life . Accordingly, people who experience pain or difficulty have a tendency to want to sleep more than their bodies require. This is in fact a manifestation of their desire to escape their pain. In this vein, it is possible that, on a subtle level, the Jewish people were apprehensive of the new accountability that was soon to be thrust upon them. Thus, on a subconscious level they sought to ‘escape’ from the daunting specter of receiving the Torah. This desire to escape manifested itself in its ultimate form - sleep. The Minhag to stay awake all night learning Torah is a rectification of this subtle flaw. Remaining awake whilst we are tired shows that we are willing to face the responsibilities that accompany Torah observance. We realize that whilst fulfilling the Torah is no easy task, it is ultimately the most rewarding path. Escaping the challenges does not provide true satisfaction, rather facing them head on is the only way of achieving life fulfillment. Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would consistently instill in his students that nothing meaningful in life is achieved without difficulty. Any truly meaningful experience inevitably involves a great amount of hard work and self-sacrifice. This is particularly the case with regard to the learning and observing of the Torah; the greatest geniuses failed in Torah learning if they were unwilling to exert tremendous effort in understanding the depths of Torah. Only those who were prepared to push themselves experienced the true pleasure of Torah learning and attained greatness. There are people who disagree with the Minhag to remain awake all night learning Torah. They point out that a person probably learns for less time by staying awake in the night than if he would keep to his regular schedule of sleeping. In an arithmetical sense this claim seems correct. Those that do not sleep in the night commonly sleep for a few hours on Erev Shavuos, then sleep after Shacharis, and often go to sleep a further time after the Yom tov morning meal! However, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita points out the error of this argument; if the goal of Shavuos was to learn as much Torah as possible then this claim would be correct and it would be more sensible to sleep in the night and learn more in the daytime. However, this is not the purpose of learning on Shavuos. As we have seen , its purpose is to inculcate in ourselves the readiness to meet head-on the challenges that the Torah presents. By sacrificing sleep on this one night, we show that we have no desire to ‘escape’, rather we recognize that the only path to true meaning is to face difficulties head on and surpass them. May we all merit to receive the Torah with complete eagerness and anticipation.

SHAVUOS - MAKING PEACE BETWEEN BODY AND SOUL

SHAVUOS - MAKING PEACE BETWEEN BODY AND SOUL The Gemara in Pesachim teaches us a fascinating lesson about Shavuos; the Gemara brings a machlokes (disagreement) between Rebbe Yehoshua and Rebbe Eliezer with regard to how a person should conduct himself on the Yamim Tovim. Rebbe Yehoshua holds that one should devote part of his time to spiritual pursuits, and the rest of his time to physical enjoyment. Rebbe Eliezer argues that it is impossible to be involved in both ruchnius (spirituality) and gashmius (physicality) , rather one must choose to totally focus on one or the other. The implication of Rebbe Eliezer's approach is that one should focus purely on spiritual activities such as learning and praying, to the exclusion of physical pleasures such as eating and drinking. However, the Gemara then points out with regards to Shavuos, even Rebbe Eliezer agrees that one should also involve himself in eating and drinking. The reason given is that this is the day that the Torah was given . The commentaries find great difficulty with this Gemara, in particular they ask why the fact that the Torah was given on Shavuos means that one should eat and drink more. It would have seemed more appropriate that one should totally devote himself to spiritual pursuits on this holy day. The emphasis of physical enjoyment on Shavuos indicates that there must be some deeper connection between physicality and Shavuos. The key to understanding this connection is a Gemara in Shabbos: The Gemara tells us that after the Giving of the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim (heaven) in order to learn the entire Torah from Hashem. However, the Malachim (angels) took exception to the appearance of a mere human being in the higher realms. They argued that man is not deserving of the holy Torah because of his lowly physical nature, rather they should be its recipients. Hashem instructed Moshe Rabbeinu to refute their argument. He did so by pointing out numerous aspects and laws of the Torah that are clearly directed at physical beings; for example, the Torah commands that one should not do melacha (forbidden activity) on Shabbos but they do not do any melacha at any time so how is Shabbos relevant to them?!. Hashem and the Malachim themselves accepted this argument . Rav Chaim Friedlander zt"l, discusses at length the interaction between the Malachim and Moshe Rabbeinu. He points out that the Malachim's desire to receive the Torah instead of man is difficult to understand. They were surely aware of the Torah's contents and realized that they were clearly directed at physical beings so how could they hope to receive it themselves?! He explains that the Torah can be understood on many levels, and that the simple understanding that we relate to is just one of many ways of understanding it. Accordingly, the Torah also applies to Malachim on their level of existence; for example there is a spiritual version of refraining from melacha on Shabbos that relates to them, and so is the case with every word in the Torah. The Malachim argued that it should remain in Shamayim where they could learn it on a far deeper level, untainted by Olam HaZeh (this world). Moshe Rabbeinu understood that this was the Malachim's argument, nevertheless he argued that the Torah was made to be understood and applied on a physical level. He proved this by mentioning numerous Mitzvos that demonstrated that the Torah was deliberately written in such a way that it could be applied by physical beings. The reason for this is that there is a far greater increase of Kavod Shamayim when a human being overcome his physical nature in order to fulfill Ratson Hashem (Hashem's will) than when a purely spiritual being acts according to his nature. Thus, Moshe proved to the Malachim that they could not properly fulfill the Mitzvos in the Torah in such a way that would bring about the most Kavod Shamayim in the world. This Gemara teaches us of the central nature of the body with regard to receiving the Torah. The fact that human beings are attached to the physical world was the very reason that we merited to receive the Torah. We can now understand the connection between Shavuos and the focus on one's body. Shavuos is the very day that the spiritual world and physical world combined at Har Sinai. On this unique occasion, the purely spiritual Torah was clothed in physical garb in order that we could elevate ourselves through its observance. We asked why Rebbe Eliezer agrees that on Shavuos we must also provide enjoyment for our bodies. The Beis HaLevi answers that we must show an extra level of gratitude to our bodies because they were the cause of Moshe's victory over the Malachim . We therefore deliberately involve ourselves in physicality. It is possible to add that Rebbe Eliezer argued that on other Yom Tovim one cannot combine spiritual pursuits with physical involvement. It seems that he held that an excessive focus on gashmius would inevitably harm one's ruchnius. However, he agreed that Shavuos was different - on Shavuos there is a special energy whereby physicality and spirituality need not contradict each other, rather they can work together to bring about a greater revelation of Kavod Shamayim. In this vein, the Maharal notes that Shavuos is the only festival in which we offer a Communal Korban Shelamim . He explains, writing that "on this day there is peace and a strong connection between the upper and lower worlds. " We have seen how Shavuos involves a unique connection between the body and soul and that everyone agrees that it is appropriate to be involved in physical pursuits on this Holy day. This lesson can also be applied to the rest of the year through our efforts to elevate our physical activities. Nonetheless, it is no easy task to attain the correct balance between the two and a person is always at risk of overly focusing on gashmius for its own sake. Rav Avigdor Miller zt"l offered a way of avoiding this possible pitfall; he suggested that at least one action we perform each day should be done with a conscious effort to be leshem Shamayim . He suggests applying this exercise specifically in the area of one's eating. For one time in the day, a person should try to focus on eating so that he will be strong and healthy to perform Avodas Hashem as opposed to satisfying his more base physical desires. Through efforts at self-growth such as this a person will be able to elevate his physical pursuits.

בחוקותי

בחוקותי – כוח ההתחדשות יהונתן גפן בינות לדברי תוכחה נוקבים, מרגיע הקב"ה את עם ישראל ואומר "וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקוֹב וְאַף אֶת בְּרִיתִי יִצְחָק וְאַף אֶת בְּרִיתִי אַבְרָהָם אֶזְכּר וְהָאָרֶץ אֶזְכּר" והשאלה המתבקשת היא – מדוע מוזכרים האבות בסדר הפוך? רש"י מביא את דברי ה"תורת כהנים" שמסביר שזכותו של יעקב שהיה "הקטן" מספיקה לכך, ואם לא - תספיק זכותו של יצחק, ואם גם זה לא יספיק אזי ודאי זכותו הגדולה של אברהם תעמוד לבניו . לכן מוזכר יעקב ראשון כיוון שזכות האבות האמורה כאן מסודרת דווקא בסדר "עולה" . ישנם שני אופנים כיצד ניתן להבין את עובדת היות יעקב "הקטן" באבות: יש המפרשים זאת כ'צעיר שבאבות', אולם ישנם כמה וכמה מפרשים שכותבים שהכוונה היא שמדובר על דרגה רוחנית . מה שקשה בהסבר זה הוא שחז"ל אומרים שיעקב היה הגדול שבאבות, היחיד מהם שכל זרעו היה זרע קודש של צדיקים, בעוד שלאברהם וליצחק היו צאצאים שלא זכו כלל להיות חלק מעם ישראל. ואם כן, כיצד אפשר להבין שזכות יעקב להציל את ישראל מצרות הגלות חלשה מזו של אברהם ויצחק? וכן יש להבין מדוע אברהם נחשב גדול יותר מיצחק בהקשר זה. נראה שגדלותו של יעקב ועובדת היותו המושלם באבות, אינה דווקא מחייבת שהוא יהיה בעל הזכות הגדולה ביותר. זכות נובעת מהישגים ביחס לקושי המשימה – אפשר לומר שאמנם יעקב הגיע לדרגה הגבוה ביותר באבות, אך דרכו להגיע לדרגותיו הייתה קלה הרבה יותר מאבותיו. באיזה מובן היתה משימתו של יעקב קלה יותר מזו של יצחק, ושל יצחק קלה יותר מזו של אברהם? אברהם נולד לעולם של עבודת אלילים – המשימה שעמדה בפניו הייתה ליצור מתוך הרִיק דרך חיים חדשה, לבנות השקפת עולם חדשה – לפתוח עידן חדש בהיסטוריה העולמית . כזו עבודה כוללת בתוכה מבחן עצום, כיוון שהיה עליו לעמוד ולהלחם נגד כל הדעות, ההשקפות, וסגנונות החיים ולפתח משהו חדש, לאט לאט, מתוך המון סבלנות ונחישות להפריח את השממה הרוחנית. יצחק נולד לעולם בו הייתה קיימת כבר דרך החשיבה הנכונה – לא היה עליו ליצור ולחדש שום דרך חיים. בכל אופן, כותב ר' מתתיהו סלמון שכן היה עליו לחדש עניין אחד – מושג המסורה; הדרך בה מקבל כל בן מאביו מאמין בו והולך בדרכו . יעקב, לעומת זאת, לא היה צריך להמציא דרך חיים חדשה, וגם את עניין המסורה – קיבל מאביו- הוא ודאי עמד מול משימות ואתגרים גדולים בחייו, אולם בהקשר זה, היתה לו עבודה קלה הרבה יותר מאבותיו. לכן, למרות שהוא היה הגדול שבאבות, הזכות שהייתה לו להוציא את ישראל מגלותם קטנה יותר . הר' סלמון מאריך עוד בעניין כוחו העיקרי והגדול של אברהם אבינו – כוח ההתחדשות – היכולת להמציא ולחדש דרך אמיתית ונכונה משלו . הוא מציין שבתיאורו של הרמב"ם על מעשיו ופעולותיו של אברהם אבינו להפצת שם ה' בעולם, הוא משתמש במילה "מתחיל" לא פחות מחמש פעמים בתוך קטע לא ארוך . הר' סלמון כותב שמהותו של אברהם היתה "מתחיל" – הוא היה חלוץ, פורץ דרך... הוא יסד והקים את כל עם ישראל. הוא היה הראשון בכל דבר שעשה. לא היה לו אבא שיכול היה לחקות אותו, תמיד היה עליו להיות הנחשון. בבואנו לנסות ללכת בדרכי אברהם אבינו, אנו רגילים תמיד לפנות להתחזק במידת החסד. כאן לומדים שכוח ההתחדשות שלו היא גם מידה גדולה ועצומה שעלינו ללמד ולפתח. גם ה"כלי יקר" מדגיש מאד את גודל החשיבות של החידוש. בפרשת בראשית לאחר תאור הבריאה בכל יום מסכמת תורה ואומרת "טוב", או "טוב מאד" מלבד היום השני. ישנם מספר הסברים לכך – הכלי יקר כותב שביום זה לא היתה יצירה חדשה לגמרי, לכן אי אפשר להגדיר יום זה כ"טוב" . מהסבר זה מובן שניתן להגדיר עניין כ"טוב" רק כאשר הוא כרוך בחידוש. ישנם מספר שטחים בהם היכולת לחדש חשובה מאד חיינו. טבעי שאדם נכנס לשגרה של הרגל בהתנהלות חייו, ביחס להרבה היבטים בחיים, כולל הגדילה והעליה בתורה ובמידות, יחסיו עם הזולת, ויכולתו ליצור ולבנות. ישנם מצבים בהם מועיל ונצרך לעצור לרגע במהלך הרגיל ולערוך אמדן מחודש האם יש צורך לשנות משהו בסגנון החיים בשטחים אלו. בדרך כלל גישות חדשות מספקות דרכים מחודשות לעמידה במצבים ובכוחן להביא להצלחות גדולות. דוגמא לכך מסופרת ע"י מחנך ידוע בנושא שלום בית. אישה אחת הייתה מאד לא מרוצה מבעלה, עד כדי כך שהחליטה שהיא רוצה גט. אותו אדם הציע לה, שלפני שהיא עושה כזה צעד גורלי, כדאי לה לנסות עוד דרך אחרת - הצעתו היתה שתתמקד אך ורק בהתנהגותה היא, ותתאמץ ותשתדל להיות האישה הטובה ביותר שיכולה. לאחר תקופה קצרה שפעלה לפי הוראה זו, החלה לראות שינוי חל בבעלה. הנכונות שלה לנסות דרך אחרת, לשנות כיוון ודרך הייתה המפתח לעליה והתרוממות עצומה של חיי הנישואין שלה. אחד השטחים החשובים ביותר בהם כוח ההתחדשות חשוב ונצרך הוא יצירה ופיתוח של רעיונות חדשים, תנועות או ארגונים שבכוחם להועיל ולסייע לכלל ישראל. דוגמא מדהימה לכך היא הגב' שרה שנירר זצ"ל - הרעיון שלה לדאוג לחינוך יהודי טהור לבנות ישראל היה כה חדשני ומהפכני, עד שנתקל בקשיים ובהתנגדויות רבות מבית ומחוץ. למרות הכל, בראשה היה חזון והיא עמדה על שלה, והתעקשה להצליח ברעיון הגדול, כך זכתה בסופו של דבר לתרום תרומה אדירה לכל העם היהודי. הוכחה נוספת לכוח ההתחלה החדשה ותועלתה היא הקשיים שמערים היצר הרע כנגד כל התחלה כזו , זוהי הסיבה לכך ש"כל ההתחלות קשות". גם לאחר שרוצים ומתחילים התחלה חדשה, צריכים להמשיך לרצות ולהתאמץ כדי שתגיע המשימה למטרתה הסופית, למרות הקשיים והתקלות מולן עלול אדם להתמודד בדרכו. אולי אברהם אבינו לא מתואר כ"גדול" באבות, אולם בשטח זה של התחדשות, ללא ספק הוא זה שלימדנו את הדרך. ייתן ה' וכולנו נזכה ללמוד ממנו ואכן לפעול ולעשות, ולהביא לידי גמר מוצלח התחלות חדשות שתועלנה לכלל ולפרט.

THE GREATNESS OF INNOVATION - BECHUKOSAI

BECHUKOSAI - THE GREATNESS OF INNOVATION By Yehonasan Gefen In the midst of the devastating tochacha, Hashem comforts us, saying: “And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov, and even my covenant with Yitzchak and I will even remember my covenant with Avraham.. ” The obvious question here is, why were the Avos mentioned in reverse order? Rashi, quoting the Toras Kohanim explains that the merit of Yaakov, who is the ‘smallest’ of the Avos should suffice, but if it does not, then Yitzchak’s merit should hopefully suffice, and if that is not enough, then Avraham’s great merit will surely be sufficient - thus, Yaakov is mentioned first because the Avos are mentioned in ascending order of merit. There are two ways in which we can understand the meaning of Yaakov being the ‘smallest’ of the Avos: Some translate it to mean the ‘youngest’, but a number of commentaries write that it means he is the lowest in the spiritual sense. The problem with this explanation is that Chazal tell us that Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, the only one whose progeny was completely righteous, whereas Avraham and Yitzchak had descendants who would not merit to be part of the Jewish people. Accordingly, how can we understand that Yaakov’s merit in redeeming the Jewish people from their suffering is weaker than those of Avraham and Yitzchak? It also needs to be explained why Avraham is considered greater than Yitzchak in this context. It seems that the fact that Yaakov may have been the most perfect of the Avos in terms of midos, does not necessarily mean that he had the greatest merit. Merit is derived from achievement in relation to the difficulty of one’s task - it is possible to argue that whilst Yaakov reached the highest level of the Avos, he did in fact have an easier task than his great predecessors. In what way was Yaakov’s task easier than that of Yitzchak and that of Yitzchak easier than Avraham’s? Avraham was born into a world of Avoda Zara - his great challenge was to create from nothing a whole new outlook and way of life - to begin a new epoch in history . To do such a thing constituted an incredible test, because it meant that he had to fight against all the prevalent attitudes and lifestyles and begin something on a very lowly scale and slowly and patiently develop it. Yitzchak was born into a world in which the new outlook had already been created - he did not need to mechadesh any novel life approach. However, Rav Mattisyahu Salamon Shlita writes that he did have to be mechadesh one thing - the concept of mesorah; that a son faithfully follows the guidelines set by his father . Yaakov, in contrast, did not have to begin a new religion or the concept of Mesorah - he clearly faced great challenges in his life but in this regard he seems to have had an easier task than his forebears. Thus, although Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, his merit in redeeming the people from suffering is less . Rav Salamon speaks at length about out how one of Avraham Avinu’s main strengths was his power of hischadshus - his ability to innovate . He notes that in the Rambam’s description of Avraham’s contribution to the world it he uses the word, ‘maschil’ no less than five times in quick succession . Rav Salamon writes that “Avraham was a ‘mashcil’, a person who began things. He was a revolutionary, a pioneer… He was the originator and founder of the Jewish people. Avraham was the first in everything he did. He had no father that he could follow, and thus, he was always breaking new ground. ” When trying to emulate Avraham we traditionally strive to learn from his great mida of chesed. We learn from here that his ‘koyach hahischadhus’, his ability at initiating, is also a mida that needs to be developed. The Cli Yakar also places great emphasis on the greatness of hischadshus. In Bereishis, the account of every day of the seven days of creation the Torah concludes with a description that it was ’good’ or ’very good’ with the exception of the second day. A number of explanations are given as to this anomaly - the Cli Yakar writes that nothing completely new was created on the second day, therefore, it cannot be described as ‘tov’ . It is apparent from this interpretation that something is described as good when it is associated with newness. There are a number of ways in which the ability to innovate is important in our lives. It is natural for a person to get into a habit of how he conducts his life, with regard to many aspects of his life, including his growth in Torah and midos, his relationships, and his ability to create and build. There are times when it is beneficial to step back and assess whether there is a necessity for a new approach in these areas. New approaches often provide alternative ways of dealing with situations and can meet with great success. An example of this is told over by a leading educator in the area of Shalom Bayis. There was a woman who was highly dissatisfied with her husband’s behavior and eventually decided that she wanted a divorce. This educator suggested to her, that before she take such a drastic step, she should try a new approach - she should focus completely on her own behavior and strive to be as good a wife as possible. Within a very short time of following this instruction, she saw a drastic change in her husband. Her willingness to try a new approach was the key to a huge improvement in her marriage. One of the most important areas in which the ‘koyach hahischadshus’ is so important is the creation and development of new ideas, movements, or organizations that can provide great benefit for Klal Yisroel. A tremendous example of this is that of Sara Shenirer zt”l - her idea of a Torah oriented educational structure was so revolutionary that it met with great opposition. Nonetheless, she had the vision and persistence to continue with her innovative idea and in doing so, had an incredible effect on the Jewish people. Another proof that new beginnings can be very beneficial is that the yetser hara makes it very difficult to push through with a new start , which is the reasoning behind the concept that ‘kol hashchalos kashos’ - all beginnings are difficult. As well as taking on a new approach, it is essential to be willing to see it through to the end despite the challenges that one may face in the process. Avraham Avinu may not be described as the ’greatest’ of the Avos, but in the area of hischadshus he certainly leads the way. May we all be zocheh to learn form him and make successful new beginnings when they are called for.

LIVING WITH OUR LEARNING - BECHUKOSAI

Parshas Bechukosai begins with the Torah telling us the conditions under which HaShem will provide the Jewish people with peace and sustenance. “If you will go with My decrees and observe My commandments and perform them;” The commentaries note that the verse seems repetitive in that it uses three separate clauses that seem to involve keeping the Torah – what is the difference between each clause? Rashi, quoting the Torah Kohanim that explains the first part of the verse, writes that, “If you will go with My decrees” refers to ameilus b’Torah . The second part, “and observe My commandments” builds on the first, meaning, “you should toil in Torah in order to guard and fulfill it..” This means that the Torah first tells us that in order to receive reward we must toil in Torah, but it continues that the toiling must be with the intentions of keeping the Torah. There is a significant difficulty with this explanation – it implies that there exists the concept of ‘toiling in Torah’ without intending to actually keep the Torah. This is difficult to comprehend, because the very idea of toiling suggests a deep appreciation of the importance of Torah to the extent where someone is willing to push himself in order to understand the word of G-d as expressed in the Torah. We understand that sadly there are people who study the Torah in some form but with no intention of keeping it, however their exertion falls well short of toiling, because they do not value it enough to exert themselves to such a great extent. However, with regard to a person who genuinely toils in Torah how can it be possible that a person who is willing to toil in Torah will not be interested in keeping the Torah?! The answer is that a person who puts in the effort to toil in Torah certainly must be interested in observing its commandments. The idea of toiling, but not in order to fulfill the Mitzvos, refers to something else. One can learn Torah but not recognize that the Torah he learns is supposed to change him internally as a person. Such a person fails to make the connection between his learning and his Avodas HaShem. He may well appreciate that learning Torah is a great Mitzvo but he may not take the extra step and realize that the Torah that he learns should transform his behavior in all aspects of life. This is perhaps the kind of ‘toiling’ that the Torah alludes to as not being for the sake of fulfillment. The same idea can be derived from the Mishna in Pirkei Avos that discusses different possible motivations for why a person may learn Torah: “Of one who learns in order to teach, they enable him to learn and teach: Of one who learns in order to do, they enable him to learn, teach, guard and perform.” The commentaries point out that the Mishna implies that only the one who “learns in order to do” intends to actually keep the Torah, indicating that one who learns in order to teach has no interest in keeping the Mitzvos. But if that is the case, such a person would not merit to learn and teach more. Indeed there are many sources in Chazal that one who learns with no intention of keeping the Torah is viewed in a most severe manner. One may answer in the same vein as above – the person who learns in order to teach, is surely interested in keeping the Torah, for if it were not that way then he would indeed to not be rewarded at all for his learning. Rather, the one who “learns in order to teach” does not learn in order to change himself as a person. Only the one who “learns in order to do” realizes that the Torah he learns is supposed to transform him as a person and effect all his actions. It is important to note that the concept of learning in order to change oneself is not limited to the learning of practical law. Indeed it is widely understood that the majority of one’s learning time is usually more focused on learning Gemara which is not necessarily focused on learning what to do in every situation. The point is that all forms of learning, if approached correctly, have the power to transform a person into a more refined, spiritual being. The Sfas Emes further demonstrates the centrality of this idea with a fascinating explanation of part of Birchas HaTorah . We ask HaShem, “v’haarev na HaShem, Elokeinu, es Divrei Torasecha...” This is normally translated as meaning, “please, HaShem, our G-d, make the Torah sweet….” The Sfas Emes observes that the word, ‘v’haarev’ is made up of the root letters, ayin, reish and beis, making the word ‘erev’. This can mean ‘to mix’, for example the word, ‘evening’ is ‘erev’ in hebrew – this refers to the fact that the evening is the time when the darkness begins to mix with the light. In this sense, the Sfas Emes explains that we are also asking HaShem to mix in the Torah that we learn into our beings, so that it not remain as superficial knowledge. In this vein, the Gedolim placed great emphasis on the fact that Torah should permeate a person’s being and affect his daily behavior. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was once asked why the first Mesechta (Tractate)that boys learn is often Bava Kama, which deals with the laws of damages. He explained that it is to imbue the children at an early stage of their life with sensitivity to the property of other people. Thus we see that it was obvious to Rav Feinstein that the purpose of the children’s learning was far greater than merely giving them knowledge, it was supposed to make them more thoughtful people. Sadly, a person may not make the connection between what they learn and their daily lives. On one occasion two yeshiva students came to their Rosh Yeshiva to resolve a dispute. One had borrowed a walkman from the other and, by accident it broke. They were arguing as to whether the borrower was obligated to compensate the lender. The borrower argued that since it broke by mistake he should be exempt from paying the damages. At the time the Yeshiva was learning the Gemaras that discuss these exact laws, and the Rosh Yeshiva was shocked - these two young men who had been learning about cases that were identical to their dispute and yet they were unable to take the small logical step to a real-life situation. The Rosh Yeshiva went to Rav Moshe Feinstein to ask him how this could come about. Rav Feinstein explained that these boys were subject to the above discussed malaise – they saw Torah learning as an intellectual activity that did not connect to their lives. We have seen how important it is to ensure that the Torah we bring into our heads also goes into our hearts and come out through our behavior. The first stage in succeeding in this task is simply to acknowledge that the Torah we learn should make us into different people, and to observe if this is the case. A second possible approach is that after one has learnt a piece of Torah, he should think about what this Torah taught him about how HaShem looks at the world, and to try to integrate that attitude into his own outlook. A diligent Torah student once proudly told his Rebbe that he had gone through the entire Shas . The Rebbe answered him, “but has Shas gone through you?!” May we all merit to learn and do in the way that the Torah intended.

ONAAS DEVARIM - BEHAR

BEHAR By Yehonasan Gefen On two occasions in Parshas Behar the Torah instructs us not to afflict our fellow Jew. In the first instance, the Torah states: “When you sell an item to one of your people or buy from one of your people, a man should not afflict his brother. ” A few passukim later, the Torah seemingly repeats itself: “Do not afflict your people and fear your G-d, because I am Hashem, Your G-d. ” Chazal explain that there are two different types of onaah (affliction); the first passuk refers to onaas mammon - affliction relating to money . The second relates to onaas devarim - hurting someone through words . In general Chazal do not compare two specific mitzvos and say that one is greater than another, however, in this instance they compare the two forms of onaah. Initially, one would think that onaas mammon is more severe than onaas devarim because when a person is hurt verbally he does not lose any tangible object, however when he is afflicted financially then he suffers a real loss. However, surprisingly, the Gemara says that onaas devarim is considered a greater sin than onaas mammon for three different reasons. Firstly, with regard to onaas devarim the passuk says, and you should fear your G-d” but it omits this when discussing onaas mammon. The Maharsha explains that people are more likely to notice when someone is trying to commit onaas mammon but that it is far easier to conceal one’s true intentions to harm people verbally. Someone who harms another financially is aware that people will likely recognize what he is doing but continues regardless. He shows a lack of yiras Hashem because he is unconcerned that Hashem is totally aware of his actions but he also demonstrates no fear of what people think of his actions. A person who harms people in a concealed way demonstrates that he fears people more than Hashem - he is only concerned that people not think he is a cruel person, but he is unconcerned that Hashem knows his true intentions. He is considered on a lower level than one who harms financially because he demonstrates greater concern for the opinion of other people than for Hashem . Secondly, the Gemara says that onaas mammon merely harms people’s property, whereas onaas devarim is worse because it harms someone’s very being. This particularly refers to a person’s emotional well-being - the damage done to them by a careless word can penetrate to their very essence. A frightening example of this is related by Rav Dov Brezak Shlita: He relates how a well-respected Talmid Chacham in his forties required counseling because of a traumatic childhood experience - on one occasion his mother called him ‘tamay’. That single labeling damaged him so deeply that it stayed with him for the rest of his life. This provides ample indication that harmful words can cause untold damage. The Gemara continues with a third aspect in which onaas devarim is worse than onaas mammon - if a person deceitfully extracts money from his fellow he can repair the damage by simply returning that which he unjustly took. However, when one harms someone else with words, no amount of apologizing can change the past - those words can never be taken back. It is a common occurrence in relationships, especially in marriage, that a few insensitive words have long-lasting damage and that damage can never be fully healed because those words can never be fully taken back. Perhaps a corollary of this aspect of the severity of onaas devarim is that once harmful words are spoken they can rapidly have a ‘domino effect’ whereby the consequences of these few words can be so far-reaching that it is impossible to ever undo the damage those words had done. The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, involves a situation where a few cruel words nearly had far-reaching consequences but they were averted by a few kind words: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbinic but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbinic, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim. ” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do - it caused this girl great pain and anger, and very nearly prevented her from becoming more observant. It also demonstrates how much good a few thoughtful words can do. It is very clear from the Gemara how serious the sin of onaas devarim can be, howover it is a very difficult mitzvo to observe properly - we are constantly involved in conversation with other people and it is very easy to hurt their feelings through a thoughtless statement. Moreover, because we speak so much we can forget how serious a sin it is to hurt other people’s feelings. The Chazon Ish once witnessed a man strongly rebuke his young son for moving something on Shabbos that may have been muktza. The Chazon Ish told the man that his son may have transgressed a Rabbinical mitzvo, but that the father had definitely transgressed the Torah mitzvo of onaas devarim. One technique to help be more watchful of this mitzvo is to develop the attitude that we should be just as careful in it as in all other mitzvos such as kashrus - we would never eat something without being certain that it was permitted to eat it. So too, we need to try to develop a sense of vigilance that what we are about to release from our mouth is permitted. The best way of doing this is by learning the halachos and hashkafo behind it . It is instructive to end with one final saying of the Chazon Ish - he used to remark that one of the greatest possible sources of joy is that he lived his whole life without causing pain to his fellow Jew - may we all be zocheh to only do good with our speech..

PREVENTATIVE ACTION - BEHAR

BEHAR - PREVENTATIVE ACTION By Yehonasan Gefen "If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him - the convert and the resident - so that he can live with you. " Don't let him go down and fall, and then it will be hard to stand him up, rather strengthen him from the time he stretches out his hand. To what is this similar - to a burden that is on a donkey; whilst it is on the donkey one man can support it and keep it up, but if it falls to the ground, even five men cannot raise it back up (Rashi)." When a person begins a downward spiral towards poverty, the Torah instructs us to prevent his fall before he has nothing. As Rashi explains, it is far easier to help him whilst he still has something rather than to wait until he is penniless. It seems that we can derive from here an important life principle that is not restricted to giving charity. The Sefer, Zichron Meir writes that whilst preventative action is important in gashmius, it is essential in the realm of ruchnius. When a burden falls from a donkey, five men are required to put it back on, but when one falls spiritually, perhaps a hundred people cannot prevent the fall! He further points out that this principle applies to ones own spiritual standing. It is far easier to remove a negative aspect of behavior at its root than when it is well developed. He likens this to a sickness which is easy to cure if it is discovered early, but if it is left unattended, it may spread too far to remove it . There seem to be two areas in which it is particularly crucial to work on at an early stage, in order to avoid insurmountable challenges later in life; Chinuch (parenting) and Shalom Bayis (peace in the home ). An easy way of addressing these areas is by studying the Torah approach towards them. A person may feel that he is able to deal with any possible challenges by using his common sense. Rav Noach Weinberg zt"l demonstrates the serious error in this attitude. He notes that people routinely spend many years studying in order to pursue a particular career. They recognize the need to be suitably qualified in their chosen field. Most people (hopefully) would agree that their marriage and family life are more important than their career. Nonetheless they expect to ably navigate the numerous challenges that they will face in these areas without investing time to learn more about them. Simply observing the world around us teaches us that having a successful marriage is no easy task - the divorce rate in the secular world is very high and sadly the figures seem to be rising in the Torah world. Similarly, the countless stories of children leaving Yiddishkeit prove that being a good parent is no easy task. A parent who decides how to bring up his (or her) child purely according to his own beliefs is at risk of making damaging mistakes that could easily be avoided by seeking Daas Torah . Rav Dov Brezak Shilta, a well-known expert in chinuch offers a striking example of this sad phenomenon. He discusses a boy who had totally rejected his parents' lifestyle and was no longer religious. He writes that; "when told that his son does not even pray, this boy's father expressed his amazement. 'I put so much into my son's praying. How do you explain the fact that, in spite of all my efforts, I did not succeed?' The father then proceeded to describe how he had 'taught' his son to pray. 'I was always careful that he should come with me to minyan and sit next to me. During the prayers I didn't even allow myself the luxury of concentrating on my own prayers, for I kept my eye constantly on my son. I made sure that he was following the place in his siddur, and if he would start daydreaming I would immediately step in to make sure that he would get right back to praying.' This very question was presented to the boy himself. His bitter response was: 'There's nothing that I hate so much as praying. I've waited years for the day when I would be old enough to be able to stop praying. Just walking into the shul building gives me a bad feeling. I think it's because my father was so hard on me about praying that it became such an unbearable burden. " One of the striking facts about this sad story is how the father was so convinced that his approach was correct. He had absolutely no idea that it was this approach itself that drove his son away from prayer and Judaism. It is quite possible that had he, at an early stage, asked Daas Torah about how to educate his son in prayer, then he could have realized the potential damage that his chosen method could cause. Similarly, basic mistakes in marriage can be avoided by attending shiurim, reading books, and speaking to one's Rebbe or Rebbetsin about their issues. It is essential to strive to identify and address difficulties in marriage at an early stage. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a couple to finally go for counseling when their problems are too deep-rooted to be fixed. This lesson also applies to people who have been married and have had children for many years. A person who is already married can nevertheless begin to increase the time and effort he invests into his marriage. Moreover, new challenges often emerge after many years of marriage that require renewed study in order to be dealt with properly. Similarly, a person who is not married or has no children can nevertheless begin preparing himself for marriage and chinuch before he enters these stages in life. As well as studying the appropriate areas he can work on his character traits many years before, making him more able to face future challenges. We learn from the Parsha that helping someone before they have fallen is far easier than raising them back up after they have nothing. We saw that this principle applies in all areas of life; whether in marriage, chinuch or any other area. By facing challenges at an early stage, one can avoid insurmountable difficulties later in life.

GIVING WITH DIGNITY - BEHAR

BEHAR – GIVING WITH DIGNITY By Yehonasan Gefen In a number of places in the Torah, we are instructed to give charity to the poor. One of those exhortations is in Parshas Behar: “If your brother becomes impoverished, and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him – proselyte or resident – so that he can live with you.” The commentaries explain that this particular verse is focusing on giving to a person who has begun to lose his financial independence, but is not yet on the level of being a fully fledged ani (poor person). The Torah specifically exhorts us to give to this kind of person, to the extent that some commentaries write that there is a specific Mitzvo in and of itself to give to a person who is on the way to becoming poor. The Rambam in his outline of the laws of giving charity, writes that there are eight different levels of giving charity, and the highest form is giving to a person in such a way that he won’t need to continually rely on charity, rather he will become independent. His source is the words in Behar. “and you shall strengthen him”. The Beis Yosef elaborates as to why this is the highest form of charity; he explains that giving to someone in such a way that enables him to be independent is of such great value because the recipient is not embarrassed by the help he is receiving. This is mainly because he does not see himself as taking a handout. We know that it is human nature that we want to earn our own livelihood, and that we lose our sense of dignity when we are forced to receive gifts. Therefore, giving in such a way that the recipient does not feel this lack of dignity is considered to be a great feat, over and above the actual giving in and of itself. We learn from here an important lesson in all forms of charity and chesed: It is of the highest import to ensure that the recipient feel the minimum amount of embarrassment about the fact that he is being given something. Indeed, the highest level would be to try to ensure that the recipient does not feel that he is being helped at all, rather he is in some way helping the giver! This idea is brought out by a novel interpretation of a difficult Gemara. The Gemara comments that if a person says, "I will give this coin to charity so that my son will live," meaning, specifically so that the merit of this Mitzva will restore the health of his seriously ill son, such a man is a "Tzadik Gamur" - an exceptionally righteous person. Many commentators ask why such a person, who explicitly performs this Mitzva with ulterior motives in mind, earns this laudatory description. Rav Mordechai Banet zt”l explains, derech drush, that the Gemara refers to an individual who gives charity and wants to ensure that the recipient will not feel any shame in accepting his donation. He therefore tells the pauper that to the contrary, he - the donor - benefits from this charitable donation, because he has a sick child who may likely be cured in the merit of this Mitzva. The Gemara teaches that such a person, who devises a method of giving charity while avoiding humiliation on the part of the impoverished recipient, is a "Tzadik Gamur" - an exceptionally pious individual. In this vein, the story is told of a man who purchased stacks of wood and placed them in his porch in the front of his house. When he would meet a poor person, he would hire him to move the wood for him to the back of the house; when he would then come upon another person in need, he would hire him to move the stacks back to the porch. In this way, he provided financial assistance to those who so desperately needed it, while ensuring to preserve their dignity by having them feel that they earned the money, rather than receiving a handout. It is not always possible to make the receiver feel like he is in fact the giver, however it is always essential to try to maintain the dignity of the recipient as much as possible. One of the great baalei chesed of recent years who excelled in this area was Rav Zalman Ashkenazi zt”l. He single handedly created the organization Mesamchei Lev, through which thousands of poor people received food and clothing. He was responsible for the distribution of 62,000 pairs of shoes, 30,000 pounds of matzo, and 4,000 cases of wine before Pesach; 300,000 pounds of meat and poultry before Yamim Noraim; close to 500 mishloach manos baskets to widows and widowers, each containing an envelope with money before Pesach; and he helped fund dozens of weddings for orphaned brides and grooms each year. However, he was not satisfied with the fact that he was providing so much physical aid. He was always highly concerned that the recipients maintain their dignity. Despite trying to remain hidden, when he was identified by recipients, the only thing he would ask is, “Is it dignified enough; It’s not demeaning?” We have seen how giving in such a way that the beneficiary maintains his self-respect is so important that giving that fits that category is considered the highest form of charity. May we all merit to be able to give the needy, but let them not feel like they are takers.