Parachat Bo – La réflexion

L’un des aspects les plus caractéristiques de l’épisode des dix plaies reste le refus obstiné de Pharaon d’admettre qu’il s’était comporté de façon erronée et d’accepter que le D. des Juifs était bien tout-puissant. Tous les miracles ne parvinrent pas à le convaincre de la véracité des allégations de Moché Rabbénou qui affirmait être l’envoyé d’Hachem et pas simplement un bon sorcier. Durant les cinq premières plaies, il refusa de libérer les Juifs, et ce, de plein gré. Mais pendant la deuxième série de plaies, il aurait bien renvoyé le peuple juif, si Hachem n’avait pas endurci son cœur. Le Seforno explique que ce ne sont toutefois pas les plaies qui provoquèrent la techouva de Pharaon, et qui le firent reconnaître la grandeur d’Hachem, mais c’est plutôt son incapacité à supporter des plaies supplémentaires qui aurait permis aux Bné Israël de sortir d’Égypte. Ainsi, l’endurcissement de son cœur par Hachem lui donna la force de surmonter sa peur naturelle et de prendre une décision délibérée et « rationnelle » de continuer à rejeter les demandes de Moché. L’obstination singulière et déraisonnable de Pharaon suscita l’étonnement du rav Aharon Bakst zatsal, le Roch Yéchiva de Lomza. Il avait l’habitude de donner un cours de moussar (morale) chez lui, chaque vendredi soir. Une fois, ses disciples arrivèrent et furent surpris de le voir faire les cent pas dans sa chambre, se demandant : « Quel était le raisonnement de Pharaon devant tous ces miracles qui se produisirent sous ses yeux ? » Soudain, il interrompit ses allers-retours, se tourna vers ses talmidim (élèves) et expliqua : « Il n’a pas du tout réfléchi ! Ce n’est qu’un manque de réflexion qui peut pousser une personne à négliger de si grands miracles sans que cela n’influe sur sa vie le moins du monde ! » Cette explication sur le comportement illogique de Pharaon nous permet de comprendre pourquoi certaines personnes ne parviennent parfois pas à évoluer lorsqu’ils vivent des moments forts. Elles peuvent admettre que des miracles se sont produits, mais elles ne se penchent pas sur leurs conséquences. Prenons comme exemple, la réaction des gens suite aux miracles manifestes de la Guerre du Golfe, durant laquelle 39 missiles « scuds » ne tuèrent qu’une seule personne ! Its’hak Rabin avoua que le peuple juif avait clairement vu la Main de D. Pourtant, le rav David Orlofsky chlita fait remarquer que l’on n’a pas perçu de changement quelconque dans le mode de vie de Rabin ; il ne se mit pas à porter les tefillin ou à observer les mitsvot. Comment raisonna-t-il ? Il a clairement vu la Main de D. qui protégeait le peuple juif, mais ne changea pas pour autant ! En vérité, comme le répond le rav Bakst, il n’a pas réfléchi ! S’il avait médité, en toute bonne foi, sur ces phénomènes exceptionnels, il aurait certainement changé, d’une certaine façon. Le rav David Kaplan chlita rapporte une autre illustration remarquable de ce phénomène. Le rav Yé’hezkel Levinstein zatsal voyageait dans un taxi conduit par un ‘hiloni (personne non pratiquante). Le chauffeur raconta au rav l’histoire suivante. Quelques années auparavant, il avait voyagé dans les jungles d’Afrique avec quelques amis. Soudain, un serpent attaqua l’un d’entre eux, s’enroula autour de son corps et l’étouffa presque. Après de nombreux efforts concertés pour tenter de sauver leur ami, les autres compagnons comprirent qu’il n’y avait aucun espoir, et lui conseillèrent donc de réciter le chéma avant qu’il ne quitte ce monde. Le condamné s’empressa de dire le chéma et le serpent se déroula immédiatement et s’éloigna. Cet homme, qui eut la vie sauve, fut profondément affecté par cet incident et revint progressivement au judaïsme. Il est à présent un Juif pratiquant. En entendant comment cet événement changea si radicalement la vie son ami, le rav ‘Hazkel se tourna vers le chauffeur et lui demanda pourquoi il n’avait pas, lui aussi, évolué suite à ce miracle, ce à quoi le chauffeur répondit : « Oh, non ; cela ne m’est pas arrivé personnellement, c’est à lui que c’est arrivé . » Le chauffeur assista à un événement extraordinaire, susceptible de lui changer la vie, mais il n’évolua pas ; pourquoi ? Parce qu’il n’y a pas réfléchi, il n’a pas permis à ce miracle de le pénétrer et de l’aider à décider quelle direction prendre dans sa vie et ce prodige n’a donc pas pu avoir les conséquences escomptées. Il est également intéressant de remarquer que son ami, le sujet du miracle, changea – parfois, un événement est si fort que la personne qui le vit ne peut s’empêcher d’y penser et ce phénomène influe donc sur sa vie. Mais, souvent, nous ne sommes pas les objets du miracle et il nous faut donc déployer bien plus d’efforts de réflexion et songer aux conséquences des événements auxquels nous assistons et dont nous entendons parler. Dans l’histoire récente, nous avons assisté à des événements tels que la guerre de Gaza qui fut une manifestation claire de la Main d’Hachem. Pendant et peu après cette opération, les Rabbanim rapportèrent plusieurs miracles qui se produisirent alors. Aussi, des personnes remarquèrent que de nombreux missiles lancés sur Israël n’eurent, par miracle, que des conséquences minimes. Notre avoda (travail) est de laisser ces événements pénétrer dans nos vies – il faut travailler sur notre perception et notre croyance en la présence d’Hachem dans le monde et dans notre vie, réfléchir aux messages qu’Hachem nous transmet et tâcher d’évoluer et de grandir. Pour progresser, conséquemment au monde qui nous entoure, il faut commencer par prendre leçon de Pharaon et « réfléchir » — permettre aux événements qui surviennent dans le monde en général, et dans nos vies privées, d’analyser la situation et d’évoluer de manière adéquate. Puissions-nous tous mériter de « réfléchir » sur ce qui se passe autour de nous.

Глава БО - По Комментариям Раши - Фараон и Авраам

ШМОТ 12:29-30 "В полночь поразил Господь всех первенцев в земле египетской, от первенца фараона, восседающего на престоле, до первенца пленника в тюремной яме, и всех первенцев скота. Фараон встал той ночью - он сам, все его рабы и все египтяне, - и поднялся великий вопль по [всему] Египту, так как не было дома, где бы не было мертвеца." Раши 12:30 Фараон встал той ночью: "С постели своей" Моше Рабейну предупредил фараона, что после 9-ой казни, наступит самая страшная - смерть каждого первенца Египта. Когда обещание было исполнено, Тора делает чрезмерный акцент на том, что фараон "встал той ночью", а Раши указывает, что фараон встал "с постели своей". Эта якобы безобидная деталь показывает нам урок, который мы можем выучить из поведения фараона. "Сифтей Цадик" объясняет, что Тора подчеркивает удивительную упрямость этого злого человека. Моше абсолютно правильно предсказал время и суть 9-ти казней, поэтому фараон должен был взволноваться, когда услышал, что все первенцы Египта погибнут, ведь он сам был первенцем! Но он был настолько уверен, что ничего не произойдет, что спокойно заснул в ту ночь глубоким мирным сном! Этот инцидент дает нам еще один пример извращенного рассуждения фараона - он постоянно препятствовал логическому осмыслению событий, которое бы бесспорно заставило его (мягко говоря) задуматься над самым новым предсказанием Моше. Каким-то неведомым образом он сумел отречься от логики и действительно рассудить, что ничего не произойдет - это и дало ему возможность спокойно спать, пока он не был грубо разбужен. В Торе описывается аналогичная ситуация, когда еще один человек смог заснуть крепким сном, не смотря на то, что любой другой в его ситуации не смог бы: это был Авраам Авину. Всевышний скомандовал ему принести в жертву его любимого сына: Ицхака Авину: Тора говорит нам, что Авраам встал рано тем утром, чтобы совершить то, что ему сказал Б-г. Единственное затруднение заключается в том, что подобно фараону, Авраам спал спокойно в ту ночь. На рассмотрение - даже самые сильные из нас не смогли бы даже заснуть перед тем, как совершить такой трудный поступок; мы бы провели всю ночь в волнении и молитве, но Авраам заснул. Но если пример фараона только подтверждает его ничтожество, пример Авраама напоминает нам об его непостижимом величестве. Он не понимал, почему Всевышний приказал ему принести в жертву Ицхака, хотя обещал Аврааму, что сын получит его духовное наследство. Несмотря ни на что, у него было абсолютное "Менуха Ханефеш" (спокойствие), потому что он настолько верил в то, что Всевышний - всемогущий и всесильный. Таким образом он и сумел заснуть, как ни в чем не бывало. Фараон учит нас нелогичному сопротивлению событиям, которое дало ему возможность заснуть перед предстоящей катастрофой. Из его негативного примера мы видим последствия невнимания к тому, что доносит до нас Всевышний, будь то чудесное вмешательство ради спасения евреев от врагов или личное указание на то, чтобы мы изменились в лучшую сторону. Мы все имеем немного от негативной черты характера фараона и зачастую не меняем себя или свои действия не смотря на то, что происходит вокруг нас. С Б-жьей помощью, крайний пример фараона поможет заметить данную черту в нас самих и стать более чуткими к общению со Всевышним. С другой стороны, мы имеем прекрасный пример Авраама: в ситуации, когда человек не может ничего изменить, ему обязательно иметь признательность за все, что делает Всевышний.

בא – חשיבה

אחת הנקודות הבולטות ביותר בעניין עשר המכות היא סירובו העקשני של פרעה להכיר בטעותו ולהבין שה' הוא האלוקים, בעל הכוחות כולם. למול עיניו התחוללו ניסים בזה אחר זה, ובכל זאת הוא לא השתכנע בהיות משה רבינו שליח ה', ולא רק קוסם ומכשף חלילה. בחמשת המכות הראשונות פרעה סירב להוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים מתוך שליטה מוחלטת ובחירה חופשית. בחמשת המכות הבאות הוא היה מסכים לשלוח אותם, אלא שאז הכביד הקב"ה את ליבו, והוא לא שלחם. הספורנו מסביר על כך שאם היה מוציא אותם בעקבות המכות, לא היה זה מתוך תשובה אמיתית והכרה בגדלות ה', אלא מכיוון שלא היה יכול לסבול יותר את המכות הקשות. לכן, בכך שה' הכביד את ליבו, ניתנה לו בעצם זכות הבחירה החופשית לפי הרצון האמיתי שהיה בו, למרות הפחד הטבעי מהמכות. סירובו העקשן להוציאם היה בעצם בחירה חופשית טהורה, ללא השפעות חיצוניות . עקשנות זו של פרעה, שנראית על-אנושית לחלוטין, הפליאה מאד את ר' אהרן בקשט זצ"ל, ראש ישיבת לומזה. הוא היה רגיל לתת "שמועס" (שיעור מוסר) בביתו בכל ליל שבת. באחת הפעמים תלמידיו נכנסו לביתו ונדהמו לראותו מסתובב הלוך ושוב בחדר, תוך שהוא ממלמל לעצמו: "מה חשב פרעה כשראה כאלה ניסים עצומים למול עיניו?!" לפתע הוא הפסיק ללכת, פנה לתלמידיו והסביר, "הוא לא חשב בכלל! רק אדם שנמנע כליל מחשיבה מסוגל להגיע להתעלמות מניסים כאלה, ולאטום את עצמו לחלוטין מכל השפעה שהיא על אישיותו!" הסבר זה של התנהגותו חסרת ההיגיון של פרעה שופכת אור על שאלה כללית, מדוע גם חוויות גדולות ומשמעותיות מאד לא גורמות תמיד לשינוי אצל האדם. ייתכן אפילו מצב בו מזהה האדם שנעשה לו נס עצום אולם הוא לא ממשיך להסיק מסקנות אישיות מהאירוע. דוגמא לכך היו התגובות לנס הגלוי שהיה במלחמת המפרץ, כאשר 39 טילי סקאד נפלו בארץ, והתוצאה היתה – הרוג אחד ! יצחק רבין אז הודה בפה מלא שעם ישראל ראה פנים מול פנים את יד ה'. עם זאת, מציין ר' דוד אורלופסקי שליט"א, אותו יצחק רבין לא שינה ולא כלום בחייו בעקבות כך, הוא לא התחיל להניח תפילין, או לקיים מצוות. והשאלה היא, מה הוא חשב אז?! הוא ראה בבירור את יד ה', ראה כיצד לא ינום ולא יישן שומר ישראל, ובכל זאת – כלום לא השתנה בו! התשובה לכך מונחת בהסברו של הרב בקשט – הוא לא חשב! אם היה חושב בכנות ובאמת על הניסים העצומים שראה מול עיניו – ללא ספק משהו בו היה משתנה. דוגמא נוספת לרעיון זה, מספר ר' דוד קפלן שליט"א: ר' חצק'ל לוינשטין זצ"ל נסע פעם במונית עם נהג חילוני. אותו נהג סיפר לר' חצק'ל סיפור מופלא: מספר שנים קודם לכן הוא טייל ביערות אפריקה עם כמה חברים. לפתע הגיע נחש ותקף אחד מהם, הוא כרך את כל גופו הגדול סביבו, ועוד דקות מעטות היה חונק אותו למוות. לאחר שכל מאמציהם להצילו עלו בתהו, הם אמרו לו להגיד שמע ישראל לפני שנפטר מן העולם. הוא מיהר לומר שמע ישראל, ומיד לאחר מכן הנחש ירד מגופו והלך. אותו אדם שחייו ניצלו, הושפע עמוקות מאותו מעשה, ובהדרגה חזר למקורותיו. כיום הוא שומר תורה ומצוות ומקפיד על קלה כבחמורה. כששמע ר' חצק'ל כיצד אותו מאורע שינה באופן כה קיצוני את חייו של החבר, הוא שאל את הנהג למה הוא לא השתנה כתוצאה מהנס. והנהג הסביר, "אה, לא, זה לא אירע לי, זה אירע לו" . בתקופה האחרונה גם אנו היינו עדים למאורעות פלאיים, כמו המלחמה בדרום בה התרחשו ניסים גלויים, וראו באופן ברור ומוחש את יד ה'. במשך המלחמה ולאחריה סופרו סיפורים רבים מאד של ניסים עצומים שהיו שם. רבים אף ציינו את העובדה שמספר הקטיושות שנפלו בארץ הוא ללא השוואה כלל למספר ההרוגים, ואין כל הסבר מלבד נס משמים למספר הקטן של ההרוגים מכמות כזו של קטיושות. התפקיד שלנו הוא לקחת מאורעות כאלה ובעקבותיהם לחשוב שוב על חיינו – לחדש את הכרתנו המלאה במציאות ה' בעולם, ובהשגחתו הפרטית על חיינו; לחשוב איזה מסר רצה הקב"ה להעביר אלינו בכך; ולהחליט במה ניתן להשתנות, להשתפר ולעלות. הצעד הראשון של שינוי בעקבות הקורות אותנו הוא ללמוד את הלימוד מפרעה ו"לחשוב". להשתמש במאורעות הגדולים בעולם, כמו גם באלה הקטנים המתרחשים בחיינו הפרטיים, ובעקבותיהם לעשות שינויים נצרכים בכל סגנון החיים שלנו. מי ייתן ונזכה להתבונן תמיד, ו"לחשוב" על המתרחש בסביבתנו.

BO – THE THIRD STAGE OF REDEMPTION

Parshas Bo describes the final three Plagues and the events that led up to the Jewish people finally leaving Egypt. Chazal tell us that there were four stages of the Redemption from Egypt. This is based on the verse in Va’eira, where HaShem tells Moshe Rabbeinu, “I will take you out (hotseisi) from the suffering of Egypt; and I will save you (hitsalti) from your slavery; and I will redeem you (goalti) with a strong arm and with great judgments. And I will take you to me (lakachti) as a nation and I will be a G-d to you…” The commentaries explain that the first two stages represented the stages of freedom from the actual slavery, whereas the third signified the actual leaving Egypt. It was at the fourth stage, that of lakachti, that the Jewish people became the ‘Am HaShem’ (the nation of HaShem). The fourth stage culminated in the Giving of the Torah , however it seems that the process of becoming the Am HaShem began whilst the Jewish people were still in Egypt. We see this from the fact that the first Mitzvos commanded to the people as a nation were given in Parshas Bo. Furthermore, the Mitzvo of the Korban Pesach (pascal lamb) that is found in this week’s Parsha, symbolized the Jewish people’s acceptance of the covenant between them as a Nation with HaShem. There is a very interesting aspect of the transition between the third and fourth stages of Redemption. This is brought out by a law that is found with regard to the Four Cups of Wine that we have on Seder night, which correspond the four stages of Redemption. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one may not drink between the third and fourth cups of wine. This implies that there is a necessity for these two cups to be connected to each other, without having anything separating between them. There are halachic (legal) reasons given for this law, however, perhaps one can suggest a hashkafic (philosophical) explanation. It is possible to say that it was essential that the fourth stage of the Redemption take place immediately after the third stage, without any hefsek (interruption) in between. Why is this the case? The third stage of goalti, saw the Jewish people completely freeing themselves from being slaves to Pharaoh. However, once they were free of this avdus (service), there was the risk that they would be left in a vacuum without having anyone to serve. This would have been a very dangerous situation, because it seems to be inherent in human nature that man needs to serve and look up to some kind of being or entity. Therefore, it was essential that the Jewish people immediately replace Pharaoh as their focus of service, with, lehavdil, HaShem. That is why HaShem gave them Mitzvos that initiated their relationship with Him even before they left Egypt. As soon as they physically left, they had already begun the process of becoming HaShem’s nation. Accordingly, the law that there can be no gap between the third and fourth cups of wine is symbolic of the fact that there could be no gap between the third and fourth stages of redemption which they correspond to. The stage of leaving the service of Pharaoh had to be immediately followed by the beginning of the service of HaShem. An important concept that can be derived from this explanation is that the desire to serve something is inherent in human nature. This has certainly been evident in the vast majority of world history. Until a few hundred years ago, the idea of atheism was virtually unheard of - everyone worshipped one, or more often, many, entities. It was self-understood that there were powers in the world who people had to serve. We see from the necessity of the immediate transition from slaves of Pharaoh to servants of HaShem, that an absence of a figure of service was very dangerous to a person’s psyche. Based on all this, it is instructive to analyze how, in more recent times, it seems that people have gladly released themselves of the yoke of service to anything. Where do we see a manifestation of this desire to not serve anyone discussed in Torah sources? The answer to this can be found in the words of Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l with regard to one particularly abhorrent form of idol worship – that of Baal Peor. There are a number of strange aspects of Baal Peor. One is its form of worship – its worshippers would perform disgusting acts in front of the idol, and the more disgusting the act, the more praiseworthy was the form of worship. Moreover, this form of worship was one that the Jewish people seemed particularly prone to, as was seen in the tragic incident at the end of Parshas Balak where thousands of Jew worshipped Baal Peor. What is the nature of this idol? Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the very essence of Baal Peor was the desire to not be subjugated to any being or power, and as a consequence of this ‘freedom’ to be able to break all boundaries that come with subjugation to a higher source. All other worshippers recognized the need to respect and honor the focus of worship, however worshippers of Baal Peor strived to uproot the human impulse of genuine service and replace it with degradation of authority. Accordingly, the more disrespectful the act, the greater the form of ‘worship’! Based on Rav Shmuelevitz’ explanation it seems that worshippers of Baal Peor were trying to uproot the natural human impulse of worship and direct it to ‘worship’ of the idea that one can do whatever they want. With this understanding we can explain an enigmatic Gemara about Baal Peor. The Gemara in Sanhedrin tells us about a non-Jewish woman who was very sick. She made an oath that if she recovered she would worship every idol in the world. She did indeed recover and kept to her oath. When she came to Baal Peor she was told how to worship it. When she heard about this, she said, in disdain, that it would have been better to become sick again rather than worship an idol in such a disgusting fashion. It is understandable that she found the form of worship abhorrent, but why was her reaction so strong? It seems that she had the desire of most people to serve a higher force. Therefore, she was willing to serve every ‘force’ in the world. However, when she heard about Baal Peor, she recognized the whole foundation of Baal Peor was in complete contradistinction to the concept of service. Its whole essence was the idea that one need not serve anyone, and one can do whatever he likes. She found this attitude so abhorrent that she preferred to be sick than involve herself in such worship. It seems that the atheism of recent centuries is also ultimately rooted in the same attitude of Baal Peor. Whilst its adherents may claim that their views are based on philosophy, there are times when they admit that the true reason for their atheism is to permit themselves to live lifestyles that were unhindered by religion. Whilst Idol worship is obviously completely wrong and greatly criticized by the Torah, a number of Torah thinkers have noted that atheism is both more disdainful and more dangerous than idol worship. One reason for this is that someone who worships idols at least recognizes the need to serve something. Therefore, it is not a big leap for him to shift from service of false gods to that of the true G-d. However, one who believes in nothing is much further away from accepting the yoke of service to anything. We noted before, that the Jewish people were particularly susceptible to Baal Peor. It seems that it was this type of worship that proved most enticing to the Jewish people – the reason for this is that the yetser hara would strive to make them feel hindered by the yoke of service of HaShem and tempt them with a belief system that allowed them to break all boundaries. We all face this test in our lives – there are numerous temptations that give us the opportunity to feel ‘free’ of the ‘burden’, however we must realize that the only source of true fulfillment is pure service of HaShem. As Chazal teach us, the only true freedom is that which comes from following the Torah.

BO - LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES

Parshas Bo sees the culmination of the ten plagues which devestated Mitzrayim. However, Chazal tell us that during the Plague of Darkness, the Jewish people suffered terrible losses; Rashi cites the opinion that four fifths died and only one fifth remained . The Mechilta that Rashi quotes actually brings two other opinions as to what proportion of the Jews were killed; one holds that only one fiftieth survived, and another holds that only one five hundredth were left. Rav Shimon Shwab zt”l cites a number of problems with the literal understanding of this Medrash . Firstly, according to the two later opinions, there were 30 million or 300 million Jews in Mitzrayim before the plagues. It is very hard to fathom that there were this many Jews there. Secondly, according to all the shitas, millions of Jews were killed and consequently this single disaster was far greater than all the plagues that the Mitzrim suffered, Rav Shwab also finds this very difficult to accept. Thirdly, he quotes Rashi that they died and were buried during the darkness so that the Mitzrim would not see that so many Jews died. He argues that if we accept this Medrash literally that millions died, then surely the Mitzrim would have noticed such significant loss. Because of these problems Rav Shwab says that the Medrash should not be understood literally - rather only a relatively small number died, but had they lived they would have given birth to millions of people over several generations. The three opinions are arguing about how many descendants would have come from those that died. He suggests that perhaps all they disagree about is how to make an accounting of the survivors - one holds that we measure up to a certain point in time such as the building of the Beis HaMikdash, and another measures to a later point and consequently there are more descendants over that longer period. He compares this interpretation to the Gemara which discusses the aftermath of the murder of Hevel. Hashem tells Kayin that, “the bloods of your brother are crying out to Me from the ground. ” The Gemara says that not only Hevel’s blood was crying out - so too were all his potential descendants who would now never attain life. Kayin did not just murder one man, he destroyed millions of lives through his single heinous act. Rav Shwab cites the recent tragic example of this concept in the Holocaust. He says that the Nazis did not kill six million people, rather they murdered untold millions in the form of their descendants who will never live. So too, the tragedy of the death of the Jews in Mitzrayim was to be its long-term effect - only a small number may have died then, but over the generations, millions were lost. Rav Shwab’s pshat provides a whole new perspective to this death of the Jews in Mitzrayim. We know that the reason they died is because they were not on the level to leave Mitzrayim and become part of the Am Hashem. Rav Shwab argues that these people must have been complete reshaim to have to meet such an end. Based on the fact that they were relatively small in number and were so evil, it seems surprising that the Medrash gives so much emphasis to the long-term consequence of their death. We see from here that the loss of any Jew is cause for unlimited pain, no matter how far he is from Yiddishkeit. Moreover it is very likely that righteous people would descend from him and they are lost forever. The Torah tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu demonstrated his awareness of this concept; when he saw a Mitzri striking a Jew, the passuk says that, “he looked this way and that way but saw no man. ” Rashi explains that Moshe looked into the future to see if any convert would descend from this Mitzri. Moshe knew that killing him would have long-term consequences and acted accordingly. If Chazal see such a tragedy in the deaths of a few reshaim how must we feel when we look at the situation in Klal Yisroel today? We live in a world where there are very few genuinely ‘evil’ Jews - people who purposely turn their back on Torah. There are millions of Jews who, through no fault of their own, were brought up with no knowledge of Torah and very little sense of the importance of being Jewish. Every day, dozens of Jews intermarry, and their Jewish descendants are lost forever. Some people argue that despite the intermarriage rates, we know that the Jews will never be wiped out and Mashiach will come, consequently there is no need to be so alarmed at the current trend. This attitude is severely mistaken - the reason that we should mekarev secular Jews is not to prevent the destruction of Klal Yisroel - there is no fear of that happening. But we want to give every Jew and his potential descendants the chance to remain part of Klal Yisroel so that they too can be present at the geulah. We have seen how significant a relatively small event can be over the course of a long period of time. Moshe Rabbeinu demonstrated his awareness of this concept; when he saw a Mitzri striking a Jew, the passuk says that, “he looked this way and that way but saw no man. ” Rashi explains that Moshe looked into the future to see if any convert would descend from this Mitzri. Moshe knew that killing him would have long-term consequences and acted accordingly. More recently, Rav Shlomo Heimann zt”l recognized this to a very high degree; he gave a shiur to dozens of talmidim which was characterized by his energetic style.. One day there was heavy snow and only four talmidim attended the shiur, yet Rav Heimann gave the shiur with the same energy as always. His talmidim asked him why he was putting so much effort into teaching such a small number of people. He answered that he was not merely teaching four students, rather all their future descendants and talmidim. May we too be zocheh to live with an awareness of the long-term effects of our actions.

Pensar - Bo

Uno de los aspectos más distintivos de las Diez Plagas fue la persistente negación del Faraón a reconocer el error de su accionar y aceptar que el Dios de los judíos era realmente Todopoderoso. La sucesión de milagros no lograron persuadirlo de que Moshé era en realidad el mensajero de Dios y no sólo un hechicero experto. Durante las primeras cinco plagas, el Faraón se rehusó a liberar a los judíos mientras estaba en absoluto control de su libre albedrío. En las segundas cinco plagas, él habría dejado en libertad a los judíos de no haber sido porque Dios endureció su corazón. El Sforno explica, sin embargo, que esto no quiere decir que las plagas habrían causado que el Faraón se arrepintiera y reconociera la grandeza de Dios. Él habría permitido que los judíos se marcharan ya que no habría podido soportar más plagas. Consecuentemente Dios, al endurecerle el corazón, le dio la fortaleza para superar su temor natural y le permitió así poder decidir si rehusarse o no al pedido de Moshé mediante el uso de su libre albedrío (1). A Rav Aharón Bakst, Rosh Ieshivá de Lomza, le llamó mucho la atención la aparentemente sobrehumana terquedad del Faraón. Rav Bakst solía dar una clase en su casa los viernes por la noche después de la cena. En una ocasión, sus estudiantes entraron a su casa y se sorprendieron al verlo caminando de un lado a otro por la habitación hablando solo: “¿En qué estaba pensando el Faraón después de ver todos esos milagros con sus propios ojos?”. De repente, dejó de caminar, giró hacia los estudiantes y explicó: “¡Simplemente no estaba pensando! ¡Una persona sólo puede ignorar milagros tan impresionantes sin que lo influyan en lo más mínimo si no está pensando! (2)”. Esta explicación del ilógico comportamiento del Faraón nos ayuda a entender por qué la gente no cambia después de vivir eventos impactantes. Puede que las personas incluso reconozcan que ocurrieron milagros, pero no piensan en sus consecuencias. Un ejemplo de esto fue la reacción de los israelíes ante los milagros abiertos de la Guerra del Golfo, en la que 39 misiles scud mataron sólo a una persona (3). Mucha gente reconoció que el país claramente había atestiguado la mano de Dios. Sin embargo, no necesariamente actuaron en base a esta nueva consciencia de la Providencia Divina. Uno podría preguntarse, ¿en qué estaba pensando esa gente?; ¡Claramente habían visto la mano de Dios protegiendo al pueblo judío y sin embargo no cambiaron! La respuesta está justamente en la explicación de Rav Bakst: No pensaron. Si la persona hubiera reflexionado seriamente sobre los increíbles eventos que ocurrieron, seguramente habría cambiado de alguna forma. Rav David Kaplan cuenta sobre otra sorprendente ilustración de este fenómeno. Rav Iejezkel Levenstein estaba viajando en un taxi cuyo conductor era secular, el cual le contó la siguiente historia: “Hace muchos años, estuve viajando en las junglas de África con algunos amigos. De repente, una serpiente atacó a uno de mis amigos, envolvió su voluminoso cuerpo alrededor de él y comenzó a sofocarlo. Después de varios esfuerzos nos dimos cuenta que no teníamos chance alguna de salvarlo, por lo que le sugerimos a nuestro amigo que dijera el Shemá antes de morir. Él lo dijo con presteza y la serpiente inmediatamente se desenrolló y se fue. Mi amigo, que había sido salvado milagrosamente, se vio profundamente afectado por este evento y gradualmente volvió al judaísmo hasta ser completamente observante”. Luego de escuchar cómo este evento había cambiado de forma tan drástica la vida de su amigo, Rav Levenstein le preguntó al conductor por qué él, habiendo presenciado ese milagro, no había cambiado a causa de este. El conductor le explicó: “Oh, es que eso no me pasó a mí; ¡le pasó a él! (4)”. El conductor presenció un evento lleno de potencial para cambiarle la vida a cualquiera que lo observara, pero no cambió. ¿Por qué? Porque no pensó, no permitió que las obvias consecuencias de este milagro le hicieran reflexionar sobre la dirección de su vida. También vale la pena notar que su amigo, el que fue salvado por el milagro, sí cambió. En ocasiones, un evento puede ser tan poderoso que una persona no puede evitar pensar en él y dejar que influya en su vida. Sin embargo, a menudo no somos nosotros los afectados directamente por el milagro y necesitamos, en consecuencia, un esfuerzo más consciente para forzarnos a pensar en las ramificaciones de los eventos que vemos y sobre los que oímos. El primer paso para cambiar es aprender la lección del Faraón y pensar, dejar que los eventos que ocurren en el mundo en general, y en nuestras vidas privadas en particular, nos hagan reflexionar sobre nuestras vidas y hacer los cambios necesarios. Espero que todos ameritemos pensar sobre lo que ocurre a nuestro alrededor. Notas: (1) Sforno, Vaierá 9:12, 35; Bo 10:1. (2) Citado en 'Mishluján Gavoa', Parashat Bo, p.70. (3) En la misma guerra, un solo misil scud en Arabia Saudita mató docenas de personas. (4) Kaplan, Impact, p.85.

פרשת בא- תוצאות ארוכות טווח

בפרשת בא מתוארות המכות האחרונות שבאו על מצריים. חז"ל אומרים, שבזמן מכת חושך, גם בני ישראל סבלו ממכה קשה אשר בה אבדו רבים מתוך העם. על פי הדעה שמביא רש"י בפירושו, ארבעה חמישיות מבני ישראל מתו בזמן מכת חושך, ורק חמישית אחת נותרה. המכילתא, אותה מצטט רש"י, מביאה שם עוד שתי דעות שונות לגבי איזה חלק מתוך בני ישראל נהרגו; דעה אחת אוחזת שרק אחד חלקי חמישים נשארו, והדעה השניה סוברת שרק אחד חלקי חמש מאות מכלל ישראל נשארו בחיים לאחר מכת חושך. הר' שמעון שוואב זצ"ל מקשה כמה קושיות על הבנת הפשט של מדרש זה. ראשית, לפי שתי הדעות האחרונות, היו 30 מליון, או 300 מליון יהודים במצרים לפני מכת חושך. קשה מאוד לתאר שאכן היו שם כל כך הרבה יהודים. שנית, לפי כל השיטות, מליוני יהודים נהרגו, יוצא מכך, שאותו אסון לעם היהודי היה חמור וקשה הרבה יותר מכל המכות מהן סבלו המצרים. עובדה זו, אומר הרב שוואב – קשה מאד להבנה. ושלישית, הוא מצטט את רש"י שאומר שבני ישראל קברו בזמן מכת חושך את כל המתים – על מנת שהמצרים לא יבחינו שנהרגו יהודים רבים כל כך. אבל אם אכן מתו מליונים מתוך העם, רוב העם ממש – הרי לא ייתכן שהמצרים לא הרגישו באובדן משמעותי שכזה. בעקבות קושיות אלה, מחדש הרב שוואב ואומר שאין להבין את המדרש על פי פשוטו. אלא – יש לומר שרק מספר קטן יחסית של יהודים באמת מתו, אבל לו היו נשארים בחיים – היו יוצאים מהם מליוני צאצאים במשך דורות מספר. שלושת השיטות במכילתא אינן חלוקות במספר הנספים, אלא חלוקות בשאלה – כמה צאצאים היו אמורים לצאת מאותם שנהרגו. הר' שוואב מציע, שאולי כל החילוק בין הדעות נעוץ רק בשאלה – כיצד לאמוד את מספר הנספים – דעה אחת סוברת שמודדים עד זמן מסוים – כגון זמן בניית בית המקדש, ודעה אחרת מודדת עד נקודה מאוחרת יותר בהסטוריה. וכמובן לאורך תקופה ארוכה יותר – המספר הופך לגדול יותר. הוא משווה את פירושו זה לגמרא הדנה בתוצאות המעשה של הריגת הבל. ה' אמר לקיין: "קול דמי אחיך צועקים אלי מן האדמה" הגמרא אומרת שלא דמו של הבל לבד צעק מן האדמה – כמוהו צעקו גם דמיהם של כל צאצאיו שהיו עתידים לצאת ממנו – והם לעולם לא יחיו. קין לא הרג רק את הבל, אלא במעשהו שפך קין את דמם של מליוני אנשים. הר' שוואב מביא כדוגמא לתפיסה זו את הטרגדיה האחרונה שפקדה את עמנו – הנאצים לא הרגו ששה מליון איש, הם טבחו ושפכו את דמם של מספר עצום, ובלתי נתפס של אנשים, בדמות כל אותם צאצאיהם של הנספים אשר לעולם לא יזכו לחיות. כך גם מבינים את הטרגדיה של מות היהודים במצרים – יש להסתכל עליה במבט ארוך טווח – אמנם מספר קטן יחסית של יהודים נהרגו אז, אבל לאורך הדורות, נספו מליונים. אנו יודעים שהסיבה למותם היא שהם לא היו בדרגה מספקת כדי לזכות לניסי יציאת מצרים ולהפוך להיות חלק מעם ה'. הר' שוואב אומר שאם זה היה סופם, הרי חייבים אנו לומר שהיו אלה רשעים גמורים. בכך מעניק הר' שוואב מבט שונה לגמרי לגבי ממדי הטרגדיה של מות היהודים במכת חושך: בהתחשב בעובדה שהיה זה מספר קטן יחסית של יהודים, ובנוסף היו אלה רשעים גמורים, הרי שמפתיעה ביותר העובדה שהמדרש נותן לקבוצה זו כזה משקל, ומדגיש את תוצאות מיתתם לטווח הארוך. מכאן ניתן לראות שמותו של כל יהודי ויהודי, יהא רחוק הוא מחיי תורה אשר יהא, גם אבדן כזה אמור לגרום לכל אחד מאיתנו צער וכאב עמוקים עד מאד. שהרי תמיד קיימת האפשרות שמא צדיקים גדולים היו יכולים לצאת מאותו אדם – ובמותו הם אבדו לעולם. גם משה רבנו הוכיח את חשיבותה של תפיסה זו; כאשר ראה מצרי מתקיף יהודי ורצה להרוג את המצרי, אומר הפסוק: "ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש" רש"י על הפסוק מסביר שמשה בדק את עתידו של אותו מצרי על מנת לראות שלא יצא ממנו גר צדק רק אז החליט להורגו. משה רבנו ידע שכאשר הוא הורג אדם, תוצאות מעשהו משפיעות לטווח ארוך ביותר, ולכן הוא ונהג בהתאם. ובתקופה קרובה יותר, הר' שלמה היימן זצ"ל ביטא רעיון זה ברמה גבוהה מאד. הרב היימן היה מרצה את שיעוריו בפני עשרות תלמידים, הוא היה ידוע במרץ ומלאי הכוחות שהיה משקיע תמיד בשעת מסירת השיעור. יום אחד ירדו שלגים כבדים, ולכן השתתפו בשיעור רק ארבעה תלמידים. אולם, הר' היימן הרצה את שיעורו באותו מרץ ולהט כפי שהיה רגיל להרצות תמיד. לאחר השיעור שאלוהו התלמידים מדוע השקיע מאמץ רב כל כך בשיעור בו משתתפים מספר כה קטן של תלמידים? ותשובתו הייתה – שהוא לא מסר את השיעור רק לאותם ארבעה תלמידים, אלא הוא מסר את שיעורו בפניהם ובפני כל צאצאיהם ותלמידיהם בעתיד. אם חז"ל רואים טרגדיה כה נוראה במותם של מספר רשעים מתוך עם ישראל, הרי כיצד עלינו אנו להרגיש כאשר אנו עומדים מול המצב בעם ישראל כפי שהוא כיום? אנו חיים בעולם בו ישנם מעט מאוד יהודים שהם "רשעים" באמת – יהודים אשר ביודעין הפנו את גבם מעם אמונת ה'. אך ישנם מליוני יהודים, תינוקות שנשבו, שגדלו ללא כל ידע בסיסי בתורה, וללא שום מודעות והכרה בחשיבות היותם יהודים. בכל יום, עשרות יהודים נישאים בנישואי תערובת, וצאצאיהם היהודים נאבדים מעמנו לעולם. יהיו כאלה שיטענו, שלמרות המידה המדאיגה של נישואי התערובת, הרי אנו יודעים שהעם היהודי הוא עם הנצח, תמיד יישארו יהודים נאמנים בעם ישראל, עמנו לא ימחה ולמרות הכל משיח יגיע. לכן אין צורך להיות מודאגים מהמצב הנוכחי. גישה זו היא מוטעית מכמה סיבות. הסיבה שאנו מחויבים לקרב לתורה יהודים שאינם שומרי תורה ומצוות, היא לא על מנת למנוע כליה מכלל ישראל – אין שום חשש שיימחה זכרם של עם ישראל חלילה. אבל, אנו רוצים לתת לכל יהודי ויהודי, ולכל הדורות אחריו, את הזכות להישאר חלק מכלל ישראל. כדי שגם הם יוכלו להיות שותפים בגאולה העתידה. הרב שמשון פינקוס זצ"ל כותב שבתקופה שמהשואה ועד ימינו, התבוללו יותר יהודים, מאשר יהודים שנספו בשואה. ולמעשה, הכוונה היא שיהודים רבים עד אין מספר, אשר היו אמורים להיות צאצאיהם של אותם מתבוללים, אבדו מהעם היהודי. אדם שמקרב אפילו יהודי אחד, הוא בעצם מציל עשרות נשמות, ומעניק להם את האפשרות והזכות לחיות חיי תורה. ייתן ה' וכולנו נזכה להכיר בערכו האמיתי של כל יהודי ויהודי עם כל צאצאיו העתידיים.

BO - THINKING

One of the most distinctive aspects of the Ten Plagues was the persistent refusal of Pharaoh to recognize the error of his ways and accept that the G-d of the Jews was indeed all-powerful. Miracle after miracle failed to persuade him of the veracity of Moshe Rabbeinu''s claims of being Hashem's shliach (messenger) and not merely an expert sorcerer. During the first five plagues he refused to release the Jews whilst in full control of his free will. In the second five plagues he would have sent the Jews out of Mitzrayim had Hashem not hardened his heart. The Seforno explains, however, that this does not mean that the plagues caused Pharaoh to do teshuva from a recognition of the greatness of Hashem, rather his inability to bear any more plagues would have been the cause of permitting the Jews to leave. Accordingly, Hashem's hardening of his heart gave him to strength to overcome his natural fear and make a 'reasoned' free will decision to continue to refuse Moshe's requests . Pharaoh's seemingly superhuman stubbornness aroused great wonderment in Rav Aaron Bakst, zt"l, Rosh Yeshiva of Lomza. He used to give a mussar shmueze in his home every leil Shabbos. On one occasion his talmidim entered his house and were surprised to see him walking back and forth in his room, speaking to himself, "what was Pharaoh thinking when he saw these great miracles in front of his very eyes?!" Suddenly, he stopped walking, turned to the talmidim and explained, "he did not think at all! Only through lack of thinking can a person come to ignore such great miracles without allowing them to influence him in the slightest !" This explanation of Pharaoh's illogical behavior sheds great light on why people fail to change when they experience great events. They may even recognize that miracles have occurred but they do not think about their consequences. An example of this was people's reaction to the open miracles of the Gulf War in which 39 scud missiles succeeded in killing just one person . Yitzchak Rabin acknowledged that the nation had clearly witnessed then hand of G-d. Yet, Rav Dovid Orlofsky Shlita points out, Rabin did not change his lifestyle one iota, he did not start wearing tefillin, or keeping Mitzvos. One may ask, what was he thinking?! He has clearly seen G-d's hand in protecting the Jewish people and yet he didn't change! The answer is found in Rav Bakst's explanation - he did not think! Had he sincerely reflected on the remarkable events he would have surely changed in some way. Another striking illustration of this phenomenon is told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita. Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zt"l was traveling in a taxi with a chilloni driver. The driver turned to Rav Chatzkel and told him the following remarkable story: Several years earlier, he had been traveling in the jungles of Africa with some friends. Suddenly, a snake attacked one of them, wrapping it's large body around him, causing him to suffocate. After concerted efforts to save him, they realized that there was no hope, so they told him to say the Shema before he left the world. He quickly said it and immediately the snake uncurled itself and left. This man, his life saved, was profoundly effected by this event, and gradually returned to Judaism and he was now a fully observant Jew. After hearing how this even so drastically changed the friend's life, Rav Chatzkel turned to the driver and asked him why he had not changed as a result of this miracle. The driver explained, "oh no, it didn't happen to me, it happened to him ." The driver saw a potentially life-changing event but did not change; why? because he did not think, he did not let the obvious consequences of this miracle cause him to reflect on his life direction. It is also instructive to note that his friend, the subject of the miracle, did change - sometimes an event can be so powerful that a person cannot help but think about it and allow it to influence his life. However, often, we ourselves are not the subject of the miracle and therefore it requires far more conscious effort to force ourselves to 'think' about the ramifications of events that we see and hear about. In recent history, we have been experienced events such as the war in Gaza that constitute open displays of HaShem's hands. During and soon after the war, Rabbanim told numerous stories of miracles that occurred there. Moreover, many have noted that the numerous missiles fired into Israel have had a miraculously minimal effect. Our avoda is to let such events cause us to think about our lives - to reassess our awareness of G-d in the world and in our lives; to think about what G-d is communicating to us; and to see how we can change and grow. The first stage of changing as a result of the world around us is to learn the lesson of Pharaoh and to 'think' - to let events that happen in the world at large, and that occur in our own private lives, cause us to reflect on our lives, and make necessary changes. May we all merit to 'think' about that which happens around us.

BO – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – PHARAOH AND AVRAHAM

Shemos, 12:29-30: “And it was at midnight that HaShem smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and every firstborn animal. Pharaoh got up at midnight, he and all his servants and all Egypt, and there was a great outcry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was no corpse.” Rashi, 12:30: sv. And Pharaoh got up: “From his bed.” After experiencing nine plagues, Pharaoh was warned by Moshe Rabbeinu that the most devastating of all the plagues, the death of the firstborn would smite Egypt. When this promise was fulfilled, the Torah seemingly superfluously tells us that Pharaoh got up; Rashi tells us where he got up from – his bed. This ostensibly innocuous point reveals to us yet another layer lesson that can be derived from Pharaoh’s behavior. The Sifsei Tzaddik explains that the Torah is coming to highlight the incredible stubbornness of this evil man. Moshe had time and again correctly predicted terrible plagues so when he warned that the first-born would die that night, Pharaoh should have been extremely worried – indeed he was a first-born himself . Yet he was so convinced that nothing would happen that he was able to have a peaceful night’s sleep! This provides us with another example of Pharaoh’s warped reasoning – he consistently prevented his mind from interpreting events in a logical fashion, one that would have caused him to have considerable concern (to put it mildly), about Moshe’s newest prediction. Yet he was able to shrug off all logic and somehow rationalize that nothing would happen – this enabled him to have a good night’s sleep until he was so rudely interrupted. We see in an earlier episode in the Torah how another person was also apparently able to have a good night’s sleep when in a situation where almost no else would have been able to do so; Avraham Avinu. He was commanded by HaShem to offer up his beloved son, Yitzchak Avinu: The Torah tells us that he got up early that morning do fulfill G-d’s instructions. The obvious implication is that he, like Pharaoh, slept perfectly well that night. On consideration this is remarkable – the most worthy of us would surely be unable to sleep the night before such a difficult undertaking; we would be racked with worry, and perhaps spend much of the night praying – yet Avraham went to sleep. Clearly, whereas Pharaoh’s sleep demonstrated his lowliness, that of Avraham provides yet another example of his unfathomable greatness. He didn’t understand why HaShem wanted him to offer up his own son, especially when HaShem had told him that Yitzchak would be the child would inherit the spiritual legacy that Avraham left. Yet he had complete menuchas hanefesh (calmness) because he was so real with the fact that HaShem is all-powerful and all-giving, therefore there was nothing to worry about. Accordingly he was able to sleep as if he had nothing to worry about. Pharaoh teaches about a resistance to events in the face of logic which enabled him to sleep well in the face of obvious catastrophe. From his negative example we learn the perils of ignoring HaShem’s messages to us – whether it be through miraculous intervention to save the Jewish people from our enemies, or personal messages to us telling us to change our ways. We are also affected on some level by Pharaoh’s flaw and we fail to be moved by events surrounding us. The extreme example of Pharaoh can hopefully help us to notice this failing in ourselves on our own level, and try to spiritually awaken ourselves to be more alert to HaShem’s communication with us. On the other hand, we learn from Avraham the correct way to react when there is nothing one can do to change the given situation is to have a calm appreciation that everything HaShem does is for the best.

AARON THE KOHEN GADOL – MAN OF PEACE

Aaron HaKohen Gadol is one of the most admired characters in the Torah; he is famously praised by the Mishna in Pirkei Avos for pursuing peace and bringing Jews closer to the Torah. In order to gain a deeper understanding into his unique character it is instructive to compare and contrast him to his great brother Moshe Rabbeinu. Chazal in a number of places do indeed make such a comparison between the two brothers: The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between them with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Sifra finds a second difference between Moshe and Aaron; it says that Moshe would rebuke people who sinned, whereas Aaron would not. The Avos D’Rebbe Nosson tells us about Aaron’s approach to wrongdoers. He would befriend them to the point that they would feel guilty that they could sin whilst Aaron seemed to think they were good people. This would bring them to teshuva. The Avos D’Rebbe Nosson makes a third distinction between the two with regards to their deaths. When Aaron dies, the Torah says that “all the House of Israel cried,” whereas when Moshe dies, it says, “the Children of Israel cried” without saying the word “all”. Chazal explain that Aaron was more beloved than Moshe because he would make peace between people embroiled in disputes, and between husband and wife whilst Moshe did not. What is the underlying factor behind the differences between Moshe and Aaron? The Meshech Chochma provides us with a clue to answering this question; he observes that Aaron is connected to and emulated by the great sage, Hillel – it is Hillel who tells us to be students of none other than Aaron with regard to his attributes of pursuing peace and brings people closer to Torah Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l argues that the implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe seeing as they had very different approaches to their fellow man.and that we can relate more to Aaron’s approach than that of Moshe. The Meshech Chochma goes further in explaining the underlying difference in approach between Hillel and his great peer, Shammai. By analyzing this we can then gain a far deeper understanding of the differences between Moshe and Aaron. There is a fundamental disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world which is the basis of their divergent approaches to life. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishit states that first, God created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. An example of how this disagreement plays itself out is play itself out is with regards to the question of whether a person is ever allowed to deviate from the truth. The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace. Aaron himself acted in a very similar way to that espoused by Hillel. When two people became embroiled in a dispute, Aaron would approach each one separately and say that the other person regretted how he had behaved even though this was not the truth. Through this tactic the two protagonists would end the dispute. Thus Aaron seemingly compromised on the midda of truth for the sake of peace. We can now return to Moshe and Aaron. As we mentioned, Hillel relates to Aaron and instructs us to be his students even more than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moses’ exalted level nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. This explains why Moshe would not accept compromise in court – it contradicts the achievement of pure truth. It also explains why Moshe would rebuke people; the pure approach to people’s sinning is to directly correct them. In contrast Aaron’s approach was to understand that most people cannot relate to being confronted with the pure truth therefore his strategy was to search for compromise and appeasement. This also explains why he was more beloved than Moshe. We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Aaron and Moshe and how Hillel and Shammai’s disagreements reflected these differences. The outlook of Aaron and Hillel after him is that at times there is need for compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living God, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of Aaron and Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, this outlook is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.

VA’EIRA - MOSHE RABBEINU AND PHARAOH

Parshas Va’eira describes in great detail the first seven of the ten plagues that brought Mitzrayim to its knees. A major feature of the Makkos is the behavior of Pharaoh in reaction to the destruction of his nation. When Moshe Rabbeinu and Aaron bring about the first plague of blood, the passuk tells us that Pharaoh was not impressed because his sorcerers could also turn water into blood: “..And Pharaoh hardened his heart and he did not listen to them..” The next passuk states that, “Pharaoh turned and went to his home, and also did not pay attention to this. ” The commentaries ask, what does the Torah refer to when it says that ‘he did not pay attention to this’ - the previous passuk already stated that Pharaoh did not listen to the arguments of Moshe and Aaron. The Netsiv zt”l explains that the second passuk is telling us that Pharaoh was also unmoved by the pain that his people were suffering through the plague, and did not seek out any ways in which he could ease their pain. ‘Dam’ was the only plague in which the Torah alludes to Pharaoh’s indifference to the suffering of his people - why is this the case? The Medrash, HaGadol provides the key to answering this question: “The wicked Pharaoh was not afflicted by the plague of blood. ” The plague of blood was the only one which did not harm Pharaoh. It was in this plague where he was most immune to the suffering that it caused his people because he did not experience the pain himself and so it was this plague where his apathy to the pain of his people was most pronounced. We see a stark contrast to Pharaoh’s cruel indifference in the reaction of Moshe Rabbeinu to the pain of the Jewish people. Moshe grew up in the home of Pharaoh, separate from his people and unaffected but he slavery. Nonetheless, he went out and looked at the suffering of his brothers and empathized with their pain - he even persuaded Pharaoh to give them a day of rest . The passukim that describe Moshe’s tremendous concern for his people are preceded by the words, “vayigdal Moshe.” This does not mean that he grew up because an earlier passuk already stated that. Thus, the commentaries explain that it refers to becoming a great person - and the indicator of that greatness was his concern for others . Why does davke this mida of empathy represent ‘gadlus’? Rav Shimon Shkop zt”l explains that a ‘Gadol’ is a person who expands his definition of self to include others - he is not considered a mere individual, rather part of a larger whole, and consequently he himself becomes a ‘bigger’ person . Pharaoh, in contrast, is described by the Gemara as being a very small person . The commentaries there explain that this refers to his spiritual standing - he was on a very low level . Perhaps one aspect of his lowliness was his apathy to the pain of his own people, he only cared about himself, and therefore he did not expand his self-definition beyond his own self and remained a ‘small’ person. How can a person avoid the apathy of Pharaoh and emulate the concern of Moshe Rabbeinu - it is particularly difficult to empathize with people who are in a situation that does not effect us. When the passuk says the Moshe saw the suffering of his people, Rashi elaborates; “he focused his eyes and heart to feel pain for them. ” My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that first he looked at their faces to see the pain that they were in. He then ’focused his heart’ by trying to relate to their pain, to feel what they were feeling. So too when we hear of a person in difficulty we should first try to notice their facial expressions in order to make real the pain that they are in. Secondly, we should try to feel what it must be like to be in such pain. In a similar vein, Rav Noach Orlowek shlita suggests for example, that when we hear of a terrorist attack in which people are killed, we should take out a few moments to imagine what the victims and their families must be going through. It is not enough to merely sigh and move on - we must strive to avoid becoming immune to other people’s pain. Such empathy is not restricted to Jews who share the same lifestyle and outlook as us: Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zt”l taught this lesson in his shmussen in Ponevitz throughout the Six Day War. As the way began he told his talmidim, “in a time of war we must feel the danger of our soldiers. The loss of one Jewish soldier, even when measured against the destruction of thousands of our enemies, is incalculable. And for every soldier who arrives home from battle alive our joy must be unbounded.” After the victory he exhorted his talmidim to identify with the people who lost family in the conflict: “Hand-in-hand with our victory another reality was created; thousands of Jewish lives have been lost. How many thousands of families are bereft with a pain that is so great that it cannot now be consoled? How many dear ones have been killed? How much this must weigh upon every Jewish soul. How much must we feel their pain - actually feel it as our own. More than our rejoicing over our enemies we must feel the pain of our grieving brothers and sisters. ” It is also instructive to make some kind of gesture to show that the suffering of our fellow Jew truly concerns us even if we cannot directly help them. During the Holocaust the Steipler Gaon zt”l undertook to give up smoking as a small token to show that the tremendous suffering of his brethren meant something to him. Whilst Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l was Rav of Brisk half the city was burnt down leaving hundreds of Jews homeless. Rav Chaim promptly moved out of his home and slept on a bench in a beis medrash. When asked why he was doing so he exclaimed, “how can I sleep in a comfortable bed when so many people do not have a roof covering them?! ” However, we also learn from Moshe Rabbeinu that it is not enough to merely feel bad for those in pain. The Medrash says that Moshe “would pitch in and help each of them, ignoring his rank, he would lighten their burderns while pretending to be helping Pharaoh. ” Similarly we must strive to help those in difficulty in any way that we can. Rav Frand Shlita suggests that the next time we hear that our friend is in a difficult situation we should see if there is any feasible way in which we can help him. If, for example, he lost his job, we can think if we know any contacts that may help him find new employment, or if he is looking for a shidduch then think of any possible matches for him. Even if we cannot actively solve the person’s problem we can do a great chesed by being there for him and showing him that he is not alone in his pain. Rav Shach zt”l excelled in this area; on one occasion having heard about a widower who was depressed to the point that he had stopped functioning, Rav Shach decided to pay him a visit. Receiving no response to his knock Rav Shach let himself in and found the man lying motionless on the couch. “I know what you’re going through,” he said as he put his arm around the man. “I’m also a widower. My world is also dark and I have no simcha.” The man‘s eyes lit up for the first time in months. Someone understood him. “On Friday I’m going to make cholent and send it over, and on Shabbos I’ll come over and we’ll eat together.” “I can’t possibly allow you to trouble yourself like that,” protested the man. “Well, then you think of something. But either way I’m going to be back tomorrow. We need to spend some time together. ” Rav Shach gave this man hope because Rav Shach showed him that someone else understood the pain that he was going through - this in and of itself is one of the greatest chasadim we can do for someone in pain. Indifference to the spiritual standing of our fellow man is perhaps even more objectionable than not caring about his physical situation. Rav Frand points out that it is very easy for an observant Jew who lives in an observant community to forget that the vast majority of Jews have no sense of Jewish identity and that every years several thousand are lost through intermarriage. He continues that we cannot say “Shalom aliycih nafshi’ - as long as I have my Torah education and live in a frum community then everything is alright. Rather we must feel that the spiritual Holocaust effects us as much as anyone else and that he must do something about it - whether it be to be in contact with a secular relative, strike up a friendly conversation with a non-observant colleague at work, or having people for Shabbos. The main characters in the parshios of Yetsias Mitzrayim, Moshe Rabbeinu and Pharaoh, show us how greatness is defined by caring about others and katnus is a reflection of selfishness. May we all strive to emulate Moshe Rabbeinu.

Qui est réellement vertueux ? — le point de vue de Rachi

« Ce sont Aharon et Moché à qui Hachem dit : " Faites sortir les enfants d’Israël du pays d’Égypte, selon leurs légions." Ce sont eux qui parlèrent à Pharaon, roi d’Égypte, afin de conduire les enfants d’Israël hors du pays d’Égypte ; il s’agit de Moché et d’Aharon. » (Chemot, 6:26-27.) Rachi explique, sur les mots « Il s’agit de Moché et d’Aharon » : Ils furent intègres dans leur mission et vertueux du début à la fin. » Rachi rapporte une guemara dans Meguila qui énumère des versets quant à la droiture de personnalités remarquables. Seule une seule autre personne est mentionnée, dans le même ordre d’idées, comme étant loyale et vertueuse du début à la fin : il s’agit d’Avraham Avinou . Pourquoi la Thora ne fait un tel éloge que sur ces trois hommes ? Il semblerait que ces trois personnes furent confrontées à des défis tels, qu’il aurait été impossible pour quiconque n’ayant pas atteint leur niveau de grandeur, de les surmonter. Une personne ordinaire aurait succombé aux difficultés et n’aurait pas réussi à garder une conduite exemplaire. Avraham Avinou, déjà à l’âge de trois ans, fut à la hauteur de reconnaître Hachem – dès ce moment, il fit face à une pression incroyable pour qu’il rejette ses nouvelles croyances en faveur de l’idolâtrie prédominante. Néanmoins, il resta ferme, prêt à sacrifier sa vie et à être jeté dans la fournaise de Our Kasdim. Hachem continua de le mettre à l’épreuve en le plaçant dans des situations où il devait aller à l’encontre de sa bonté infinie, comme lors du renvoi de son fils Ichmaël, et, bien sûr, de la Akéda durant laquelle il reçut l’ordre de tuer son fils bien-aimé, Its’hak. Au cours de toutes ces épreuves, il aurait pu hésiter quelque peu, et se demander pourquoi Hachem lui enjoignait d’accomplir des actions si contradictoires avec les croyances qu’il avait propagées avec tant d’ardeur . Malgré tout, il demeura inflexible, ce qui lui permit de maintenir les hauts niveaux qu’il avait atteints dans son enfance. Moché et Aharon, en tant que libérateurs du Klal Israël, rôle qui leur incomba pendant plus de quarante ans, furent confrontés à plusieurs défis et épreuves qui auraient facilement pu les faire chanceler, à commencer par leur premier échec à améliorer le sort des Juifs durant l’esclavage. Puis, il y eut les nombreuses fois où le peuple juif se retourna contre eux, les accusant de les avoir amenés dans le désert pour les faire périr, et fut même prêt à les tuer. De plus, ils endurèrent de sévères épreuves durant l’Exode, telles que les conséquences de la faute des explorateurs. Pourtant, leur détermination à accomplir le rôle qu’Hachem leur avait octroyé au départ ne faiblit jamais. Ainsi, ‘Hazal nous disent qu’ils étaient aussi valeureux à la fin de la longue et laborieuse saga de la sortie d’Égypte, qu’à son début. Évidemment, nous ne pouvons aspirer à atteindre la force d’Avraham, de Moché et d’Aharon qui parvinrent à maintenir leur niveau spirituel durant toutes ces épreuves, mais leur exemple nous enseigne une leçon édifiante. Une personne qui fait preuve de bonnes qualités et de émouna (foi) quand tout va bien est, certes, louable, mais le vrai test de sa vertu se fait lorsqu’elle est placée dans des situations délicates – est-elle alors capable de garder ses valeurs ou bien c’est son yétser hara qui prend le dessus ? Développons cette idée à travers deux illustrations: Le ‘Hazon Ich, dans son ouvrage sur le bita’hon (confiance, foi), donne l’exemple de Réouven qui exprime constamment sa émouna et affirme que tout ce qu’il possède provient d’Hachem ; il reconnaît et proclame que son gagne-pain dépend entièrement d’Hachem, et qu’il ne faut jamais se faire de souci à ce sujet. Or, dès que Chimon ouvre un commerce concurrent à celui de Réouven, la émouna de ce dernier s’évanouit et il se met à appréhender le futur. Il commence à se plaindre de son nouveau rival, et cherche même à lui faire fermer boutique, par des moyens peu déontologiques. La émouna de Réouven paraissait forte lorsque tout allait bien, mais devant l’épreuve, il ne manifesta pas suffisamment de bita’hon. Rapportons, pour deuxième exemple, une expression de ‘Hazal selon laquelle on peut évaluer une personne en observant son attitude vis-à-vis de l’argent, quand elle est ivre, et – le cas le plus pertinent ici – sa façon de réagir dans une situation qui déclenche la colère . Son calme habituel n’indique pas forcément de réelles bonnes midot (qualités). Son vrai niveau peut être mesuré si elle sait garder son sang-froid malgré la pression. Nous avons appris, grâce aux exemples d’Avraham, de Moché et d’Aharon, que la vraie grandeur est déterminée par le comportement de quelqu’un dans les moments difficiles. Puissions-nos tous aspirer à les émuler, à notre niveau.

VA'EIRA - THE PLAGUE OF FROGS

The second of the ten plagues was that of sefardaya, frogs. Rashi cites a Chazal that describes how this plague manifested itself; at first one single frog emerged from the river, and the Mitzrim tried to kill it by striking it. However, instead of harming it, it split into swarms of frogs each time it was struck until the frogs were so numerous that they inundated the land . The Steipler Gaon zt"l sees a very great difficulty with this Chazal; the Mitzrim surely saw that the first time they hit the frog they did not succeed in destroying it, in fact their hitting had the opposite result, causing more frogs to emerge. Yet they continued to hit the frog many times, only succeeding in filling the whole of Mitzrayim with frogs! Why did they not learn their lesson and refrain from hitting the frog after they saw its disastrous results? The Steipler answers with a principle about how the destructive midda (trait) of anger causes a person to act. When one is insulted he feels the need to avenge this treatment, therefore he responds in kind to the aggressor. The aggressor returns the insult, and he in turn feels the need to return the insult again, until both are subject to a vicious circle of fruitless retaliation and a full-blown quarrel erupts with harmful consequences for all involved. In a similar vein, when the Mitzrim were faced with this threatening frog, their instinctive reaction was to strike it, however when more frogs swarmed out of the initial frog, their anger was kindled and in response they wanted to avenge the frog by striking it again. When this failed again, they continued in their aggressive manner, continually striking the frog until their anger caused the whole of Mitzrayim to be engulfed with these pests. We learn from this explanation about the damaging nature of anger, and how it causes a person to act in a highly self-destructive manner . It is instructive to delve deeper into why a person can act in such a seemingly foolish fashion. When a person is first insulted he feels considerable immediate pleasure by reacting in kind to the person who dared speak to him in such a rude way. However, after that immediate satisfaction, he endures a longer-term backlash which results in the negative feelings that are normally generated by arguments. Logically, it would seem that he should learn his lesson, recognize the long-term damage of reacting strongly, and control himself in a similar future scenario However, this does not normally occur, rather he continually falls into the same trap. His problem is that he has habituated himself to focus on the short-term results of his actions rather than its long-term consequences. It requires great effort and self-growth to break out of this damaging mode of behavior. It seems that this problem of focusing on the immediate results occurs in many areas of Avodas Hashem with damaging results. The Medrash Tanchuma tells us a dramatic example of this phenomenon. There was a righteous man whose father was a hopeless alcoholic. On one occasion, the son saw a different drunkard lying in a sewer on the street. Youngsters around him were hitting him with stones and treating him in a highly degrading manner. When the son saw this pitiful site, he decided to bring his father to the scene in the hope that it would show the father the degradation that alcoholism causes. He brought his father to see the drunkard. What did his father do? He went to the drunkard and asked him which wine house did he drink the wine! The shocked son told his father that he brought him here to see the humiliation that this man was enduring so that his father would see how he appears when he himself was drunk, in the hope that it would cause him to stop drinking. His father replied that his greatest pleasure in life was drinking . It is very likely that the father was intellectually aware of the harm that his drinking caused him, however he was so preoccupied with the immediate pleasure it gave him, that he was blind to its overall damage. The yetser hara's strategy of blinding a person to the long-term damage of his behavior is a very significant factor in hindering one's Avodas Hashem. Whether it be in the area of destructive responses or addictions, or any number of other areas, it is essential for a person to address this issue if he hopes to fulfill his potential. It seems that the first stage of this process is to develop an intellectual recognition that the mode of action or reaction that he has habituated himself to, is ultimately detrimental. Using the example of anger, a person must recognize that the short-term pleasure he feels after shouting at his wife, child or friend, is an illusionary pleasure created by the yetser hara and in the long-term it only harms his relationships. The second stage is to anticipate situations of nisyonos (tests) before they occur so that he can intellectually prepare his response without being swept away with emotion b'shaas maaseh (at the time of the occurrence). Thus when he is insulted he can hopefully offset his natural reaction of anger with a calm countenance, based on his recognition that shouting in response will only aggravate the situation. This is no easy task, but in time one can hopefully internalize this intellectual awareness and react in a calm and measured fashion. The plague of the frogs gives us a vital insight into the destructive nature of anger and focusing on short-term results. May we learn the Steipler's lessons and control our reactions for the good.

Moshé Rabeinu y Paró

La parashá de esta semana describe con gran detalle las primeras siete de las diez plagas que pusieron de rodillas a Egipto. Una característica fundamental de las plagas es la forma en que reaccionó Paró ante la destrucción de su país. La Torá nos dice que cuando Moshé y Aarón hicieron que llegara la primera plaga, Paró no se impresionó porque sus hechiceros también podían convertir el agua en sangre: "…Y Paró endureció su corazón y no los escuchó…". El versículo siguiente declara que "Paró se dio la vuelta y entró a su casa; y no prestó atención a esto" (1). Los comentaristas preguntan a qué se refiere la Torá cuando dice que "no prestó atención a esto", siendo que el versículo anterior ya había declarado que Paró no escuchó los argumentos de Moshé y Aharón. El Netziv explica que el segundo versículo nos dice que el Faraón no se inmutó con el dolor de su pueblo a causa de la plaga y no buscó ninguna manera de aliviar este dolor. La plaga de sangre es la única en la que la Torá alude a la indiferencia de Paró ante el sufrimiento de su pueblo. ¿Por qué? El Midrash HaGadol nos da la clave para responder la pregunta: "El malvado Paró no se vio afectado por la plaga de sangre" (2). La plaga de sangre fue la única que no tocó a Paró. En esta plaga él era particularmente inmune al sufrimiento que causaba en su pueblo ya que él mismo no experimentaba el dolor; por lo tanto, es en está plaga donde vemos su mayor muestra de apatía ante el sufrimiento de su pueblo. Vemos un gran contraste entre la cruel indiferencia de Paró y la reacción de Moshé ante el dolor del pueblo judío. Moshé creció en la casa de Paró, separado de su pueblo y sin que lo afectase la esclavitud. Sin embargo, salió y observó el sufrimiento de sus hermanos y se identificó con el dolor que sentían (3); incluso persuadió a Paró para que les diera un día de descanso (4). Los versículos en la Torá que describen la impresionante preocupación de Moshé por su pueblo son precedidos por el versículo que dice "vaigdal Moshé". Estas palabras se traducen normalmente como “y creció Moshé”, pero no puede ser el caso porque un versículo anterior ya había expresado esa idea. Los comentaristas explican por lo tanto que este versículo nos dice que Moshé se convirtió en una gran persona y que el indicador de esa grandeza era su preocupación por los demás (5). ¿Por qué particularmente el rasgo de empatía representa grandeza? Rav Shimón Shkop explica que un gadol (una persona 'grande') es quien expande la definición de su ser para incluir a otros; esta persona no se considera a sí misma un mero individuo, sino que se considera como parte de algo más grande y, consecuentemente, él mismo se convierte en una persona más grande (6). En contraste, la Guemará describe a Paró como una persona muy pequeña (7). Los comentaristas explican que esto se refiere a su estatus espiritual; estaba en un nivel muy bajo (8). Quizás un aspecto de su bajeza era su apatía ante el dolor de su propio pueblo; lo único que le interesaba era él mismo y, por lo tanto, no expandió la definición de su ser más allá de su persona y continuó siendo pequeño. ¿Cómo uno puede evitar la apatía de Paró y emular la empatía de Moshé? Sentir empatía con las personas que están en una situación que no nos afecta es particularmente difícil. Cuando el versículo dice que Moshé vio el sufrimiento de su pueblo, Rashi explica: "Enfocó sus ojos y su corazón para ver el sufrimiento de ellos" (9). Mi rabino, Rav Itzjak Berkovits, explica que Moshé primero vio sus caras para ver el dolor en el que estaban inmersos; luego enfocó su corazón, e intentó conectarse con el dolor que ellos estaban sintiendo. De la misma forma, cuando escuchamos sobre una persona que está atravesando un momento difícil, lo primero que deberíamos advertir es su expresión facial, para entender el dolor que está sintiendo. Luego, deberíamos tratar de sentir en carne propia ese dolor. Del mismo modo, Rav Noaj Orlowek sugiere que, por ejemplo, cuando escuchamos sobre un ataque terrorista en el que murió gente, deberíamos tomar unos momentos para imaginar lo que las víctimas y sus familiares están atravesando. No alcanza con meramente dar un suspiro y seguir con la vida; debemos luchar para no ser inmunes ente el dolor de otras personas. También es positivo hacer alguna clase de gesto para mostrar que el sufrimiento de un judío realmente nos importa, incluso si no podemos ayudarlo de forma directa. Durante el Holocausto, el Gaón Steipler se comprometió a dejar de fumar, un gesto simbólico para mostrar que el tremendo sufrimiento de su pueblo le importaba. Mientras Rav Jaim Soloveitchik era rabino en Brisk, la mitad de la ciudad sufrió un incendio que dejó a cientos de judíos sin hogar. Rav Jaim se mudó inmediatamente de su casa y durmió en un banco en el salón de estudios. Cuando le preguntaron por qué lo estaba haciendo, él respondió: "¿Cómo podría dormir en una cama confortable cuando tanta gente no tiene un techo que los proteja? (10)". Sin embargo, también aprendemos de Moshé que sentirse mal por quienes están sufriendo no es suficiente. El Midrash dice que Moshé "daba una mano y ayudaba a cada uno de ellos; ignorando su rango, aliviaba sus cargas mientras simulaba trabajar para Paró" (11). De la misma forma, debemos tratar de ayudar, como podamos, a quienes están atravesando una dificultad. Rav Isajar Frand sugiere que la próxima vez que escuchemos que un amigo está en una situación difícil busquemos una forma de ayudarlo. Por ejemplo, si el amigo perdió su trabajo, podemos pensar si tenemos algunos contactos que pueden ayudarlo a encontrar otro; si está buscando pareja para casarse, podemos pensar si conocemos a alguien que pueda ser acorde. Incluso si no podemos activamente resolver el problema de la persona, sí podemos hacer un gran acto de bondad si estamos allí para él y le mostramos que no está solo en su dolor. Rav Shaj sobresalía en esta área. En una ocasión, después de escuchar sobre un viudo que estaba tan deprimido que había dejado de funcionar, Rav Shaj decidió visitarlo. Al no recibir ninguna respuesta a sus golpes en la puerta, Rav Shaj entró por sí mismo y encontró al hombre que yacía inmóvil en el sofá. "Sé por lo que estás pasando", dijo mientras abrazaba al hombre. "Yo también soy viudo; mi mundo también es oscuro y carente de alegría". Los ojos del hombre se encendieron por primera vez en meses. Alguien lo entendía. "El viernes voy a hacer chólent y te lo voy a enviar; en Shabat voy a venir y lo comeremos juntos". "No puedo permitir que se moleste tanto", dijo el hombre. "Bueno, entonces piensa tú en algo. Pero de todos modos voy a volver mañana. Tenemos que pasar un poco de tiempo juntos" (12). Rav Shaj le dio esperanza a este hombre al mostrarle que alguien más entendía el dolor que estaba atravesando. Esto es, en sí mismo, uno de los actos de bondad más grandes que podemos hacer por quien está sufriendo. Moshé y Paró, los personajes principales de las parashiot del Éxodo, nos muestran cómo la grandeza se define en base a la preocupación por los demás, mientras que la pequeñez es un reflejo del egoísmo. Espero que todos nos esforcemos para emular a Moshé. Notas: (1) Vaerá 7:22-23. (2) Midrash HaGadol, Shemot 7:29. (3) Shemot 2:11. (4) Shemot Rabá 1:27. Esta comparación de Moshé con Paró la oí de Rav Moshé Zeldman, shlita, profesor titular en Aish HaTorá Jerusalem. (5) Shaarei Simjá; también lo oí de Rav Isasjar Frand shlita. (6) Hakdamá a Sháar Iosher. (7) Moed Katán 18a. (8) Iún Yaakov, ibíd. (9) Shemot 2:11. (10) Lo oí de Rav Isajar Frand shlita. (11) Shemot Rabá 1:27. (12) Kaplan, Major Impact, p.56.

VA’EIRA – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – THE TRUE TEST OF GREATNESS

Shemos, 6:26-27 “This was Aharon and Moshe to whom HaShem said: ‘Take the Children of Israel out of Egypt according to their legions. They were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to take the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; this was Moshe and Aharon.” Rashi, Shemos, 6:27 sv. This was Moshe and Aharon: “They were steadfast in their shlichus and in their righteousness from the beginning until the end.” Rashi quotes a Gemara in Megilla that enumerates verses demonstrating the consistency of great people. Only one other person is mentioned in a similar vein as being steadfast in his righteousness from the beginning until the end; Avraham Avinu. Why are these the only people about whom the Torah gives this particular form of praise? It seems that these three people were, more than anyone else, placed in situations that were so challenging that anyone not on the highest level would have succumbed to the difficulties and not maintained their incredibly high standards of conduct. Avraham Avinu, already at the age of three years old reached greatness in recognizing HaShem – from that time on he faced incredible pressure to reject his newfound beliefs in favor of the predominant idolatry. Yet he remained steadfast, willing to give up his own life in the furnace in Ohr Kasdim. HaShem continued to test him in areas that conflicted with his incredible sense of kindness, such as expelling his own son Yishmael, and of course the Akeida where he was instructed to kill his beloved son, Yitzchak. In all these tests he could have faltered slightly, wondering why HaShem was telling him to perform a deed that contradicted the beliefs that he had sacrificed so much to uphold. Yet he stood firm, maintaining the incredible levels that he reached as a child. Moshe and Aharon, in their more than forty year long role as saviors of Klal Yisrael also faced many challenges and tests that could easily have caused them to falter, beginning with their initial failed attempt to improve the lot of the Jews in their slavery. It continued with the numerous instances where the Jewish people turned against them, accusing them of bringing them to die in the desert, and even coming close to killing them on occasion . Moreover they endured extreme tragedies in the various episodes of the Exodus such as the consequences of the sin of the spies. Yet at no time did they weaken in their determination to fulfill the role that HaShem had forced upon them at the very beginning. Thus, Chazal tell us that they remained as righteous at the end of the long and difficult saga of Yetsias Mitzrayim as they were in the beginning. Of course we cannot aspire to the level of steadfastness that Avraham, Moshe and Aharon attained in maintaining their spiritual level in the midst of all their challenges, however, their example teaches us a vital lesson. It is praiseworthy for a person to act with good character traits and Emuna when his situation is stable, but the true test of his righteousness is when he is placed in difficult situations – is he then able to keep to his values or does his yester hara take over. Two examples serve to illustrate this point: The Chazon Ish in his work on Bitachon, suggests a case 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 Shimon opens a business that rivals that of Reuven, suddenly, all his Emuna fades away and he worries constantly over the future, he even begins to complain about his new rival, and perhaps plots unethical ways to cause Shimon to close down. 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. A second example is offered by the saying of Chazal that the true measure of person is known by how he acts with regard to money, how he behaves when he is inebriated, and - most pertinent here - to how he acts on occasions that arouse anger. The fact that he acts calmly most of the time does not indicate that he is a true baal middos. His true level is only revealed when he can maintain his composure at times where he is put under great pressure. We have seen from the examples of Avraham, Moshe and Aharon how true greatness is measured by one’s behavior in difficult times – may we all aspire to emulate them on our own level.

Dar sin un fin ulterior (Giving For The Sake Of Giving)

“Dios benefició a las parteras, y el pueblo se incrementó y se fortaleció mucho. Y fue porque las parteras habían temido a Dios que Él les hizo casas" (1). Yojéved y Miriam arriesgaron sus vidas para salvar a los bebés judíos de ser asesinados por los egipcios. Por su acción, Dios las recompensó haciéndoles casas; Rashi explica que esto significa que ameritaron ser las madres de las familias de los cohanim (sacerdotes), los leviim y los reyes. Rav Moshé Feinstein pregunta que si su recompensa principal fueron esas casas, entonces por qué el versículo interrumpe la descripción de su recompensa diciendo "y el pueblo se incrementó y se fortaleció mucho"; si las casas eran el beneficio directo, entonces éstas deberían haber ido inmediatamente a continuación y el versículo debería haber dicho: “Dios benefició a las parteras y les hizo casas”. Rav Feinstein responde que la recompensa principal de las parteras no fueron las casas, sino que fue el incremento del pueblo judío, ya que su verdadero deseo y fuente de regocijo no era nada más que la expansión de la población judía. Por lo tanto, después de declarar que Dios las benefició, el versículo continúa con el resultante aumento de la población judía. Esa fue su recompensa principal; las casas eran simplemente un bono secundario por su gran temor a Dios (2). Hay muchas razones distintas sobre por qué una persona hace un acto de bondad: puede que esté consciente de que hacer actos de bondad es una mitzvá, puede que le deba un favor a alguien, etc. La explicación de Rav Moshé Feinstein nos enseña que el objetivo principal cuando ayudamos a alguien (además de la intención de hacer una mitzvá) es que la persona se beneficie con nuestra acción. A Yojéved y Miriam no les importaba la recompensa que recibirían por salvar vidas judías; simplemente querían que las vidas fueran salvadas. Dios las recompensó permitiendo que sus acciones fueran exitosas y que el pueblo judío creciera como resultado. Moshé, el hijo de Yojéved, heredó esta misma dedicación por los demás. Él vio el sufrimiento de su pueblo y arriesgó su vida para salvarlos. Persuadió al Faraón para que les diera un día de descanso para que pudieran respetar Shabat y, además, mostró gran preocupación por la oveja perdida de su rebaño. Fue por el mérito de esas acciones que Dios le habló en la zarza ardiente y lo convirtió en líder del pueblo judío. Lo único que quería Moshé era liberar a su pueblo de la dura esclavitud en Egipto; su recompensa fue tener el mérito de ser quien los sacara. Esta lección es importante en muchas áreas de nuestras vidas, pero sobre todo en nuestras carreras. Muchas personas tienen la fortuna de que su trabajo involucra ayudar a otras personas. Sin embargo, es muy fácil terminar enfocándose principalmente en el dinero que reciben por proveer este servicio. Una vez un dentista estaba tratando a Rav Abraham Pam. Rav Pam comentó cuánto ayudaba este dentista a las personas con su profesión, a lo que el dentista le respondió que efectivamente era un hermoso beneficio colateral de su trabajo, lo que implicaba que la razón principal por la que lo hacía era para ganar su sustento. Rav Pam le dijo que el beneficio colateral era el dinero que ganaba, pero que el objetivo principal debería ser ayudar a las personas a tener dientes saludables. Sabemos que la recompensa principal de Yojéved y Miriam será en el Mundo Venidero; ésta, será la consecuencia de sus intenciones puras. Si una persona realiza un acto de bondad con esa motivación, puede estar segura de que recibirá un gran beneficio en el Mundo Venidero. El Alter de Slobodka comentó una vez sobre el auto sacrificio de los panaderos (en ese tiempo, el panadero se levantaba muy temprano para proveer pan a su comunidad). Los panaderos hacían un gran acto de bondad al levantarse tan temprano para que el pueblo tuviera este bien tan vital. Sin embargo, comentó que si el panadero lo hacía sólo para ganarse el sustento, entonces estaba perdiendo su fuente principal de recompensa en el Mundo Venidero. Hacer actos de bondad es muy bueno y amerita una gran recompensa, pero no hay que perder el foco: ayudar a otros es lo más importante. Los beneficios colaterales vendrán, pero mejorar la vida de otro judío es en sí misma una gran recompensa. Notas: (1) Shemot 1:20-21. (2) Darash Moshé, Parashat Shemot.

SHEMOS - GIVING FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING

“G-d benefited the midwives - and the people increased and became very strong. And it was because the midwives feared G-d that He made them houses. ” Yocheved and Miriam risked their lives to save Jewish baby boys from being murdered by the Egyptians. Hashem rewarded them by making them ‘houses’ - Rashi explains that they merited to be the mothers of the lines of Kohanim, Leviim and Kings. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l asks that if their main reward was these ‘houses’ then why does the clause, “and the people increased and became very strong” interrupt the description of their reward - since the ‘houses’ were the benefit described, it would seem that they should follow immediately afterwards and the Torah should have said;”G-d benefited the midwives and made them houses.” He answers that their main reward was not the houses but rather the increase of the people since their true desire and joy was no more than the expansion of the Jewish population. Consequently after the verse states that Hashem benefited them it immediately mentions the resultant expansion of the Jewish people - that was their main reward, the houses were merely a secondary bonus for their great yiras shamayim (fear of HaShem) . There can be a number of different reasons why a person performs an act of kindness; it may be because he knows it is a Mitzva to do chesed; it may be because he owes this person a favor, or it may be due to numerous other possible factors. We learn from Rav Feinstein’s explanation that the main kavanna (intention) we should have when we help someone (as well as the general intent to do a Mitzva) is that they benefit from our action. Yocheved and Miriam did not care about what reward they would receive for saving Jewish lives - they merely wanted the lives to be saved. Hashem rewarded them by enabling their actions to succeed and the Jewish people grew as a result. Yocheved’s son, Moshe Rabbeinu inherited this same dedication to others. He saw the suffering of his people and risked his life to help them. He persuaded Pharaoh to give them a rest day so that they could observe Shabbos and furthermore he showed great concern for the sheep in his flock. It was in the merit of these actions that Hashem spoke to him at the Burning Bush and made him leader of the Jewish people. He wanted nothing more than to release them from the crushing slavery in Egypt, and his reward was that he merited to be the one to take them out. This lesson is relevant in many areas of our lives, but perhaps is most important with regard to our careers. Many people are fortunate to be involved in a job which involves helping others, however it is quite easy to focus primarily on the money that they receive for providing their service. Rav Avraham Pam zt”l was once being treated by a dentist and he remarked at how much this dentist helped people in his profession. The dentist replied that this was a nice side-benefit to his job, implying that the main reason that he did it was to earn a living. Rav Pam replied that actually the money he earned was the side benefit but the main goal should be to help people have healthy teeth. Unfortunately the tendency to over emphasize the financial aspect of good deeds can even creep into the most holy of activities such as learning and teaching Torah. The Mishna in Pirkei Avos stresses how undesirable such an attitude is when it enjoins us “do not make it [the Torah] a crown to attain greatness with or a spade to dig with. ” Many commentaries argue that the Mishna is not saying that it is forbidden to earn money through learning or teaching Torah for money however they all agree that this should not be the primary motive. The Rambam in particular emphasizes the abhorrence of being involved in Torah in order to earn a livelihood. However even he does not rule out learning or teaching if a person has the ideal intention. In Hilchos Shemitta v’Yovel he writes that Shevet Levi are separated from everyone else so that they can “serve Hashem and teach His just ways and His righteous laws to the public, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel. ’” He continues that such a role is not limited to Leviim alone, but that anyone who is willing to learn Torah with similar motives is worthy of assuming the same function. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l writes that such a person is allowed to receive money for his learning Torah and it would seem that the reason for this is because there is no danger in his being motivated by ulterior motives . We know that the ultimate reward for Yocheved and Miriam would be in Olam HaBa - the consequence of their pure motives. If a person does chesed with such motivations then he can assure himself of ample benefit in Olam HaBa. The Atler of Slobodka once noted the mesiras nefesh (self-sacrifice) of bakers - in that time the baker would rise very early in the morning in order to provide bread for the community. They were performing an incredible act of kindness by getting up so early in order that people would have this vital commodity. However, he commented that if the baker is doing it solely in order to earn a livelihood then he is losing his main source of Olam HaBa. Performing acts of kindness is a great thing and merits great reward, but let us not lose focus of what our kavanna should be - to help others. The side benefits will come, but improving the lives of our fellow Jew is ample reward in and of itself.

שמות – נתינה לשם נתינה

"וייטב אלקים למילדת וירב העם ויעצמו מאד: ויהי כי יראו המילדת את האלקים ויעש להם בתים:" יוכבד ומרים סיכנו את חייהן כדי להציל תינוקות יהודיים ממיתה בידי המצרים. הקב"ה זיכה אותן בשכר על כך ועשה להן "בתים" – רש"י מסביר שהן זכו לבתי כהונה, לויה ומלכות – מצאצאיהן יצאו כהנים לווים ומלכים. ר' משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל שואל על כך – אם שכרן של המיילדות היה אותם "בתים" מדוע נכנסו המילים "וירב העם ויעצמו מאד" בתוך תיאור שכרן? אם המילים "ויעש להן בתים" הן תיאור ההטבה של הקב"ה למילדות, צריך היה לכאורה להכתב כך: "וייטב אלוקים למילדות ויעש להן בתים". הוא עונה על כך שעיקר שכרן לא היה הבתים, אלא התעצמותו והתרבותו של העם, כיוון ששאיפתן האמיתית הייתה אך ורק שיתרחב ויגדל עם ישראל. לכן, לאחר שכותב הפסוק שהקב"ה היטיב עם המילדות, מיד מוזכרת התעצמות העם שהייתה תוצאת מעשיהן – זה היה שכרן העיקרי. הבתים היוו שכר נוסף, מעבר לכך, על יראת השמים המיוחדת שהיתה בהן. ישנן מספר מניעים אפשריים באדם שעושה חסד עם זולתו – או כיוון שהוא יודע שחסד זוהי מצווה גדולה; או בגלל שהוא מרגיש שהוא חייב טובה לאותו אדם, או כתוצאה מגורמים רבים אחרים. מהסברו של הר' פיינשטיין ניתן ללמוד שהכוונה העיקרית שעלינו לכוון בעת שאנו מיטיבים עם הזולת (בדומה לכוונה הכללית בכל מצווה) היא שאותו אדם אכן יהנה וייטב לו ממעשנו. יוכבד ומרים לא חשבו על השכר שהן תקבלנה בזכות החיים שהצילו - הן רק שאפו להצליח לחַיות את התינוקות היהודיים. הקב"ה שילם להן את שכרן בכך שאפשר להן להצליח בשאיפתן, וכתוצאה מכך התרבה עם ישראל והתעצם מאד. בנה של יוכבד, משה רבנו, ירש מאמו תכונה זו של התמסרות מוחלטת למען הזולת. הוא ראה את סבל העם וסיכן את עצמו על מנת לעזור להם. הוא עמד לפני פרעה ושכנע אותו לתת יום מנוחה בשבוע ליהודים – כך יכלו לנוח בשבת. יתר על כן, הוא הוכיח דאגה ומסירות אין קץ אף לכבשה קטנה מעדרו. בזכות אותם מעשים נגלה אליו הקב"ה בסנה, דיבר איתו, והפך אותו למנהיגם של ישראל. שאיפתו הייתה אחת: להציל את העם מלחץ השעבוד במצרים, ושכרו הגדול היה שאכן הוא זכה להיות השליח להוציאם. לימוד זה משתייך לשטחים רבים בחיינו, אולם ייתכן והחשוב ביותר מביניהם – הוא לגבי עיסוקנו. רבים מאיתנו זוכים, ועבודתם מעורבת בעשייה למען הזולת, אולם אדם עלול בקלות לטעות ולהתמקד בעיקר בכסף שהוא מרוויח מעבודתו. הר' פאם זצ"ל טופל פעם אצל רופא שיניים, הרב התפעל בפניו - עד כמה הוא מסיע לאחרים בעבודתו. הרופא השיב שעניין זה מהווה עבורו אך ורק רווח צדדי, המניע העיקרי שלו הוא להרויח את פרנסתו. הרב פאם ענה לו ואמר שלמעשה הכסף שהוא מרויח - הוא הרווח הצדדי ועיקר מטרתו צריכה להיות סיוע לבני אדם והבאת מרפא ומזור לשיניהם. לצערנו הרב, הנטיה לנתינת דגש יתר על הפן הכספי שקיים לפעמים בעשיית מעשים טובים עלול לחדור גם לקדושים שבמעשים, כלימוד תורה ומסירתה לאחרים. המשנה באבות מדגישה עד כמה לא רצויה גישה זו, כאשר היא היחידה שמפעילה את האדם: "אל תעשם [את דברי התורה] עטרה להתגדל בהם, ולא קרדם לחפור בהם" מפרשים רבים מסבירים שאין הכוונה במשנה לאסור רווח כספי כלשהו מלימוד תורה או ממסירתה לאחרים, אולם לכל הדעות אין להפוך רווח זה למניע העיקרי. הרמב"ם מדגיש באופן מיוחד עד כמה מאוס מצב כזה בו אדם לומד תורה מתוך מטרה להשיג את פרנסתו ולחמו. אולם גם הוא אינו שולל פרנסה מלימוד או מלימוד לאחרים – אם כוונת האדם נכונה. בהלכות שמיטה ויובל כותב הרמב"ם ששבט לוי מובדל ומופרש מכל כלל ישראל, כך שביכולתם "לעבוד את ה' לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים שנאמר יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל" בהמשך הוא כותב שתפקיד זה אינו מוגבל לשבט לוי בלבד אלא "כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להבדל לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו ולעובדו... הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים ויהיה ה' חלקו ונחלתו לעולם" החפץ חיים כותב שכזה אדם רשאי לקבל כסף על לימוד התורה שלו, כיוון שאין חשש שהמניע ללימודו של אדם כזה אינו טהור דיו . כולנו יודעים ששכרן הנצחי של יוכבד ומרים יהיה בעולם הבא – תוצאות מעשיהן וכוונותיהן הטהורות. אם אדם עושה מעשה חסד מתוך מניע כזה, הוא מבטיח לעצמו שפע רב בעולם הבא. הסבא מסלבודקא כותב שמסירות נפש של אופה היא כאשר הוא משכים בבוקר טרם עלות השחר כדי שיוכל לספק לציבור לחם טרי בעת שיקומו משנתם. הוא עושה מעשה חסד נדיר בערכו בעת שמשכים קום למען צורך כה חיוני של זולתו. אולם, הוא מעיר, אם האופה עושה זאת אך ורק מתוך כוונה להרויח את פרנסתו – אזי הוא מפסיד את המקור העיקרי לחלקו בעולם הבא. מעשי חסד הם מעשים גדולים עד מאד ומזכים בשכר עצום – אולם עלינו לדאוג שהכוונה תהיה נכונה וטהורה – לעזור לזולת. הרווחים הצדדיים יגיעו, אולם הבאת טוב וחסד לחייהם של אחינו היהודים – זהו שכר עצום עבורנו בפני עצמו.

SHEMOS - RESPONDING TO DIVINE PROVIDENCE

After enslaving the Jewish people, Pharaoh was informed by his astrologers that a baby boy was destined to be born who would redeem Klal Yisroel from their terrible galus (exile). Pharaoh responded with great efforts to prevent this prediction from being fulfilled, including his order that every baby boy born should be thrown into the Nile. The Steipler Gaon zt”l notes the irony of the events that followed Pharaoh’s decree. When Moshe Rabbeinu was born, the Mitzrim seeked to throw him into the Nile, as a result Yocheved placed Moshe in a basket and left him to drift down the river to an unknown fate. His salvation came from none other than Basya the daughter of Pharaoh who drew him out of the water. The young Moshe was then brought up in Pharaoh’s palace by Pharaoh himself. All of Pharaoh’s efforts to alter events failed, but what is more remarkable is that Moshe’s salvation came about because of the very decree to kill the boys! As a result of that decree, Moshe was placed in the Nile and saved by Pharaoh’s daughter! The Steipler Gaon teaches us that from here we learn that if Hashem desires that a certain event take place then it is impossible to change His plans despite the greatest possible efforts . A person may make great hishtadlus (effort) in a specific venture and do well, but the Steipler asserts that he succeeds only because the Hashgacha decrees it. If he were not intended to succeed then no effort could change that reality. This fundamental lesson assumes great relevance in the financial crisis that is gravely effecting people’s lives throughout the world. Many people who have invested incredible amounts of time and energy into earning a livelihood have suddenly been placed in a very precarious financial situation. How should a person react to this difficult challenge? The Steipler‘s idea can help us answer this question. The Steipler cites the Chazal that tells us that a person’s year is decreed on Rosh HaShana. Accordingly, there is no amount of hishtadlus in the physical realm that can change the hashgacha decreed upon a person. A natural reaction for one who has suddenly lost a significant amount of money is to strive to find new ways of earning money. This is understandable, however it is important to realize that excessive hishdtadlus will not lead him to earn more money. How can he know how much hishtadlus is appropriate? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita suggests that whatever is considered within the realm of ’normal’ hishtadlus is acceptable, however one should be careful not to go beyond that boundary. Devoting vast amounts of time and energy to earning money to the exclusion of everything else is considered unnecessary hishtadlus and will not produce any fruits. Thus, one lesson derived from the Steipler is that if Hashem decrees a specific event then there is no way to change that decree through physical hishtadlus. An amusing example of this phenomenon is told over in the name of the Ben Ish Chai zt”l. It is the story of a man who had incredible success in all his business ventures. This man earned so much money that he became deathly afraid of ayin hara that would arouse from the jealousy of others. Consequently, he strived to lose all his money in disastrous business ventures. To his distress, his efforts proved fruitless and all his wild ventures succeeded! He went to a Rav to share his dilemma. The Rav told him that he should stop trying to lose his money because if Hashem decreed that he be wealthy then there is no way that he can change that decree. We see from here that both success and failure in gashmius are completely beyond our control . There is, however, one way of changing the decree of Rosh HaShana; The Steipler explains that efforts in the spiritual realm can change the decree. The Gemara tells us that tefilla can change a gezar din. It further states that doing teshuva can make the decree pan out in a way that reduces the damage of a negative decree. For example, if a small amount of rain was decreed for the year because of one’s sins, a person’s teshuva can make that rain fall in a propitious fashion. Similarly, it would seem that if a person is decreed a certain amount of money based on his spiritual level at Rosh HaShana, his subsequent teshuva could make it so that that money arrive in a more beneficial fashion and suffice to provide for his needs . Whilst growing spiritually can help one’s financial situation, it is important to remember that the main benefit of such growth is that it brings a person closer to Hashem. Very often, a loss of money can provide a person with an opportunity to focus more on the spiritual realm. For example, if one’s business suffers to the extent that he has less work, he can react in one of two ways: He can either work harder in a vain attempt to stem the downturn, or he can accept the decline in his wealth and use the opportunity to learn more Torah or be more involved in other spiritual pursuits such as chesed. A striking example of this phenomenon is the story of the beginning of the great Soloveitchik dynasty of talmidei chachamim. In the time of Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, lived a wealthy, G-d fearing man, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik. He had inherited his wealth from his parents. Since he owned great hardwood forests he went into the lumber business, cutting his trees and selling the wood for a good profit. Because of his busy work schedule, he was not known as a talmid chacham, but he was very generous with his great wealth, giving liberally to tzedoko. Yet the day came when he suddenly lost all his money, leaving him penniless. Everyone who knew him was left wondering how such a great philanthropist could suffer such a terrible fate. Rav Chaim of Volozhin convened a special Beis Din to delve into this question. They examined his account books exhaustively but found nothing amiss. Unable to point to any other cause for his economic collapse, they concluded that he must have transgressed the prohibition of giving more than a fifth of one’s fortune to tzedoko . They reported their conclusion to Rav Chaim, but he rejected their findings. He could not accept that for such a transgression Reb Moshe should be punished so badly, and thus the matter was left unresolved. In the meantime, now that Reb Moshe had no business to attend to, he turned to the Beis HaMedrash and embarked on a vigorous course of study. Little by little, hidden talents revealed themselves until it became clear that he excelled in Torah study. He advanced steadily, until before long he was counted among the most learned in his town, and he eventually attained the position of Av Beis Din of Kovno. He also encouraged his sons to follow in his footsteps, and they too, took up the challenge and became famous talmidei chachamim. Now, Rav Chaim understood why Reb Moshe lost his fortune so quickly. For his great acts of tzedoko he deserved a tremendous reward; to begin a dynasty of Talmidei Chachamim. Since is very difficult for greatness in Torah to rise from a wealthy house, his wealth was taken away, in order to release himself from worldly involvement and allow him to learn Torah, setting the path for generations of outstanding scholars. It is very difficult when a person experiences Hashgacha that seems to make his life more difficult, however every challenge is an opportunity to change our life direction. Loss of money may trigger a person to put more effort in this worldly activities, but this is a great shame. We learn from Pharaoh’s fruitless efforts to change a heavenly decree that no amount of physical hishtadlus can change Hashgacha. The only fruitful reaction is to use the extra time gained by less work in to be more involved in ruchnius. May we all merit to respond to Hashem’s decrees in the desired manner.