BECHUKOSAI - THE GREATNESS OF INNOVATION

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

בחוקותי – כוח ההתחדשות

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

בהר – כוחן של מילים

בשני מקומות בפרשת בהר מזהירה התורה את היהודי לבל יפגע בזולתו. בפעם הראשונה כותבת התורה "וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך אל תונו איש את אחיו" מספר פסוקים לאחר מכן מופיע פסוק שנראה לכאורה ככפילות: "ולא תונו איש את עמיתו ויראת מאלקיך כי אני ה' אלוקיכם" חז"ל מסבירים על פסוקים אלה שישנם שני סוגים של הונאה; הפסוק הראשון מדבר על הונאת ממון – גרימת נזק ממוני לזולת , והפסוק השני מדבר על הונאת דברים – גרימת צער וכאב לזולת על ידי דיבור . חז"ל בדרך כלל, אינם משווים בין מצוות וקובעים מי גדולה מחברתה, אולם במקרה זה – ישנה השוואה בחז"ל בין שני סוגי ההונאה. כל אחד יחשוב במבט ראשון, שהונאת ממון חמורה יותר מהונאת דברים, כיוון שכאשר אדם נפגע ממילותיו של חברו בלבד – הוא לא סובל משום הפסד מוחשי, בעוד שאדם שנגרמה לו הונאת ממון – סובל בשל כך מהפסד כספי מובהק ומורגש. אולם למרבה הפלא קובעת הגמרא שהונאת דברים נחשבת לחטא חמור יותר מאשר הונאת ממון, ומביאה לכך שלושה טעמים: ראשית, בפסוק המדבר אודות הונאת דברים נאמר "ויראת מאלוקיך" – ובהקשר להונאת ממון לא נאמרו מילים אלה. המהרש"א מסביר שבני אדם מסוגלים להבחין בקלות יתירה בעובדה שמישהו מנסה להונות אותם בממונם, לעומת זאת, אדם העומד לפגוע בחבירו פגיעה מילולית יכול בקלות להסתיר את כוונותיו מחברו. אדם שגורם לחברו נזק ממוני לוקח בחשבון את העובדה שבני אדם יבחינו במעשהו במוקדם או במאוחר ובכל זאת הוא עושה מה שעושה. הוא מוכיח במעשיו חוסר יראת שמיים, כיוון שהוא מתעלם מהעובדה שה' רואה ויודע את כל מעשיו, אולם נוסף לכך הוא מפגין חוסר אכפתיות כלפי מה שבני אדם חושבים עליו ועל מעשיו. לעומת זאת, אדם שגורם נזק וצער לחברו באופן מוסווה ובלתי גלוי משקף במעשיו יראה מפני בני אדם יותר מאשר מפני אלוקים – דאגתו היחידה היא להסתיר את כוונותיו מפני בני אדם, ופחדו היחיד הוא שהם יחשיבוהו לאדם רע ומושחת, אין הוא מתייחס כלל לעובדה שהקב"ה רואה ויודע את כל כוונותיו ומעשיו. אדם כזה נחשב לבעל דרגה נמוכה יותר מקודמו, הגורם הונאת ממון כיוון שדעת בני אדם עליו חשובה לו יותר מדעת המקום עליו. שנית, אומרת הגמרא, הונאת ממון פוגעת אך ורק ברכושו של האדם, בעוד שהונאת דברים גרועה ממנה בפוגעה בעצם מהותו של האדם, בבריאותו הנפשית ובעולם הרגש שלו – הנזק הנגרם בעקבות מילים חסרות התחשבות ומחשבה הוא נזק עמוק החודר אל פנים אישיותו של האדם. כדוגמא נוראה לכך מספר ר' דוב ברזק על אדם הידוע כתלמיד חכם נכבד בשנות הארבעים לחייו נזקק לסיוע וייעוץ בשל אירוע טראומתי אותו עבר בילדותו – מקרה בו כינתה אותו אימו "טמא". כינוי יחיד זה, בפעם יחידה זו גרם לו נזק רב והותיר בו צלקת למשך שנים ארוכות בהמשך חייו. ניתן לראות מכך עד כמה רב הוא הנזק העלול להיגרם על ידי חיצי לשונו של אדם. הגמרא ממשיכה ומביאה הסבר שלישי לכך שהונאת דברים גרועה יותר מהונאת ממון - אם אדם גנב בעורמה כסף מחברו, בידו לתקן את נזקי מעשהו באופן פשוט ביותר – להשיב את הגזלה לבעליה. אולם, כאשר אדם מזיק לחברו במילים, גם אם יכביר במילות התנצלות רבות– לא יוכל לתקן לגמרי את המעוות – המילים נאמרו זה מכבר והן אינן יכולות לשוב לאחור. זהו מצב ידוע שחוזר על עצמו רבות במערכות יחסים שונות – במיוחד בזו של חיי הנישואין, כאשר מספר מועט של מילים חדות וחסרות רגישות מביאות בעקבותיהן נזק ארוך ומתמשך, נזק כזה שלעולם לא יוכל להתרפאות לגמרי, והמצב לא ישוב עוד לקדמותו כפי שהיה, באשר אותן מילים נאמרו זה מכבר ולעולם לא ישובו אחור. ניתן לדמות את התוצאות הקשות של הונאת דברים לאבני דומינו, ברגע שנאמרה מילה שאינה במקומה – מתגלגלות התוצאות מאליהן, וההשלכות עלולות להגיע רחוק ביותר, עד כי אין כל אפשרות לאמוד את עצמת הנזק ולנסות לתקן את המעוות. הסיפור הבא, אותו מספר ר' דוד קפלן שליט"א מתאר מצב בו נאמרו מספר מילים הרסניות, אשר איימו לגרום תוצאות והשלכות רבות, אלא שבזכות מילים טובות אחרות – השתנה המצב: "דבורה גדלה בבית אורתודוקסי-מודרני, הוריה החדירו בה כבוד והערכה לגדולי ישראל אך מאידך מבט ביקורתי ביותר כלפי העולם החרדי. כאשר היא גדלה, היא החליטה לברר בעצמה את הדברים והלכה לישיבת פונוביז' לתפילות הימים הנוראים. בשמחת תורה היא שבה לשם. הכל היה נראה טוב ויפה עד שאחת הנוכחות במקום אמרה לה בקול רם, לפני כל הנשים האחרות: "את לא יכולה להגיע להתפלל פה בלי ללבוש גרביים!" דבורה נזדעזעה. אם זוהי הדרך בה מתנהגים חרדים – אין זה המקום בשבילה. אולם, על פי החינוך אותו קיבלה – כבוד לתלמידי חכמים, היא החליטה ללכת אל הרב שך ולדבר איתו. כאשר הגיעה, השתרך תור ארוך של אנשים הממתינים להיכנס פנימה. הדלת נפתחה, האדם שהיה בפנים עזב את המקום, והיא נקראה להיכנס. הוסבר לה שלנשים ישנה זכות קדימה. מופתעת ומרוגשת נכנסה אל הקודש פנימה וסיפרה את סיפורה לגדול הדור. "הן עברו עבירה גדולה" אמר הרב שך. "אולי זה היה ללא כוונה, אולם הן עדיין חייבות לבקש את סליחתך". הוא המשיך לדבר איתה זמן ממושך על חובת הזהירות הגדולה והרגישות שיש לנהוג בה כלפי הזולת. במשך שיחה זו גמלה ההחלטה בליבה להפוך להיות חרדית לגמרי. היום היא נשואה לראש ישיבה, וכל בניה וחתניה הם תלמידי חכמים" . סיפור זה מלמדנו כמה הרס ואסון עלולות לגרום מילים שאינן במקומן – 'רק' מילים הן אלה שגרמו לאותה בת כאב וכעס עצום, ואיימו למנוע ממנה התקרבות לשמירת תורה ומצוות באופן הנכון. ולעומת זאת בזכות מילים רכות, שהגיעו מתוך מחשבה – הסתיים סיפור זה בסופו של דבר בצורה חיובית. מובן היטב מהגמרא עד כמה חמור עלול להיות חטא הונאת דברים, אולם למעשה קשה עד מאד להיזהר כראוי מחטא זה – חיינו מתנהלים מתוך קשר קבוע עם החברה, אנו מדברים ומשוחחים ללא הפסקה ובקלות רבה עלולים ללא משים לפגוע ברגשותיהם של הסובבים אותנו על ידי מילים חסרות מחשבה. יתירה מזאת, כיוון שאנו מדברים כל כך הרבה אנו עלולים לשכוח עד כמה חמור חטא זה של פגיעה ברגשות הזולת. החזון איש ראה פעם אדם הנוזף בחומרה בבנו הצעיר על כך שטלטל בשבת חפץ שייתכן והוא מוקצה. אמר לו החזון איש, שייתכן ובנו עבר על מצווה דרבנן, אולם הוא ודאי עבר על לאו דאורייתא של הונאת דברים. נביא עצה אחת אשר בכוחה לעזור לנו לפתח את הרגישות למצווה זו: להחדיר היטב בלב את אמיתות העובדה שאנו מצווים להיזהר בהונאת דברים בדיוק כשם שאנו מצווים בכל מצווה אחת כמו כשרות. הרי ברור לכל אחד שאסור לו להכניס לפיו שום מאכל כל עוד הוא אינו בטוח בכשרותו. עלינו להביא את עצמנו למצב בו אנו עומדים על המשמר בדיוק באותה מידה גם לגבי מה שאנו מוציאים מהפה. הדרך הטובה ביותר להגיע לכך היא על ידי לימוד ההלכות הנוגעות למצוה זו ולימוד ההשקפה העומדת מאחוריה . נסיים באמרה מאלפת בשם החזון איש - הוא היה רגיל לאמר שיש לו מקור הנאה עצום ביותר - הידיעה שהוא חי את כל ימי חייו בלי שגרם כל כאב לאף יהודי. מי ייתן ונזכה כולנו לפעול אך טוב בדיבורינו.

BECHUKOSAI – LIVING WITH OUR LEARNING

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

BEHAR – GIVING WITH DIGNITY

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

BEHAR – HURTFUL WORDS

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

THE OMER – REBBE AVIKA’S STUDENTS

The Omer is characterized by a period of mourning over the tragic deaths of Rebbe Akiva’s 24,000 students. The gemara explains that they were punished because they did not give sufficient honor to each other. However, the Medrash offers a different explanation. It states that they died because they were unwilling to share their Torah with others. How can these two seemingly contradictory maamarei Chazal (saying of the Rabbis) be resolved? In truth it is possible that both failings emanate from the same source: They both came about as a result of a slight lack of appreciation for the importance of Torah . The root of their failure to attribute sufficient honor to their fellow talmidei chachamim was a lacking in some small way in appreciation of the importance of Torah and the accompanying honor one must give those who learn it. It would seem that the Medrash’s criticism that they did not that they did not share their Torah could also emanate from a lack of respect for the importance of Torah. This is borne out from the following gemara, as explained by the Maharal. In Parshas Shelach, the Torah, in describing one who worships idols, says that "he disgraced the word of Hashem." The gemara in Sanhedin ascribes this degrading description to a number of other negative forms of behavior such as denying that the Torah is from HaShem. The gemara adds; "Rebbe Meir says; one who learns Torah and does not teach it is included in the category of, 'for he disgraced the word of HaShem' ." It is very difficult to understand why learning and not teaching can be placed in the same category as truly terrible sins such as denying that the Torah is from HaShem ! The Maharal explains that Kavod HaTorah is greatly enhanced when one spreads the word of Hashem to others. One who does not do so prevents Torah from being learnt by others. Therefore, he disgraces the word of Hashem because through his inaction he hinders the enhancement of Kavod HaShem . We see from the Maharal that a failure to teach others is indicative of a lack of true concern of the honor of the Torah. With this understanding, it seems that the gemara and Medrash are not arguing – both agree that Rebbe Akiva’s students were lacking in a slight degree in the appropriate appreciation for Torah. The consequences of these sins were so significant that all of these great men died, and as a result the gemara tells us that the world was desolate of Torah. This would seem to be a measure for measure punishment of their inability to spread Torah to others – since they did not teach Torah, they were punished that with their deaths, the continuation of the Torah would be under severe threat. This is not the only example where we see that a lack of teaching Torah was the cause of great desolation. The gemara in Avoda Zara describes the first two thousands of existence as being years of desolation (tohu) . This period ended when Avraham Avinu began to teach Torah to the world. At that time, the ‘period of Torah began’. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l notes that there were individuals who learnt Torah before Avraham Avinu, accordingly he asks how this period can be described as being one of spiritual desolation? He explains that since these men were not going out to teach others, it was impossible for Torah to spread throughout the world. Thus, even though there were individuals learning Torah, it was a time of great desolation. The desolation only ended when Avraham began teaching the world. We have seen how the failure to honor and spread Torah led to the devastating tragedy of the death of 24,000 talmidei chachamim. It is little surprise that the tikun (rectification) of the sin was that the new students should spread Torah. Accordingly, the Medrash informs us of Rebbe Akiva’s exhortation to his new students. He told them. “do not be like the first students.” The Medrash continues that that when they heard this, “they immediately got up and filled all of Eretz Yisroel with Torah.” Based on all the above, we have a new perspective about the reasons for the practice of mourning the deaths of the 24,000 students before Lag B’Omer. Some commentaries have pointed out that we do not mourn the deaths of people for longer than twelve months, no matter how great they are. In the Omer we are not mourning the deaths of the student, rather the devastating loss of Torah that came about as a result of their deaths. By mourning this loss of Torah, we can hopefully increase our appreciation for the Torah and the need to spread it to all Jews.

EMOR – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – THE JOY OF MITZVOS

Vayikra, 21:1: HaShem said to Moses: Say to the Kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: Each of them shall not contaminate himself to a [dead] person among his people.” Rashi, Vayikra, 21:1: sv. Say to the Kohanim: “’Say’ (emor) and ‘say’ (amarta), [the repetition is] to warn the adults with regards to the children.” HaShem twice uses the expression of ‘saying’ when instructing Moshe Rabbeinu to teach the laws of purity of the Kohanim. Rashi, based on the Gemara, explains that the repetition is coming to teach us that the Kohanim must also teach their sons to observe these laws. This teaches us a principle in chinuch that applies to all of Torah; that a parent must ensure that his children observe the Mitzvos. Rav Baruch Sorotskin zt”l asks in the name of his father, Rav Zalman Sorotskin zt”l, since this lesson applies equally to all other Mitzvos, why, then, was it taught davke in the context of the Mitzvos of the Kohanim? He explains that there is a significant factor that makes it more difficult to educate young Kohanim in their Mitzvos; with regard to other Mitzvos, all Jews are equally required to observe the Torah and therefore there is less chance that a Jewish child will be influenced to do something forbidden by his fellow children. Only the non-Jews do not observe the laws of the Torah and there was little risk that a child would think their actions are acceptable for a Jew who follows the Torah. However, the laws of the Kohanim are unique in that most Jews do not have to observe them. Therefore, there is the added risk that a young Kohen will not realize the severity of the Mitzvos that only pertain to Kohanim. Accordingly, the Torah chooses these Mitzvos in particular to stress the significance of educating one’s children in the Mitzvos. The challenge that in those times was greater with regards to Kohanim, now seems to apply to all Jews. This is because, sadly, there are many Jews who do not observe the Mitzvos. Moreover, even within the groups who do strive to observe the Mitzvos, there are many different levels of sensitivity with regard to areas such as use of modern technology and involvement in the secular world. How, then, does a person strive to bring up his children to adhere to the level of values that he aspires to and not be adversely influenced by others? An answer to this question can perhaps be found in the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l in his commentary on this verse in Emor. He explains, based on Rashi, that the two lashonos (expressions) of ‘saying’ come to teach us that there are two aspects in educating our children about Mitzvos. The first is simply to teach them about their obligations and the accompanying challenges that they will need to overcome. However, this alone is insufficient; for if a child only hears this then he may feel that he is not strong enough to overcome the numerous challenges that he will inevitably face. Accordingly, the second ‘saying’ comes to add that the father must communicate the joy of keeping Mitzvos to his children. In this way the child will receive the message that Torah observance is not simply a difficult challenge that must be overcome, rather it is the source of our well-being in this world as well as the next. In this vein, Rav Feinstein mentioned a phrase that was common amongst Jews of previous generations: “it is difficult to be a Jew”. He says that children that heard this message from their parents were being implicitly taught that Torah observance is a yoke that one must bear, despite all the challenges and difficulties it involves. As a result, many of these children grew up to see Torah as a burden and rejected it in their desire to achieve a ‘better’ life. In this vein, the following story was told; in the early part of the twentieth century many Jews who moved to America faced the tremendous challenge (nisayon) of not working on Shabbos. Most employers insisted that their employees work on Shabbos and if they refused they would be instantly fired. Many Jews succumbed to this nisayon and worked on Shabbos. Yet there were a minority who remained steadfast in their Shabbos observance despite the great challenges that this posed. There were two such men who did this, yet their children developed very differently. One of them merited to have children who devotedly followed in his footsteps to be G-d fearing Jews. But the children of the other man did not grow up in the same way and rejected Torah observance. This second man once approached Rav Aaron Kotler zt”l and asked him why his children had not followed in his footsteps whilst those of his friend did. He answered that whilst both men refused to work on Shabbos they expressed very different attitudes to their children. This man would return home on Friday after he was fired and come to the Shabbos table despondent, saying how difficult it was to keep the Torah in America. He constantly bemoaned his financial situation and worried about how he would find another job. His children would hear this and see how difficult Shabbos observance was; Shabbos, and by extension, all Torah, in their minds, became a difficult, unpleasant burden that only brought pain and sorrow every week. Unsurprisingly, as soon as they grew up, they were unwilling to undergo such ‘suffering’ and dropped Shabbos and the other Mitzvos. In contrast, his friend came home with an entirely different attitude. He came to the Shabbos table with great joy and enthusiasm, happy to have remained steadfast in his Shabbos observance. He saw it as a privilege to have stood up for the honor of Shabbos and was confident that HaShem would enable him to provide for his family. Thus his children grew up seeing Torah observance as the key to a rewarding and meaningful life. This eEMOR – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – THE JOY OF MITZVOS Yehonasan Gefen Vayikra, 21:1: HaShem said to Moses: Say to the Kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: Each of them shall not contaminate himself to a [dead] person among his people.” Rashi, Vayikra, 21:1: sv. Say to the Kohanim: “’Say’ (emor) and ‘say’ (amarta), [the repetition is] to warn the adults with regards to the children.” HaShem twice uses the expression of ‘saying’ when instructing Moshe Rabbeinu to teach the laws of purity of the Kohanim. Rashi, based on the Gemara, explains that the repetition is coming to teach us that the Kohanim must also teach their sons to observe these laws. This teaches us a principle in chinuch that applies to all of Torah; that a parent must ensure that his children observe the Mitzvos. Rav Baruch Sorotskin zt”l asks in the name of his father, Rav Zalman Sorotskin zt”l, since this lesson applies equally to all other Mitzvos, why, then, was it taught davke in the context of the Mitzvos of the Kohanim? He explains that there is a significant factor that makes it more difficult to educate young Kohanim in their Mitzvos; with regard to other Mitzvos, all Jews are equally required to observe the Torah and therefore there is less chance that a Jewish child will be influenced to do something forbidden by his fellow children. Only the non-Jews do not observe the laws of the Torah and there was little risk that a child would think their actions are acceptable for a Jew who follows the Torah. However, the laws of the Kohanim are unique in that most Jews do not have to observe them. Therefore, there is the added risk that a young Kohen will not realize the severity of the Mitzvos that only pertain to Kohanim. Accordingly, the Torah chooses these Mitzvos in particular to stress the significance of educating one’s children in the Mitzvos. The challenge that in those times was greater with regards to Kohanim, now seems to apply to all Jews. This is because, sadly, there are many Jews who do not observe the Mitzvos. Moreover, even within the groups who do strive to observe the Mitzvos, there are many different levels of sensitivity with regard to areas such as use of modern technology and involvement in the secular world. How, then, does a person strive to bring up his children to adhere to the level of values that he aspires to and not be adversely influenced by others? An answer to this question can perhaps be found in the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l in his commentary on this verse in Emor. He explains, based on Rashi, that the two lashonos (expressions) of ‘saying’ come to teach us that there are two aspects in educating our children about Mitzvos. The first is simply to teach them about their obligations and the accompanying challenges that they will need to overcome. However, this alone is insufficient; for if a child only hears this then he may feel that he is not strong enough to overcome the numerous challenges that he will inevitably face. Accordingly, the second ‘saying’ comes to add that the father must communicate the joy of keeping Mitzvos to his children. In this way the child will receive the message that Torah observance is not simply a difficult challenge that must be overcome, rather it is the source of our well-being in this world as well as the next. In this vein, Rav Feinstein mentioned a phrase that was common amongst Jews of previous generations: “it is difficult to be a Jew”. He says that children that heard this message from their parents were being implicitly taught that Torah observance is a yoke that one must bear, despite all the challenges and difficulties it involves. As a result, many of these children grew up to see Torah as a burden and rejected it in their desire to achieve a ‘better’ life. In this vein, the following story was told; in the early part of the twentieth century many Jews who moved to America faced the tremendous challenge (nisayon) of not working on Shabbos. Most employers insisted that their employees work on Shabbos and if they refused they would be instantly fired. Many Jews succumbed to this nisayon and worked on Shabbos. Yet there were a minority who remained steadfast in their Shabbos observance despite the great challenges that this posed. There were two such men who did this, yet their children developed very differently. One of them merited to have children who devotedly followed in his footsteps to be G-d fearing Jews. But the children of the other man did not grow up in the same way and rejected Torah observance. This second man once approached Rav Aaron Kotler zt”l and asked him why his children had not followed in his footsteps whilst those of his friend did. He answered that whilst both men refused to work on Shabbos they expressed very different attitudes to their children. This man would return home on Friday after he was fired and come to the Shabbos table despondent, saying how difficult it was to keep the Torah in America. He constantly bemoaned his financial situation and worried about how he would find another job. His children would hear this and see how difficult Shabbos observance was; Shabbos, and by extension, all Torah, in their minds, became a difficult, unpleasant burden that only brought pain and sorrow every week. Unsurprisingly, as soon as they grew up, they were unwilling to undergo such ‘suffering’ and dropped Shabbos and the other Mitzvos. In contrast, his friend came home with an entirely different attitude. He came to the Shabbos table with great joy and enthusiasm, happy to have remained steadfast in his Shabbos observance. He saw it as a privilege to have stood up for the honor of Shabbos and was confident that HaShem would enable him to provide for his family. Thus his children grew up seeing Torah observance as the key to a rewarding and meaningful life. This essential lesson from Rav Feinstein and Rav Kotler provides us with the key to answer our original question. Our children will inevitably see others of different levels of Torah observance and standards, however if they are taught that observing the Torah is a joyous opportunity then they are far more likely to not be tempted by seemingly ‘easier’ or more ‘pleasurable’ lifestyles. One example of this is how parents approach Jewish holidays that require considerable work and preparation, such as Pesach. If the atmosphere in the home is one of tenseness at the burden of having to clean the house then the children will likely grow up with the attitude that Pesach is a burden. But if the hard work is approached in a positive way then they will see Pesach as a time of great happiness. One final vital point is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to communicate the joy of Torah observance to one’s children, if the parent does not feel that joy himself. Children are influenced far more by how we live, then what we say. Thus, as well as a key message in chinuch, this is an essential lesson in our own lives; that Torah is the only way to achieve true meaning and life satisfaction. If we inculcate that into our own lives then our children will surely emulate us. ssential lesson from Rav Feinstein and Rav Kotler provides us with the key to answer our original question. Our children will inevitably see others of different levels of Torah observance and standards, however if they are taught that observing the Torah is a joyous opportunity then they are far more likely to not be tempted by seemingly ‘easier’ or more ‘pleasurable’ lifestyles. One example of this is how parents approach Jewish holidays that require considerable work and preparation, such as Pesach. If the atmosphere in the home is one of tenseness at the burden of having to clean the house then the children will likely grow up with the attitude that Pesach is a burden. But if the hard work is approached in a positive way then they will see Pesach as a time of great happiness. One final vital point is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to communicate the joy of Torah observance to one’s children, if the parent does not feel that joy himself. Children are influenced far more by how we live, then what we say. Thus, as well as a key message in chinuch, this is an essential lesson in our own lives; that Torah is the only way to achieve true meaning and life satisfaction. If we inculcate that into our own lives then our children will surely emulate us.

EMOR - THE PRECISION OF DIN

The Parsha ends with the incident involving the blaspheming of the mekalel. The Torah tells us that after he committed his heinous sin, he was placed in a cell to await the punishment he was to recieve . Rashi, quoting a Medrash, writes that at the same time there was another sinner awaiting his fate - the mekoshesh - who was placed in a separate cell. There was a key difference in the situations of the two men. It was known that the mekoshesh was chayav misa, but it was not known by which form of misa he would be executed. In contrast, with regard to the mekalel, they did not know whether he was chayav misa at all. Sifsey Chachamim explain that had they put the two together it could have caused the mekalel undue pain because he would have expected to receive the death penalty just like the mekoshesh. In order to spare him from any unnecessary pain he was put in a separate cell. Rav Mordechai Gifter zt’l goes even further and says that putting the two in the same cell could have possibly even caused the mekoshesh undue pain - had the mekalel been exempt from the death penalty and the mekoshesh would have been aware of this he would have been caused even more pain because a person feels worse about a bad situation when he knows that his fellow is not suffering to the same degree . Consequently the mekoshesh was kept unaware of the fate of the mekalel. This example teaches us the degree of sensitivity which the Torah requires - these two men committed terrible sins and yet they were treated with the utmost concern. A less obvious lesson is that even when a person is deserving of punishment we must be extremely careful not to cause him more pain than he deserves - these men were deserving of terrible onshim but they did not deserve to suffer one iota of pain more than the halacho required. There are a number of examples of this yesod throughout the Torah, Chazal, and halacho: For example, a person who commits a sin that is chayav malkus receives 39 lashes but the Torah strictly prohibits striking him even a single time more than the proscribed number. The Sefer HaChinuch explains that it is unjust to strike a human being more than he deserves . Another case where one must be very careful not to cause undue damage is speaking lashon hara for constructive purpose. There are times when it is permitted to speak negatively about a person and if necessary, cause him a certain degree of harm, in order to protect other people. However, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l warns that it is forbidden to cause him more damage than he deserves according to Jewish law. Even though speaking out could prevent damage, nonetheless one cannot do so if the perpetrator will unduly suffer . Furthermore, it seems that when a person is careful not to cause anyone undue harm he fulfills the mitzvo of ’v’halachto b’drachav’ because Hashem always punishes a person to the exact degree necessary. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l brings out a striking example of this; The Torah in describing the sale of Yosef Hatzadik to the Yishmaelim mentions the seemingly insignificant point that their wagons were carrying pleasant smelling spices. The Medrash explains that the passuk is showing us how Hashem did not want Yosef to have to endure unpleasant smells, therefore He arranged that these wagons carry spices instead of the regular merchandise . This is very difficult to understand: At this time Yosef was experiencing incredible physical and emotional pain - he had been stripped of his clothing by his own brothers and thrown into a pit full of snakes and scorpions. Now he was flung into a wagon alone and helpless - in the light of such great hardship the fact that the wagon at least smelt pleasant does not seem to have provided much consolation to Yosef! However, this teaches us the exacting nature of midos Hadin. Hashem, in His Infinite wisdom, decreed that Yosef needed to undergo the pain of being thrown in to the pit, sold to the Yishmaelim, and all the other difficulties that he went through in Mitzrayim . However, he did not deserve to sit in a wagon that had an unpleasant fragrance, and therefore Hashem caused a hidden miracle to enable him to enjoy a pleasant smell on his journey to Mitzrayim. Our Gedolim demonstrated a similar sensitivity to applying appropriate punishment or rebuke appropriate to the situation. On one occasion, Rav Shach zt”l was greatly displeased with a certain Rosh Yeshiva and traveled a considerable distance in order to rebuke him. However, after he arrived at where the Rosh Yeshiva was staying, he only remained for a short time and then left without saying anything. He explained that the wife of this Rosh Yeshiva was present throughout the visit and Rav Shach did not want to rebuke him in front of her . Rav Shach evidently felt that this Rosh Yeshiva was deserving of a certain level of rebuke to the extent that he was willing to travel a long distance in order to deliver it. However, he forsook this course of action when he perceived that it would cause unwarranted damage. There are many examples in daily life where it may be necessary to rebuke or punish someone, particularly children or students. However it is essential to avoid punishing them overly harshly and it seems from the above examples, that it would be safer and more advisable to refrain from rebuke if there is the likelihood that to do so would cause more pain than deserved. The fact that the Torah deems it significant to mention the degree to which the mekalel and mekoshesh were spared any excessive suffering teaches us how careful we must be in our dealings with our fellow Jews not to cause them any unnecessary pain.

אמור - הבנת העומר

אמור - הבנת העומר יהונתן גפן פרשת אמור מתארת את המצוות הקשורות בקרבן העומר. אנו מצווים ביום השני של פסח להקריב קרבן מנחה משעורים בבית המקדש, ומנקודה זו ואילך לספור ארבעים ותשע יום – עד ערב שבועות. ר' יוסף סלנט זצ"ל בספרו 'באר יוסף' שואל על עניין העומר מספר שאלות . ביניהם הוא מציין את העובדה שמנחת העומר הכילה נפח זהה לכל שאר קרבנות המנחה – עשירית האיפה , ולמרות זאת רק הנפח של מנחה זו מכונה בתורה בשם 'עומר' – במקום לומר בפשטות – כמו בשאר המנחות – "עשירית האיפה". מהי המשמעות של החלפת הכינוי במנחת העומר? שנית, הוא מביא את דברי ה'ספר החינוך' שכותב שמטרת ספירת העומר היא לספור לקראת זמן מתן תורה – חג השבועות. אנו סופרים על מנת לשקף בכך את ציפייתנו לקראת יום גדול וקדוש זה. ר' יוסף סלנט מעיר שמהסברו של בעל ספר החינוך קשה לראות קשר מהותי בין מנחת העומר לבין מתן תורה, ולכאורה נראה שישנם 49 יום ממנחת העומר ועד למתן תורה, ולכן אנו סופרים מאז ועד שבועות. האם אכן קיים קשר כזה, בין שני תאריכים אלה, הנראים לכאורה כלל לא קשורים זה בזה? הוא משיב על שאלתו הראשונה ואומר שהמקום הנוסף בו משתמשת התורה במילה "עומר" הוא בקשר למן. בפרשת בשלח כותבת התורה את ציווי ה' לעם ישראל לאסוף מהמן "עומר לגולגולת" . גם המדרש מקשר בין מנחת העומר והמן ואומר שבמנחה זו הודה עם ישראל לה' על המן אותו קיבלו במדבר. ר' סלנט מסביר שבזמן היותם במדבר, לא נדרשו היהודים להשקיע כל מאמץ על מנת להשיג את מחייתם. המן הגיע אליהם הישר משמיים בלא כל צורך במגע יד אדם. יתירה מזאת, גם אם היה אדם מנסה ומתאמץ להשיג כמות זו או אחרת של מן – מעולם לא עלה בידו להשיג יותר מהכמות שנקצבה לו, ובסופו של דבר הוא קיבל בדיוק את הכמות אותה היה צריך. כיוון שפרנסתם הייתה מסופקת להם מלמעלה, יכלו היהודים להשקיע את כל זמנם וכוחם עבור לימוד התורה ועבודת ה'. אבל, כאשר נכנסו לארץ ישראל – הפסיק המן לרדת משמיים והם נדרשו להתחיל לדאוג לפרנסתם על ידי מאמץ פיזי מצידם. שינוי זה בחייהם הביא בכנפיו סכנה חדשה: כאשר אדם רואה כיצד נושא עמלו פרי, בטחונו בה' נכנס לסיכון – האדם עלול לזקוף את ההצלחה לעבודתו הקשה, ולשכוח שהכל בא במתנה משמיים. על מנת למנוע מצב זה, ציוותה התורה על קרבן העומר; את ראשית התבואה החדשה בעונה אנו מקריבים להקב"ה, ומבטאים בכך את הכרתנו ואמונתנו הברורה שה' הוא מקור מחייתנו ולא ההשתדלות שאנו עושים. על ידי שימוש באותה מידת נפח, קישרה התורה בין המן ובין מנחת העומר, ולמעשה הדגישה שעל פי האמת אין שום הבדל בין הדרך בה קיבלנו את מזוננו במדבר לעומת ארץ ישראל. בדיוק כשם שסיפק הקב"ה צרכנו במדבר כך הוא מהווה את מקור פרנסתנו גם כאשר הסתיימה תקופה ניסית זו. ההבדל היחיד הוא בכך שכעת אין לנו עוד את הזכות לראות במו עינינו ניסים גלויים, ולכן עלינו להשקיע כוחות ולהשתדל עבור פרנסנתנו. מוסף ה"באר יוסף" הוכחה יפה נוספת לקשר בין המן ובין העומר. הוא מביא את הגמרא בקידושין האומרת שהמן הפסיק לרדת כאשר נפטר משה רבנו, אולם העם המשיך לאכול משיירי המן עד היכנסם לארץ בט"ז בניסן . זהו בדיוק התאריך בו מביאים את קרבן העומר! וכך, מידי שנה, אנו מתחילים בספירת העומר ביום בו הפסיק המן לרדת, זהו לימוד עבורנו מידי שנה בשנה שפרנסה שהיא בגדר של עומר – מתוך השתדלות, מהווה למעשה המשך ישיר לזו הניסית – למן מִן השמיים. הוא ממשיך הלאה להסביר את הקשר בין העומר ובין שבועות. עד כה ראינו כיצד העומר מלמדנו שפרנסתנו מגיעה אך ורק מה'. אולם ידיעה זו אינה מספקת; עלינו גם להכיר בכך שפרנסה ברווח אינה מטרה בפני עצמה, אלא גם לה יש תפקיד גדול הרבה יותר – להביא אותנו למנוחת הנפש, אשר על ידה נוכל להשקיע בעבודת ה' ובלימוד התורה ללא כל טרדות ודאגות מחיה. על כן קישרה התורה את ספירת העומר לשבועת ללמדנו את מטרתה של הפרנסה אותה מספק לנו ה' – להביאנו לקראת מתן תורה, לאפשר לנו ללמוד תורה ולחיות חיי תורה. במשך ארבעים ותשעה ימים אנו סופרים ספירת העומר, ובכך מחדירים בתוכנו את ההכרה בכך שה' הוא מקור המחיה היחיד בחיינו, ולמעלה מזאת, שמטרתו בכל זאת היא אך ורק לאפשר לנו להתקרב אליו עוד ועוד על ידי לימוד התורה וקיום מצוותיה. ללימוד אותו למד עם ישראל מהמן במדבר הייתה משמעות חשובה ביותר במשך ההסטוריה היהודית. בתקופתו של הנביא ירמיהו היה מצב בעם בו העמידו את העבודה בחשיבות עליונה יותר מלימוד התורה. ירמיהו הוכיחם על כך, אך הם טענו שהם חייבים לעבוד למחייתם כדי לשרוד. ירמיהו בתגובה הביא מבית המקדש צנצנת של מן שהייתה גנוזה בו . בכך הזכיר להם שלהקב"ה ישנן דרכים רבות כיצד לספק לאדם את פרנסתו והאדם חייב להכיר בכך שאין כל טעם להתמקד בחיפוש אחר הפרנסה חלף התפתחותו הרוחנית. אנחנו לא זכאים לראות את צנצנת המן ולהתעורר על ידה, אולם עדיין נותרה בידינו מצות ספירת העומר – המהווה תזכורת קבועה לכך שאין כל תועלת בהשקעת מאמצים מעבר לגבולות ההשתדלות הנצרכת, שהרי בסופו של דבר ה' הוא היחיד המספק את כל צרכינו. ולמעלה מזאת, ספירת העומר מזכירה לנו שוב ושוב שהמטרה עבורה אנו מקבלים את צרכינו הגשמיים היא על מנת שנוכל להתמקד בעבודה העיקרית – לעלות ולהתקרב אל ה' . היישום למעשה של לימודים אלה הוא שונה וייחודי לכל אחד ואחד, אין מידה קבועה של זמן והשקעה אותם צריך האדם להשקיע בפרנסה, בלימוד ובהשקעה בעניינים רוחניים אחרים. אולם, בתקופה זו של ספירת העומר כדאי לכל אדם לבדוק את עצמו ולעשות חשבון הנפש – כמה הוא משקיע בגשמיות לעומת חיי הנצח? האם הוא דואג לפרנסתו יותר מהנצרך? ובזמנו הפנוי, האם הוא משקיע ברוחניות, או שמא מוצא מה אפשר להוסיף בחיי העולם הזה? אם יענה האדם לעצמו בכנות על שאלות אלה, ויבדוק שאכן הוא חי בצורה הנכונה – יוכל הוא להפנים את מה שבא העומר ללמדנו. מי ייתן וכולנו נזכה להרוויח את לחמנו ומחייתנו ללא קושי, וכך נזכה לשפע של אפשרויות לגדול ולהתקרב אל ה' .

EMOR – OUR PORTION IN OLAM HABA

The Parsha ends with the distressing story of the Mekalel, the son of an Egyptian man and Jewish woman, who committed the grave sin of blasphemy and as a result was punished with the death penalty. The episode begins with the words, “the son of an Israelite woman went out – and he was the son of an Egyptian man – among the Children of Israel…” Chazal and the commentaries point out that the significance of the words, “he went out” is unclear – where did he go out from?. Rashi, quoting the Medrash, explains that the Torah is telling us that, “he went out of his Olam (world).” The commentaries explain that this means that he forsook his portion in Olam Haba through the terrible sin that he committed. The Taz in his commentary on the Torah notes further the use of the language, that he left “his world” as opposed to, “the world”. The Taz explains: “The explanation seems to be, that, from the day of his birth, every member of the Jewish people is connected to the Upper World [ie. Olam Haba] in a Holy place. But when he sins he leaves that place where he is connected; therefore it says that he ‘went out’.” This explanation provides us with an important understanding of the Torah outlook with regard to reward and punishment in Olam Haba. One may think that a person in this world has no intrinsic connection to Olam Haba, rather when he dies and goes up, he will receive prizes for the Mitzvos he did, and will lose things for the sins he did. The reward that is ‘Olam Haba’ is viewed upon as being his prize, similar to the way in which a person collects his reward after winning a raffle. The Taz shows us that that is not the case – rather from his birth, a Jew is intrinsically connected to Olam Haba – what is the cause of this connection? It is obviously his soul; by dong Mitzvos he nourishes his soul and thereby ‘improves’ the nature of the Olam Haba that he will ‘receive’. By sinning he damages his soul and thereby loses certain elements of his Olam Haba – and without teshuva (repentance) he has to go to Gehinnom to cleanse himself from the impurities on his soul because of the sin . The sin of the mekalel was so great that he lost his Olam HaBah . Thus, we see from here that reward and punishment in the next world is not arbitrary, rather a person creates his own Olam Haba or lack thereof. There is a second important lesson that can be derived from the Taz: Some religions believe that people are intrinsically evil because of the sin of Adam, and that one must get out of that state of inherent evil. We see from the Taz that the exact opposite is true. We are intrinsically good and Holy and connected to Olam Haba - our job is just not to lose our inherent connection, rather to tend to our Portion well. This concept is brought out by the Mishna in Sanhedrin which states: “Every Jew has a Portion in the World to Come…” The commentaries ask is it true that every Jews gets Olam Haba? Indeed the Mishna later enumerates the people who get no Olam Haba! The answer is that the Mishna does not say that every person ultimately receives Olam Haba, rather that they all have a Chelek (Portion), and it is up to them to maintain and develop that Chelek. But if they neglect their job then they are in danger of losing it, as was the case with the people mentioned in the Mishna. An analogy of owning land can be used to help further understand the Mishna. The portion described here is like a plot of land; each person inherits a bare plot of land. It is up to him to tender the plot and plant it so that healthy crops grow in it. If, at the end of one’s tenure of the crop, he has developed it well, then he can reap the rewards of his hard work. If, however, he neglects the crop, then it will remain undeveloped, and if he mistreats it, by throwing dangerous chemicals into it, for example, then he will damage it. At the end of his tenure he will be left with a useless piece of land. So too, we are all born with a lofty soul that is our connection to Olam Haba. If we observe the Torah and Mitzvos then we will elevate our soul so that after our deaths our souls will be fitting vessels to enjoy the spiritual wonders of Olam Haba. If, however, we neglect and damage our souls, then they will be so badly stained that they will not be able to benefit from Olam Haba, and that soul will have to undergo the painful process of Gehinnom in order to be able to enter Olam Haba. We have seen how each Jew has an inherent connection to Olam Haba and that the way we conduct ourselves in this world determines the state of our portion in the Next World. There are is a very important practical lesson that should be derived from this knowledge. A person’s yetser hara (negative inclination) sometimes tells him that even if he acts incorrectly, HaShem will easily forgive his transgressions and he will avoid negative consequences, without having to do teshuva. However, this understanding is totally incorrect – when a person sins, he automatically damages his soul – it is not a matter of HaShem ‘letting him off or not’, rather HaShem has set up a system whereby there are natural spiritual consequences to one’s actions. Thus, just like in the physical world, it is understood that certain actions, such as walking off the roof of a building, will cause great damage, the same is true in the spiritual world. Only teshuva can rectify the damage done by the sin. May we all merit to tend to our Portion of Olam Haba in the most optimum way possible.

אמור – דקדוק הדין

בס"ד אמור – דקדוק הדין יהונתן גפן בסיום הפרשה מתואר המעשה בו יהודי פתח את פיו וקילל כנגד אלוקיו. התורה מספרת שלאחר שעשה אותו אדם את מעשהו הנורא, הוא הושם למשמר מחוץ למחנה עד שיבוא על עונשו. רש"י במקום מביא את המדרש שאומר שבאותה תקופה בדיוק היה חוטא נוסף שהמתין לגזר דינו – המקושש, ואף את המקושש הניחו לבדו, במקום נפרד מהמקלל. שני חוטאים אלו היו שונים זה מזה במצבם. ידוע היה שהמקושש חייב מיתה, אולם לא ידעו איזה סוג מיתה הוא חייב. לעומת זאת, לגבי המקלל לא ידעו בכלל האם הוא חייב מיתה. ה"שפתי חיים" מסביר שאם היו מניחים את שניהם יחד, היה נגרם למקלל צער נוסף מיותר, כיוון שבמצב זה הוא היה מצפה שדין המוות שלו יהיה בדיוק כמו זה של המקושש. על מנת למנוע ממנו צער מיותר שלא נגזר עליו הפרידו אותו מהמקושש והניחוהו במקום אחר. הרב מרדכי גיפטר זצ"ל מוסיף על כך עוד יותר ואומר שאם שניהם היו נמצאים ביחד ייתכן והיה נגרם גם צער מיותר למקושש - אם המקלל היה יוצא בסופו של דבר פטור מעונש מוות, והמקושש יֵדע מכך, דין המוות שלו יהיה קשה עוד יותר, כיוון שכל אדם מרגיש רע יותר במצבים קשים כאלו כאשר הוא יודע שרעהו שהיה איתו לצידו אינו סובל באותו רמת סבל שהוא סובל . לכן דאגו שהמקושש לא ידע אפילו מדינו של המקלל. מכך לומדים אנו עד כמה דקה הרגישות אותה דורשת התורה – שני אנשים אלו היו חוטאים בחטאים חמורים, עם זאת נהגו בהם ביחס העדין והמתחשב ביותר שאפשר במצבם. לימוד נוסף המונח כאן הוא שגם כאשר צריך להעניש מישהו, עלינו להיזהר במשנה זהירות לא לגרום לו צער יותר ממה שמגיע לו – שני החוטאים עמדו לפני עונשים חמורים ביותר, אולם לא הגיע להם סבל נוסף, אף לא המועט שבמועט מעבר לדרישות ההלכה. ישנן כמה דוגמאות נוספות ליסוד זה בתורה, בחז"ל ובהלכה: לדוגמא, אדם שחטא וחייב מלקות, בית דין מלקים אותו 39 מלקות, והתורה מזהירה בחומרה שאין להוסיף על 39 מלקות אלו אף לא מכה אחת נוספת . בעל "ספר החינוך" מסביר זאת ואומר: "שאינו בדין ואינו ראוי להכות בריה, כי אם כדי רשעתו " . מקום אחר בו יש חיוב להיזהר במשנה זהירות שלא לגרום נזק מיותר לאדם הוא בדיבור לשון הרע לתועלת. ישנם מקרים בהם מותר לאדם לדבר רע על חברו, ואם יש צורך, גם לגרום לו נזק מסוים, על מנת להגן על בני אדם אחרים. אולם, מזהיר החפץ חיים זצ"ל, אסור לגרום לו נזק גדול יותר ממה שהיה מגיע לו על פי דין תורה. למרות שייתכן והדיבור אודותיו ימנע נזק, אסור לעשות זאת במצב שהנזק שייגרם למדובר יהיה גדול יותר ממה שמגיע לו על פי דין . יתירה מזאת, נראה שאדם הנזהר שלא לגרום לאף אחד צער שלא מגיע לו מקיים את מצוות "והלכת בדרכיו" כיוון שמידתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא היא שהוא מעניש את החוטאים בדיוק במידה שמגיעה להם ולא יותר. ר' חיים שמואלביץ זצ"ל מביא דוגמא מובהקת לכך בתורה; כאשר מתארת התורה את מכירת יוסף הצדיק לישמעאלים, מוזכר פרט שולי לכאורה - העובדה שאורחת הישמעאלים נשאה בעגלותיה "נכאת וצרי ולוט" עשבי בשמים בעלי ריח נעים מאד. המדרש מסביר שפסוק זה מלמדנו שהקב"ה לא רצה שיוסף הצדיק יסבול מריח רע, ולכן הוא סידר זאת כך שהישמעאלים נשאו איתם את אותם עשבים במקום סחורותיהם הרגילות . ולכאורה קשה להבין: באותו זמן היה נתון יוסף בסבל וצער עצום הן מבחינה גופנית והן מבחינה רגשית - אחיו, עצמו ובשרו, הפשיטו אותו ממלבושיו וזרקו אותו לבור מלא נחשים ועקרבים. וכעת הוא לבדו בתוך אורחת ישמעאלים חסר כל, וחסר אונים. בכזה מצב קשה, לא נראה שהריח הנעים שנדף מסחורותיהם של הישמעאלים היווה נחמה כלשהי ליוסף! אולם מכאן אנו למדים עד כמה מדויקת מידת הדין. הקב"ה בחכמתו האלוקית גזר על יוסף לסבול את כאב הזריקה לבור, המכירה לישמעאלים, וכל שאר הקשיים והנסיונות שעברו עליו במצרים , אולם לשבת בתוך עגלה ובה ריחות בלתי נעימים – לא נגזר עליו, ולכן עשה הקב"ה נס נסתר כדי שיוסף יהנה מריח נעים בדרכו למצרים. גדולי ישראל נהגו אף הם בכזו רגישות, הם נזהרו להעניש בעונש תואם בדיוק, ולהוכיח את תלמידיהם באופן מדויק ולא יותר. על הרב שך זצ"ל מסופר שהיו לו פעם כמה טענות על ראש ישיבה מסוים, והוא נסע מרחק לא קטן במטרה להוכיח אותו. אולם עם הגיעו למקום הימצאו של ראש הישיבה, הוא ישב איתו זמן קצר מאד ויצא משם מבלי שאמר שום דבר תוכחה. הוא הסביר שאשתו של אותו ראש ישיבה הייתה נוכחת שם והוא לא רצה להוכיחו בפניה. הרב שך הרגיש שללא ספק אותו ראש ישיבה ראוי לדברי תוכחה וביקורת, עד כדי כך שהחליט לנסוע דרך ארוכה כדי לעשות זאת. אולם הוא עצר בעצמו ולא ביצע את אשר רצה כאשר ראה שייגרם מכך נזק בלתי מוצדק לראש הישיבה. בחיי היום יום קורה הרבה שיש צורך להעניש או למתוח דברי ביקורת על מישהו, במיוחד על ילדים או תלמידים. חשוב ביותר להימנע מלהעניש אותם בחומרה יתירה. ומהדוגמאות שהבאנו נראה שעדיף ומומלץ שלא להוכיחם כלל אם ישנו ספק כלשהו שהתוכחה או העונש יגרמו להם צער מיותר שלא מגיע להם. מהעובדה שהתורה ראתה חשיבות להזכיר עד כמה נזהרו שלא לגרום למקלל ולמקושש כל סבל מיותר נוכל ללמד עד כמה עלינו להיזהר עם הסובבים אותנו שלא לגרום לאף אחד כל צער מיותר.

EMOR - UNDERSTANDING THE OMER

The Parsha outlines the Mitzvos involved with the Omer offering. On the second day of Pesach we are commanded to bring an offering of barley in the Beis HaMikdash and the Torah further instructs us to count forty nine days from the offering until the day before Shavuos. Rav Yosef Salant zt"l in his sefer, 'Be'er Yosef' asks a number of questions about the Omer . Amongst them he notes that the Omer offering was the same volume as the other Mincha offerings - a tenth of an eiphah . Yet this is the only offering in which the volume is described by the name 'Omer' as opposed to simply saying, 'a tenth of an eiphah'. What is the significance of this change in name? Secondly, he brings the Sefer HaChinuch who writes that purpose of Sefiras HaOmer (counting the Omer) is to count towards the day of the Giving of the Torah (Matan Torah), Shavuos. We count to demonstrate our excitement about reaching this holy day . Rav Salant points out that from the Sefer HaChinuch's explanation it is difficult to see any specific connection between the Omer and Matan Torah, rather it simply seems that there were 49 days between the two events and so we count from one towards the other. Is there a connection between the seemingly separate occasions of the Omer offering and Shavous? He answers the first question by noting that the other time the word 'Omer' is used in the Torah is with regard to the Manna that the Jews received in the desert. In Parshas Beshalach the Torah states that Hashem commanded the people to gather from the Manna, "an Omer per person. " The Medrash also connects the Omer offering with the Manna. It tells us that the Omer offering was some kind of acknowledgement from the Jewish people to Hashem of the Manna that they received in the desert. Rav Salant explains that during their time in the desert the people did not have to exert any effort in order to attain their sustenance. The Manna came directly from heaven without any input from the people. Further, no matter how much Manna a person tried to gather, he would never be able to take more than he was allotted, rather he would receive exactly what he needed. Because their sustenance was provided for, the people were free to involve themselves in learning Torah and Avodas Hashem. However, when they entered Eretz Yisroel, the Manna from heaven stopped and they were required to acquire their livelihood (parnassa) through physical effort. With this change came a new danger: When a person sees his toiling bear fruit, there is the risk that his reliance on Hashem will weaken and he will come to attribute his success to his own hard work. In order to prevent this from happening, the Torah gave us the Omer offering; we offer the first produce of the season to Hashem, acknowledging that only He is the Source of our sustenance and not our own hishtadlus. By connecting the Omer to the Manna through the same term of volume, the Torah stresses that in truth there was no difference in how we attained our food in the desert and in Eretz Yisroel. In the same way that Hashem provided us with food in the desert, He was the source of our sustenance once that miraculous period ended. The only difference is that now we no longer merited to experience open miracles and therefore we had to exert a measure of physical effort in order to attain our parnassa. The 'Be'er Yosef' adds a beautiful proof of the connection between the Manna and the Omer. He brings the Gemara in Kiddushin that says that the Manna stopped falling when Moshe Rabbeinu died, but the people continued to eat what was remaining until they entered the land on the 16th of Nissan . We also bring the Omer offering on that very date! Thus, every year, we begin counting the Omer on the day that the Manna stopped to further teach ourselves that the sustenance represented by the Omer is a continuation of the sustenance epitomized by the Manna. He then goes on to explain the connection between the Omer and Shavous. Thus far we have see how the Omer teaches us that our livelihood comes from Hashem. However, such an awareness is not sufficient; we must also realize that earning a parnassa is not an end in itself, rather it is a means to a greater end - to enable us to have enough menuchas hanefesh so that we can focus on Avodas Hashem and learning Torah without being overburdened by concerns about our livelihood. In this vein, the Torah connects the counting of the Omer to Shavuos to teach us that the purpose of the sustenance that is symbolized by the Omer is to take us to Matan Torah, to enable us to learn and observe the Torah effectively. Thus, for forty nine days we count the Omer, thereby infusing ourselves with the realization that Hashem is the only Source of our livelihood and moreover, that His purpose in doing so is to enable us to get close to Him through learning and keeping his Torah. The lessons of the Manna have had great relevance throughout Jewish history. In the time of the Prophet Yeremyahu, the people had made working a greater priority than learning Torah. Yeremyahu exhorted them to make learning Torah their main focus. They replied by claiming that they needed to work in order to survive . Yeremyahu responded by bringing out a container of Manna that was stored in the Beis HaMikdash . He showed them that Hashem has many ways of providing man with his parnassa and that he should realize the futility of focusing on one's physical sustenance to the exclusion of his spiritual well-being. We no longer have the container of Manna to arouse us, however we still have the Mitzvo of counting the Omer - it stands as a constant reminder that there is no benefit in working beyond the boundaries of acceptable hishtadlus (physical effort) because ultimately Hashem is the sole provider of our parnassa. Moreover, it teaches us to remember that the purpose of having our physical needs is so that we can focus on the main Avoda of growing closer to Hashem . These lessons are applied differently to each individual, there is no 'right' amount of time one should spend working, learning, and being involved in other spiritual pursuits. However, during this period of Sefiras HaOmer it is worthwhile for each person to make his own cheshbon hanefesh of the balance of his involvement in gashmius and ruchnius. Does he work more than is really necessary? In his spare time, does he focus on ruchnius or does he 'bring his work home with him'? By asking such questions a person can hopefully internalize the lessons of the Omer. May we all merit to receive our livelihood without difficulty, and have ample opportunity to grow closer to Hashem.

קדושים – ואהבת לרעך כמוך

"לא תקום ולא תטור... ואהבת לרעך כמוך ". רבי עקיבא מתאר את מצוות "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" כ"כלל גדול בתורה" . בדומה לכך, כאשר גוי שרצה להתגייר הגיע לפני הלל הזקן וביקש ממנו שילמדנו את כל התורה כולה על רגל אחת, תשובתו הייתה "מה ששנוי עליך אל תעשה לחברך ואידך זיל גמור [שאר דברי התורה הן פירוש וביאור לכך]" . בעל ה"בן איש חי" כותב שמצווה זו היא מצווה מרכזית ביותר בתורה, ועם זאת רבים מזלזלים בפן חשוב מאד בה. הם אמנם מבינים שהמצווה מחייבת כל יהודי לעזור לרעהו ולדאוג לו בגשמיות, אבל אינם מודעים לחיוב לדאוג ולסייע לזולת גם בעולם הרוחני שלו. הוא כותב שהאמת היא שכאשר אדם מעניק לחברו עזרה רוחנית, הוא מקיים את מצוות "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" באופן מושלם הרבה יותר מכל עזרה וחסד גשמי שהיה גומל עימו. והוא מסביר מדוע: כאשר אדם מסייע לחברו בגשמיות, הוא מבטא בכך דאגה לגופו של זולתו, אולם גוף האדם הוא רק בשר ודם! החלק העיקרי באדם הוא חלק אלוק ממעל שקיים בו – נשמתו, והנשמה אינה נהנית כלל מכל הטבה גשמית המהנה את הגוף. לעומת זאת, אם אדם מוכיח את חברו ומונע אותו מעבירה על מצות ה', בכך הוא גומל חסד עצום עם נשמתו, ואהבת חלק הנשמה שבזולת חשובה הרבה יותר מאהבת גופו . ה"בן איש חי" מלמדנו שעל מנת לקיים את מצות "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" באופן המושלם ביותר, אין די בחסד גשמי אלא יש לסייע ולעזור לזולת גם ברוחניות, וזוהי הדרגה הגבוהה יותר של מצוות החסד. אומר על כך ה"ארחות צדיקים" שישנם שלושה סוגים עיקריים של נתינה: נתינת ממון, נתינה בגוף, ונתינת חכמה. הוא ממשיך ומפרט על כל שלושת הסוגים אולם בסיום הפרק הוא מדגיש דווקא את נתינת החכמה, היינו לימוד התורה לאחרים: "וביותר צריך להיות נדיב בחכמת תורתו, ללמד לכל אדם דעת ולהמשיך את לבם לשמים. וזהו הנדיבות הגדולה שבכל מיני הנדיבות, המתנדב לאדם להביאו לחיי העולם הבא" . גם ה"מאירי" בפרקי אבות כותב שאין שום חסד בעולם המשתווה למעשה של זיכוי הרבים בדומה לכך כותב ר' אהרן קוטלר שהטובה הגדולה ביותר שאדם יכול לתת לחברו הוא ללמדו תורה ומצוות ולהרחיקו מדרך חטאים. זהו החסד הגדול ביותר בכל העולם שיכול אדם לעשות עם חברו . ישנן מספר דרכים כיצד ניתן להעניק לזולת סיוע רוחני. ה"בן איש חי" הזכיר את חשיבות מצות התוכחה, אולם בדורנו קשה מאד להוכיח באופן הראוי וקיים סיכון גדול שהתוכחה תזיק יותר מאשר תועיל. דרך פשוטה יותר של חסד רוחני היא לימוד תורה לאחרים; אכן, מקורות רבים בחז"ל מציינים שלימוד תורה לאחרים מהווה יסוד בסיסי ביותר בחובתו של כל אדם בעולמו: הגמרא במסכת ראש השנה אומרת שאדם הלומד תורה ואינו מלמדה לאחרים דומה להדס במדבר. המהר"ל מסביר שעץ ההדס הוא העץ בעל הריח הטוב ביותר מכל העצים, והוא קיים בעולם על מנת שיהנו בני אדם מריחו הטוב, עץ הדס הנטוע במדבר אינו ממלא את מטרת קיומו כיוון שאין שום אדם שיכול להנות ממנו. כך גם אדם שלמד תורה, תורתו חייבת להמשיך הלאה לאחרים, ומי שאינו עושה זאת לא מילא את מטרתו בחייו. הוא כותב שהעיקר בתורה שלמד האדם הוא שילמדה הלאה לאחרים, ואם הוא אינו מעביר את תורתו לאחרים אזי חבל על התורה שלמד, כיוון שעיקר התורה והחכמה היא שילמדוה לכל אחד ואחד כך גם כותבת המשנה באבות: "אם למדת תורה הרבה אל תחזיק טובה לעצמך כי לכך נוצרת" , הפירוש הפשוט למשנה זו הוא שאל לו לאדם להתגאות בהישגים אליהם הגיע בלימוד התורה כיוון שלימוד תורה הוא כל המטרה של חייו. אולם מפרשים רבים מביאים הסבר שונה: הם כותבים שכוונת המשנה היא שאם אדם למד הרבה תורה אסור לו לשמור את הטוב שבו לעצמו, אלא עליו ללמדה לאחרים. מדוע? כיוון שלכך נוצרת – כדי ללמד תורה לאחרים . באופנים רבים יכול האדם לחלק את תורתו עם אחרים; הוא (או היא) יכול לנסות ללמוד חברותא עם אנשים ברמה נמוכה ממנו בלימוד. ישנם ארגוני קירוב רבים מאד, ישיבות, בתי מדרש וכדומה שזקוקים לאנשים שיתרמו זמן קצר מסדר היום שלהם וילמדו את אלה שאינם יודעים עדיין הרבה. המאמץ יכול להסתכם רק בשיחת טלפון אחת לאחד מאותם ארגונים, ומיד תימצא החברותא המתאימה. יתירה מזאת, לימוד החברותא לא חייב להיות דווקא פנים מול פנים, בעולם הטכנולוגיה של ימינו ניתן בקלות ללמוד עם חברותא בעיר אחרת דרך הטלפון או באמצעים אחרים. ומלבד זאת, דרך הכתיבה אף היא אפשרות ללמד רבים בו זמנית, כגון כתיבת דבר תורה קצר על פרשת השבוע או על כל נושא אחר ופרסומו ברבים. חשוב אף לציין שלימוד תורה לאחרים אינו מוגבל רק ללימוד פורמלי רגיל, אלא ישנן הזדמנויות אין ספור בחיי היום יום בהן יכול האדם לחלוק את חכמת התורה עם זולתו – עמיתיו לעבודה, נהג המונית, או ידידיו. אנו לומדים מדברי הבן איש חי שכדי לקיים כראוי את מצות "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" צריך האדם להשתדל ולהתאמץ לעזור לחברו ברוחניות ולא רק בגשמיות. מי ייתן וכולנו נזכה לקיים מצווה זו בשלמות.

KEDOSHIM – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – WHO COMES FIRST?

Vayikra, 19:18: You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself – I am HaShem. Rashi, 19:18: sv. You shall love your neighbor as yourself: “Rebbe Akiva says, this is a fundamental principle of the Torah.” The Torah famously instructs us to relate to our fellow man in the same way that we relate to ourselves. Rashi quotes Rebbe Akiva who explains that this is a fundamental principle of the Torah, which the commentaries explain to mean that numerous other Mitzvos are built on the foundation of the Mitzvo of ‘love your neighbor’. The Chasam Sofer zt”l notes a contradiction between Rebbe Akiva’s words here and another principle that he expounds in another place. The Gemara in Bava Metsia discusses a situation where two people find themselves in the desert and only one of them has a bottle of water. There is enough water available to enable one of them to survive until they reach civilization. What should the person with the bottle do? Ben Beseira argues that he cannot leave his fellow to die alone, rather they must share the bottle. Rebbe Akiva argues, and derives from the Torah a concept known as ‘chayecha kodmim’; that a person has the right to put his life before the life of his fellow. Accordingly, Rebbe Akiva rules that the person with the bottle may keep it. The Chasam Sofer zt”l writes that these two sayings of Rebbe Akiva seem to contradict themselves. His elucidation of the Mitzvo of ‘love your neighbor’ seems to imply that one must treat his fellow man in the same way as himself, whereas his principle of ‘chayecha kodmim’ suggests that a person can put himself before his friend. He offers a fascinating answer to this question by differentiating between the physical and spiritual realm: The case in Bava Metsia is in the physical realm (gashmius) – there Rebbe Akiva holds that one can put his own physical needs before those of his friend. However, in Parshas Kedoshim, Rebbe Akiva is referring to the spiritual realm (ruchnius); with regards to spirituality he argues that one must treat his fellow exactly the same as himself. To buttress his point he says that is why Rebbe Akiva says that this a fundamental principle in the Torah. Why couldn’t Rebbe Akiva simply say that this is a fundamental principle and stop there? The fact that he added the words, “in the Torah” alludes to the fact that in the realm of Torah, that is, the spiritual sphere, one must take the words of ‘love your neighbor’ literally and treat his friend the same as himself. One implication of his explanation, he argues, is that a person should be willing to stop his own learning in order to teach someone else. This seems difficult to understand because he seems to be telling us to put our fellow before us by teaching them; this goes further than treating them equally. He explains, however, that when a person teaches someone else they both benefit – the student for being taught, and also the teacher benefits from his teaching as well. A further question on the Chasam Sofer’s explanation is why should there be a difference between the physical and spiritual realms with regard to how one treats his fellow? Why, in ruchnius, must he treat his fellow like himself, whereas, in gashmius, he can put himself first? It seems that the answer is based on the metaphysical concept that the Jewish nation is one spiritual entity. The commentaries compare it to one spiritual body where each Jew represents a different part of that body. This gives rise to the concept of ‘kol Yisrael arevim zeh lazeh’- that each Jew is responsible for each other. This goes so far as to mean that when one Jew sins, then it is considered as if other Jews also sinned. In contrast, on a physical level each person is separate simply because each person’s body is separate from every one else. Accordingly, whilst there is an obligation to care for one’s fellow Jew’s physical needs, it does not reach the extent where one must treat his fellow exactly as himself. The explanation of the Chasam Sofer and its halachic implications are subject to disagreement. Yet its hashkafic ramifications are relevant to all of us. They remind us that the spiritual well-being of our fellow Jew is something that should be at the forefront of our concerns – not simply because we should care about our fellow Jew, but because their failings are our failings and their achievements are our achievements.

ACHAREI MOS-KEDOSHIM - LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR

"Do not take revenge; do not bear a grudge; love your neighbor like yourself. " The Mitzvo of 'love your neighbor like yourself' is described by Rebbe Akiva as being a great principle in the Torah . Similarly, when a prospective convert asked Hillel HaZaken to sum up the Torah 'on one foot' he answered him with this Mitzvo, adding that the rest of the Torah is an explanation of it . The Ben Ish Chai writes that, given it's centrality to the Torah, a very significant part of this Mitzvo is overlooked by many people. He writes that whilst many people recognize how it requires a person to help his fellow in terms of his physical well-being, they are less aware that it also obliges him to help his fellow's spiritual health. Indeed he argues that helping his friend in the spiritual realm (ruchnius) is a far greater fulfillment of the Mitzvo than benefiting him in the physicalrealm(gashmius). He explains: "When one helps his friend in a physical sense, he expresses his care for his friend's body, however, man's body merely consists of a combination of blood and flesh! The main aspect of a person is his G-dly aspect, his soul, and the soul gets no benefit from kindness in the physical sense. However, if one rebukes his fellow and prevents him from transgressing Hashem's Mitzvos, then he bestows a great kindness on his friend's soul, and love for one's fellow's spiritual side is far more important than love of his physical being. " The Ben Ish Chai teaches that in order to most effectively fulfill the Mitvzo to love one's neighbor he cannot limit his kindness to the help in gashmius, rather he must strive to help his ruchnius to an even greater degree. In this vein, the Orchos Tzadikim tells us that there are three main types of giving: Giving of one’s money; giving of one’s body and giving of one’s wisdom. He goes on to discuss all three but he ends the chapter focusing on the giving over of Torah to others: “One must be especially giving with his Torah wisdom; to teach all men knowledge and to draw their hearts to heaven. This is the greatest of all the types of giving - giving to another to bring him to the life of the World-to-Come.” Similarly the Meiri in Pirkei Avos states; “there is no kindness in the world that compares to the one who gives merit to the many.” Likewise, Rav Aharon Kotler writes: “The main kindness one can do for others is to give over to them Torah and Mitzvos and to distant them from the evil inclination. This is the greatest kindness in the world that one can do for another…” There are a number of ways of helping others in the spiritual realm. The Ben Ish Chai mentioned the greatness of rebuking others, however, in this generation, it is very difficult to rebuke in the correct way and therefore there is the risk that rebuking can do more harm than good. A less threatening way of helping others spiritually is by sharing one's Torah with them; Indeed there are many sources in Chazal that indicate that teaching Torah is a fundamental part of each person's purpose in life: The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 23b says that one who learns and does not teach is like a myrtle tree in the desert. The Maharal explains that the myrtle is the most pleasant smelling tree and it is in the world for people to benefit from its pleasant smell. A myrtle that is in the desert does not fulfill its purpose because no-one can benefit from it. So too, Torah is there to be taught over to others and one who does not do so cannot fulfill his purpose in life. He writes: “The main aspect of the Torah is wisdom that by its very nature is there to teach others and if it is not taught over then it is a waste, because the essence of wisdom is to be given over to everyone.” Similarly, the Mishna in Pirkei Avos states: “If you have learnt much Torah, ‘al tachzik tova’ to yourself, because that is why you were created.” The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach.” There are many ways in which a person can share his Torah with others; he (or she) can strive to develop chavrusas (study partners) with people on a lower level of learning. There are numerous outreach organizations, Yeshivas, shuls etc who are in need of people to take out a short time from their schedule in order to teach those less learned than themselves. A mere phone call to one of these organizations may be all the effort necessary to find a suitable chavrusa. Moreover, one need not restrict himself to teaching people face to face; with the added technology available now, one can easily learn with someone in another country on the phone or other mediums. Furthermore, the written medium is another effective way of teaching many people at the same time by writing a short Dvar Torah on the Parsha or some other topic. It is also important to note that teaching Torah need not be limited to formal settings - there are countless opportunities to share Torah wisdom with others in one's daily interactions in life, whether it be with colleagues at work, with the taxi driver, or with friends. We learn from the lesson of the Ben Ish Chai that in order to properly fulfill the fundamental Mitzvo of 'Love they neighbor' one must strive to help others in ruchnius as well as gashmius. May we all merit to fulfill this Mitzvo in its shleimus.

ACHAREI MOS – USING NEGATIVE INFLUENCE FOR THE GOOD

Before detailing the list of forbidden relationships the Torah instructs us: “Do not perform the practices of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled; and do not perform the practices of the land of Canaan to which I bring you.. ” Rashi writes that Mitzrayim and Canaan were the most morally decadent nations and in particular those parts in which the Jews dwelled were the worst sections of these countries. Why did Hashem deliberately place the Jewish people in the most corrupt places on Earth? Rav Dessler zt”l answers this question in an essay in which he discusses how one should react to negative surroundings . He observes that negative society can have a very detrimental effect on a person. However, if he is strong enough so that the negative influences do not effect him, then, it can actually strengthen him in his Avoda. How is this so? Rav Dessler explains that when he sees the surrounding evil it becomes more disgusting in his eyes because he attains a greater recognition of its chesronos, this enables him to strengthen himself even further in his appreciation of good. Based on this understanding of human nature, Rav Dessler makes a historical observation that can explain why Hashem deliberately placed the Jewish people in the most degenerate places on Earth. “Every time where there was a necessity for a tzaddik to rise to an extremely high level the tzaddik was flung into the most lowly and degenerate environments so that he could learn from them the lowliness of evil and strengthen himself in good to the opposite extreme. ” Hashem deliberately placed the Jewish people in Mitzrayim so that they could develop an intense hatred of its tuma which, he writes, was indeed their motivation for crying out to Hashem to free them from this terrible place. This intense disgust enabled them to rapidly rise from being on the 49th level of tuma to reaching the level of being able to receive the Torah. Had they found themselves in a less immoral environment then they would not have been able to rise to such a high level. This too would seem to explain why the Jewish people had to go to a similarly abhorrent land. Seeing the highly immoral behavior of the Canaanite nations was intended to intensify their disgust at evil and in turn, heighten their appreciation of Torah morality . Rav Dessler uses this yesod to help understand another passage discussed in the parsha - the Seir l’Azazel. On the most holy day of the year, Yom Kippur, Hashem commands us to take a goat through the desert and throw it off a cliff. What is the significance of leading the goat through the desert? Rav Dessler explains that the desert is the makom where people sacrifice goats to sheidim. By leading the goat through this tamei place and being exposed to its tuma on Yom Kippur, the people become further strengthened in Avodas Hashem. Rav Dessler’s yesod also helps us understand some inyanim relating to Pesach. We begin the Haggadah discussing our ancestors who worshipped idols. Rav Dessler asks, how is this connected to the story of leaving Mitzrayim? He answers that through being surrounded by such negativity, Avraham Avinu rose to such a high level of kedusha to the extent that its power would never be nullified. The geula from Mitzrayim sprouted directly from this kedusha.. Therefore, we talk about our idol-worshipping ancestors to highlight that it was directly as a result of their tuma that Avraham emerged to reach such an incredibly high level and it was his greatness in turn that planted the seeds for yetsias Mitzrayim. We can now gain a deeper understanding of why the Haggaddah goes to considerable length to discuss the negative influences that include our idol-worshipping ancestors, the Mitzrim and Lavan. Perhaps this is intended to arouse our disgust at such immoral people and in turn, heighten our appreciation of Hashem for freeing us from them and giving us the Torah. In today’s world, the nisayon of secular influences is unavoidable. Even if we live in observant neighborhoods, the myriad negative influences bombard us daily. It is of course highly advisable to strive to reduce their influence as much as possible but nonetheless it is impossible to completely eliminate any exposure to them. Rav Dessler’s yesod can help us deal with these influences and perhaps even use them for the good. By observing the obvious chesronos of the secular world we can enhance our appreciation for the beauty of the Torah lifestyle. May we all merit to protect ourselves from negative influences and instead to use them to grow closer to Hashem.