TOLDOS - YITZCHAK AND ESAV – USING STRENGTH IN THE RIGHT AND WRONG WAY

“And Yitzchak loved Esav for game was in his mouth, but Rivka loved Yaakov.” One of the most difficult aspects of the stories involving Yitzchak Avinu and his two sons, Yaakov and Esav, is Yitzchak’s preference for Esav over Yaakov Avinu. How could such a great man as Yitzchak believe that Esav was virtuous and more fitting to receive the blessings than his righteous brother? The Be’er Yosef offers an interesting approach to these issues. He explains that there are two types of righteous people. One is a person whose natural character traits are very refined and pure. The other, is one whose natural tendencies are negative, and therefore has to work hard to overcome his yetser hara (evil inclination). He quotes the Yaavetz, who states that the person whose natural inclination is negative is greater. He explains further that Yitzchak believed both his sons were tzaddikim (righteous), however, he saw that Yaakov was the kind of tzaddik who is born with a natural leaning to good character traits, whereas, Esav was an example of a tzaddik who had to overcome his yetser hara. Yitzchak’s mistake was that he believed Esav had successfully overcome his natural tendencies, where in truth, they had overcome him, driving him on a course of destruction. How could Yitzchak be blind to Esav’s true character? The Be’er Yosef continues that Yitzchak recognized that Esav was born with the sign of redness, which the gemara tells us is an indication of a bloodthirsty nature. The gemara says that one who is born with this mazal will direct his energies to some form of activity related to spilling blood. If he applies it in a negative way, he will be a thief, however if he directs it positively he will be a shochet or a mohel . Esav became a hunter which the Be’er Yosef equates with a shochet. Yitzchak viewed this as being Esav’s way of channeling his violent tendencies to a positive use. Moreover, he used his hunting to fulfill the Mitzvo of honoring one’s father, by providing Yitzchak with food. In this way, Yitzchak believed that Esav had reached a level of righteousness that was greater than that of Yaakov. He saw that Yaakov’s natural leanings were towards righteousness, therefore Yaakov was less meritorious than Esav, whom, Yitzchak believed, had overcome his yetser hara to become a tzaddik. It is possible to further develop this idea that Yitzchak preferred to Esav’s perceived form of righteousness. It is well-known that each of the Avos (Forefathers) excelled in one particular character trait. Avraham’s trait was chessed, Yitzchak’s was gevura (strength) , and that of Yaakov was emes (truth). The sefarim hakedoshim explain that both Avraham and Yitzchak bore sons who also had a leaning to the same trait as them, however, they misused that trait, and therefore it became expressed in a negative way. Yishmael epitomized misuse of the trait of chessed , whereas Esav personified the misapplication of gevura. It is instructive to analyze more deeply, the positive aspect of gevura embodied by Yitzchak, and contrast it to its negative application by Esav. Yitzchak exercised great internal strength throughout his life. His strength was in his ability to conquer any negative inclinations that he may have had, and to nullify his own selfish desires and needs. This resulted in a great level of self-discipline and pure Avodas HaShem whereby Yitzchak’s whole being was fulfilled solely to fulfilling HaShem’s will. Yitzchak saw in Esav the potential to also excel in this trait, and perhaps even to develop it further than Yitzchak could. As the Be’er Yosef explained, Yitzchak saw that Esav had powerful inclinations driving him towards evil, however he felt that if Esav used his natural gevura in the correct way, he could excel greatly in that trait. However, Yitzchak did not realize that Esav directed his gevura for selfish purposes. Instead of utilizing it in the correct way, by controlling himself, Esav used it to control others. Rather than expressing his power through self-discipline, he did it through dominating and overpowering other people. This is most obviously apparent in his profession of hunting, which involved overcoming mighty animals. Moreover, Rashi tells us that Esav was a murderer. Needless to say, Esav paid no heed to strengthening himself internally to control himself, rather Chazal tell us that he was extremely immoral. Esav’s descendants, in particular, the Romans, emulated Esav in their misuse of the trait of gevura. They were a nation bent on conquering the world for the sake of having immense power. Moreover, like Esav, they had absolutely no interest in the internal strength that involved self-control, rather they were extremely immoral in their lifestyle. It seems that Western, society which is described as being the spiritual descendant of Esav, also attributes great importance to external power, such as the ability to influence other people through one’s wealth. Moreover there is almost no emphasis on self-control; instead, many people’s goals in life involve attaining as much power and personal pleasure as possible. We have seen how Yitzchak Avinu excelled in the trait of gevura, and that he believed that his son Esav could also exercise this trait to overcome his natural inclinations. However, Esav chose to use his gevura to further his own desires and dominate others. The Torah outlook clearly emphasizes the value of self-control, and deemphasizes the importance of external power. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Mishna in Avos. “Who is strong? He who subdues his inclination, as it says, ‘He who is slow to anger is better than the strong man, and a master of passions is better than a conqueror of a city.” We learn from here that the strength that the Torah acclaims is that which Yitzchak excelled in – overcoming one’s natural inclinations in order to do HaShem’s will. This form of power, the Mishna tells us, is what we should aspire to. It is true that just as the Avos made particular emphasis on one particular trait, so too each person naturally leans to one such trait. Nevertheless, it is also clear that no matter what one’s natural inclination is, each person needs to express all these traits at some points. Thus, each person must apply the lessons with regard to gevura to his own life. We see from the contrast between Esav and Yitzchak, that one must be very careful to express the trait of gevura in the correct way. It is far easier to apply it in the wrong fashion, using it to dominate or control other people. It is far more difficult, but ultimately far more rewarding, to control oneself. A person who dominates others will still feel himself a slave to his passions, and satisfying these passions will never provide him with true contentment. Whereas, one who has true self-control of himself, can be free to express himself in the optimum fashion.

Parachat Toldoth – Le potentiel d’Essav – le point de vue de Rachi

« Les enfants s’entre-poussaient en son sein… » (Beréchit 25:22) Rachi comment sur « [les enfants] s’entre-poussaient » : Quand elle passait devant les entrées de lieux d’étude de la Thora de Chem et Ever, Yaacov s’agitait pour sortir [du ventre de sa mère]… Quand elle passait devant des lieux d’idolâtrie, Essav s’agitait pour sortir… Dans un précédent Dvar Thora, nous avons parlé du comportement de Yaacov dans l’utérus. Celui d’Essav est tout aussi troublant : le midrach rapporté par Rachi semble impliquer qu’Essav était mauvais depuis le stade embryonnaire. Les commentateurs soulèvent une question sur ce midrach ; certaines sources affirment que le yétser hara n’entre en l’homme qu’au moment de sa naissance, or selon ce midrach, Essav avait déjà un fort yétser hara dans le ventre de sa mère! Le rav Nathan Weiss chlita répond en analysant de plus près les mots de Rachi — ce dernier dit uniquement qu’Essav voulait aller vers les lieux où l’on s’adonnait à l’idolâtrie, mais il ne nous précise pas ce qu’il voulait y faire. Cela signifie qu’Essav avait une tendance innée pour les lieux déplorables, mais le fait d’exploiter ce penchant de manière constructive allait dépendre de lui, à partir de sa naissance. La meilleure façon d’agir aurait été de détruire de tels endroits, plutôt que d’en être détruit spirituellement. Nous voyons donc qu’Essav n’était pas mauvais déjà dans le ventre de sa mère, mais qu’il avait une prédisposition qui pouvait être utilisée pour le bien ou pour le mal. En effet, une analyse approfondie des sources rabbiniques décrivant les premières années d’Essav prouve que ce dernier possédait effectivement une grande capacité à combattre le mal. La Thora décrit le jeune Essav comme « un homme qui savait chasser » . Le midrach nous fournit une explication sur ces mots : il chassait les criminels avec sa bouche ; ces derniers niaient leur implication dans le crime et il les piégeait de façon à ce qu’ils admettent la vérité . Le Targoum Yonathan sur le même verset fait une révélation encore plus étonnante — Essav tua en réalité le chef des idolâtres, Nimrod. Il avait donc évidemment une capacité à abolir le mal. Si Essav avait continué à canaliser son attirance naturelle pour le mal de manière positive, il aurait sans doute atteint de hauts niveaux et accomplit le rôle qu’Its’hak souhaitait de sa part. Au lieu de cela, il se laissa aller à l’immoralité ambiante et devint un personnage de la pire espèce. Le midrach nous informe qu’un tout autre personnage du Tanakh (Pentatheuque) avait une inclination similaire à celle d’Essav – le vertueux Roi David. Quand Hachem envoya Chemouel HaNavi oindre David pour le faire devenir roi, il vit qu’il était roux. La couleur rouge symbolise le meurtre et quand Chemouel vit que David avait ce tempérament, il eut peur qu’il devienne un tueur comme Essav. Hachem le rassura en lui disant que David utiliserait cette impulsion convenablement et qu’il la mettrait en application quand la halakha (loi juive) le dicterait. Effectivement, David tua plusieurs ennemis du Klal Israël. Nous avons vu comment le penchant naturel d’Essav pour le mal n’impliquait pas obligatoirement qu’il allait fauter, mais plutôt qu’en grandissant, il utilisa son libre arbitre de manière négative. Cela nous enseigne une leçon importante quant à la façon dont une personne développe ses traits de caractère. Chaque trait de caractère peut être utilisé négativement ou positivement ; on peut choisir d’exploiter cette qualité à des fins égoïstes ou de la canaliser de façon positive, pour accomplir la volonté d’Hachem.

INSIGHTS IN RASHI – TOLDOS – ESAV’S POTENTIAL

Bereishis, 25:22: “And the children crushed within her…” Rashi, Bereishis, 25:22, sv. And [the children] crushed: When she would pass by entrances of places of Torah study of Shem and Ever, Yaakov would run and toss about to go out of his [mother’s womb]…when she would pass by entrances of idol worship Esav would toss about to go out… In the previous Dvar Torah we discussed a problem involving Yaakov’s behavior in the womb. That of Esav is equally troubling: The Midrash quoted by Rashi seems to imply that Esav was evil from the time that he was a fetus. The commentaries point out a problem with this Midrash ; they bring sources that the yetser hara only enters a person from the time he was born, yet according to this Midrash Esav already seemed to have a strong yetser hara in the womb! Rav Nosson Weiss shlita answers this by closely analyzing Rashi’s words – he only says that Esav wanted to go towards the places of idol worship, but he does not say what Esav wanted to do there. This means that Esav had an inborn inclination towards places of evil, yet it would be up to him when he grew up to use that inclination in a constructive way. The most obvious positive way that he could do this would be to destroy such places, rather than be spiritually destroyed by them. Thus, we see that Esav was not evil from the womb, rather he had a natural leaning which could be used for the good or for the bad. Indeed, a careful analysis of the Rabbinic sources describing Esav’s early life demonstrates that Esav did indeed possess great ability in fighting evil. The Torah describes the young Esav as a “man, who knew how to trap”. The Midrash says that one interpretation of these words is that he would trap criminals with his mouth; they would deny their involvement in a crime and he would trick them into admitting the truth. The Targum Yonasan on the same verse makes an even more dramatic revelation – that Esav actually killed the leader of the idol worshippers; Nimrod. Thus he evidently had a talent in destroying evil. Had Esav continued applying his natural attraction to evil positively he could surely have achieved greatness and fulfilled the role that Yitzchak desired for him. However, instead, he allowed himself to be overcome by the immorality that he encountered and degenerated into an evildoer of the worst kind. The Midrash tells us that a very different persona in Tanach shared a similar mazal (inclination) to Esav – the great David HaMelech. HaShem sent Shmuel HaNavi to anoint David as King, he saw that David had a red complexion. The color red represents an inclination to kill, and when Shmuel saw that David has this learning he feared that he would be a murderer like Esav. HaShem reassured him that David would apply this inclination in the correct way and use it to kill when halacha so dictates. Indeed David killed numerous enemies of Klal Yisrael. We have seen how Esav’s natural leaning towards evil did not mean that it was inevitable that he would be an sinful person, but that when he grew up he applied his free will in the wrong way. This teaches an important lesson with regards to how a person develops his character traits. Every trait can be applied in a positive or negative way; one can choose to use this trait for selfish reasons or he can channel it in a positive way to perform HaShem’s will.

INSIGHTS IN RASHI – TOLDOS – THE VALUE OF TOILING

Bereishis, 25:22: “And the children crushed within her…” Rashi, Bereishis, 25:22, sv. And [the children] crushed: When she would pass by entrances of places of Torah study of Shem and Ever, Yaakov would run and toss about to go out of his [mother’s womb]…when she would pass by entrances of idol worship Esav would toss about to go out… After Rivka Imeinu finally conceived after many years of barrenness she faced a new challenge – the drastic movements of the babies inside of her caused her intense pain. Rashi, quoting the Midrash, explains that when she passed by batei midrashos (places of Torah learning), Yaakov would try to get out, whilst Esav would try to exit when she passed by places of idol worship. The commentators find difficulties with Yaakov’s behavior. They point out that the Gemara explains that when the fetus is in the womb he is taught the entire Torah by an Angel. That being the case why was Yaakov so desperate to enter batei Midrashos to learn – he was already being taught the whole Torah in the womb?! Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l’s teachings with regard to this Gemara can help answer this question. He notes that when the baby is born, the Angel strikes him on the mouth and he forgets all the Torah that he learnt. He asks why the Angel performs this final action – why does he not leave the baby to enter the world with all the Torah that he has already been taught? He answers that the purpose of creation was to work and toil of his own volition in order to attain closeness to G-d. One of the main ways of doing this is through learning Torah. Accordingly, one cannot compare the Torah that is learnt without exertion, with that which comes about after intense toiling. Therefore, the baby forgets all the Torah he was taught so that he can have the opportunity to learn it himself. We can now understand why Yaakov wanted to leave the confines of the womb even though it meant losing the gift of being taught the holy Torah by an Angel. Yaakov was more attracted to the challenging prospect of having to struggle and earn any Torah that he would know. Rav Shmuelevitz applied this idea to explain the custom to have a Shalom Zachar, the festive occasion on the first Shabbos after a baby boy is born. One of the commentaries suggests that the reason for this custom is to console the newborn baby for the loss of Torah that he has just suffered. Rav Shmuelevitz argued and said that in fact this is a celebration for the fact that he lost the Torah. For now he has the opportunity to begin the far more rewarding task of earning knowledge of Torah through hard work. The principle brought out by Rav Shmuelevitz is not new to most people yet it is easy to forget it in practice. When a person struggles to understand something and perhaps does not gain full clarity he may feel like he did not fully succeed. Whereas when he may feel great satisfaction when he learns through a piece of Torah with great ease and has a clear understanding of what he has learnt. However, as the Chofetz Chaim famously wrote, the toiling in Torah is more important than the outcome – even if one does not see tangible results he has accomplished a great deal. The following story involving Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l further demonstrates how the toiling is more important than the accomplishment. “Once, after raising a number of questions about a topic and struggling many hours to answer them, he (Rav Leibowitz) finally understood the entire topic clearly. During those very days, a Torah scholar came to visit and spoke to Rabbeinu (Rav Leibowitz) about the same topic. During the discussion, the visitor said, “and if you ask such-and-such…” It was the main question that had troubled Rabbeinu! The visitor continued, “…then we can answer such-and-such,” off-handedly answering the very answer that Rabbeinu had given. R’Boruch Ber was very impressed by this visitor’s brilliance and depth of understanding, but reacted as follows. “Granted, without much effort you answered the question basically as I did, but I struggled over that question for days! Therefore, my answer has the elevating element of ameilus (toiling) in it.” We have seen the value of toiling in Torah is to the degree that Yaakov preferred to give up the privilege of being taught Torah by an Angel and struggle himself. This lesson applies to all aspects of Avodas HaShem – any area that comes easily to a person is of limited value unless the person strives to improve his performance further. And those areas that provide great challenges are the very areas where one can attain the most success – by working and struggling he uses his own free will to bring himself closer to HaShem.

El rol de Itzjak (The Role of Itzjak)

La Torá dedica varias parashiot a la vida de los patriarcas Abraham y Yaakov, mientras que sólo una parashá, Toldot, se enfoca en Itzjak. E incluso en esta parashá, sólo hay una historia que involucra a Itzjak y que no involucra a algún otro patriarca: la historia del período que vivió en Guerar, la tierra de los filisteos. Esta historia relata cómo Itzjak se vio forzado por una hambruna a mudarse a Guerar, lugar en el que tuvo que decir que su esposa Rivka era su hermana, tal como había tenido que hacer su padre muchos años antes. Luego la Torá explica largamente cómo los filisteos sellaron los pozos que había excavado Abraham y cómo Itzjak los volvió a excavar. Itzjak se encontró con mucha hostilidad por parte de los filisteos nativos, y finalmente hizo un pacto con Avimélej, el rey de los filisteos. Es muy difícil extraer alguna lección significativa de esta historia en un análisis superficial. Pero en realidad, si profundizamos un poco, esta historia nos entrega la clave para entender a Itzjak. El aspecto más llamativo del actuar de Itzjak es que fue muy similar al actuar de su padre. Cuando hubo una hambruna en la época de Abraham, éste se dirigió a Egipto; Itzjak planeaba hacer lo mismo hasta que Dios le dijo que no dejara la tierra de Israel. A continuación, Itzjak volvió hacia los pozos que había excavado su padre, pero que ahora estaban sellados, los volvió a excavar y les puso el mismo nombre que su padre les había dado anteriormente . Rabeinu Bejaie comenta que las acciones de Itzjak que acabamos de describir nos enseñan el concepto de mesorat avot, que es el seguir las tradiciones de nuestros padres a lo largo de todas las futuras generaciones del pueblo judío . Itzjak no quiso desviarse ni un centímetro del camino que había recorrido su padre. Rav Matitiahu Salomon explica el rol que tuvo Itzjak entre los patriarcas: Abraham fue el pionero; sentó los precedentes y puso las señales en el camino. El rol de Itzjak fue consolidar todo lo que había hecho su padre, seguir sus pasos con precisión y, de esta forma, establecer para todas las generaciones futuras la primacía de seguir la mesorá (tradición). El objetivo de la vida de Itzjak no era buscar nuevas formas y nuevos caminos, sino que era seguir fielmente el camino que había recorrido su padre. Por lo tanto, cuando hubo una hambruna en la tierra, inmediatamente pensó ir a Egipto, ya que así había hecho su padre. Cuando fue a Guerar, excavó los mismos pozos que había excavado su padre y les dio los mismos nombres que les había dado Abraham . Sin embargo, hay un aspecto de Itzjak que pareciera contradecir la idea de que siguió a su padre en todos los aspectos: Abraham e Itzjak tenían personalidades muy diferentes. Abraham personificaba el atributo de jésed, y esparcía su bondad por doquier. Itzjak, por otro lado, se caracterizaba por su auto disciplina y fortaleza interior. Abraham fue el mejor ejemplo a seguir que uno podría tener; hubiese sido natural que Itzjak tratara de emular cada una de las acciones de su padre. Sin embargo, Itzjak no se contentó con eso y forjó su propio camino en el servicio a Dios. Vimos que, por un lado, Itzjak representa la continuación de la tradición al no desviarse del camino que su padre había fijado. Pero por el otro lado, Itzjak poseía un carácter completamente diferente al de su padre. ¿Cómo podemos conciliar estos dos aspectos de Itzjak? La verdad es que no hay contradicción. Todo judío nace con una línea de tradición que se remonta hasta Abraham, y está obligado a adherirse por completo a las instrucciones y actitudes que involucra esta línea de tradición. Una persona no puede elegir sus propios valores; hay una tradición que lo guía en la vida. Pero al mismo tiempo, esto no significa que todas las personas que estén en la cadena de la mesorá deban ser idénticas unas a otras en todos los aspectos; hay muchas formas en las que una persona se puede expresar a sí misma dentro del marco del cumplimiento de la mesorá. El Jafetz Jaim pregunta ¿por qué la Torá enfatiza que el Árbol de la Vida estaba en el medio (betoj) del Gan Edén? Y responde que esto nos enseña que hay un punto central de verdad pero que hay muchos puntos que lo rodean, cada uno de los cuales se encuentra a la misma distancia del centro. De la misma manera, hay muchos enfoques del judaísmo que enfatizan diferentes formas de servicio y diferentes rasgos personales, y mientras estos permanezcan dentro de los límites de la mesorá, todos tendrán la misma validez . Hubo una Ieshivá en particular que acentuaba la idea de que ninguna persona debía ser forzada a encajar en un molde específico: la de Slobodka. Rav Noson Tzvi Finkel, el Alter de Slobodka, hacía mucho hincapié en la singularidad de cada individuo. Él temía contratar maestros demasiado carismáticos en su Ieshivá ya que temía que abrumaran a los estudiantes con su gran personalidad . Este énfasis en alentar a un estudiante para que desarrolle su individualidad permeó las enseñanzas de los estudiantes de la institución. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, un ex alumno de Slobodka, siempre enfatizó la importancia de la independencia en el estudio. Pese a que no menospreciaba la importancia de la devoción que un estudiante debe tener por su maestro, acentuaba que esta no debía evitar que el estudiante desarrollara su propio poder de análisis y que llegara a sus propias conclusiones . Rav Kamenetsky adoptó un enfoque similar en el área de la ideología; creía que si una persona tenía una tendencia hacia una cierta corriente válida de Torá, entonces no había que prohibirle que la investigara incluso si contrastaba con la perspectiva tradicional de su familia. Una familia, que era cercana a Rav Kamenetsky, quedó sumamente conmocionada cuando se enteraron que el menor de sus siete hijos quería ser un jasídico de Skverer. Por lo tanto, fueron con el muchacho a ver a Rav Yaakov esperando que él convenciera al joven de que los hijos de las buenas familias alemanas no se hacen jasídicos. Pero para su sorpresa, Rav Kamenetsky se dedicó a asegurarle a la familia que el hecho que el muchacho quisiera seguir un camino diferente en su servicio a Dios no era un tema que debiera preocuparles. Obviamente su hijo tenía ciertas necesidades emocionales que podían ser satisfechas si se hacía jasídico, por lo que la familia debía respetar dichas necesidades. Incluso les recomendó un paso más radical de lo que los padres estaban dispuestos a considerar: ¡Que enviasen al muchacho a una Ieshivá de Skverer ! La idea de que hay muchas formas válidas en las que un judío observante se puede expresar es relevante en muchas áreas de nuestras vidas, como por ejemplo en el desarrollo de la personalidad propia. Muchas sociedades tienen una tendencia que lleva a que ciertos rasgos de personalidad sean más alabados que otros. Por ejemplo, ser extrovertido y seguro suele ser algo muy positivo, mientras que ser tímido y retraído suele ser visto de forma negativa. Un padre extrovertido que tiene un hijo introvertido puede tender a pensar que la naturaleza tranquila de su hijo es un defecto de su personalidad, y por lo tanto, puede tender a presionarlo para que cambie. Sin embargo, lo más probable es que sólo logre hacer que el niño sienta que es inadecuado. La tarea del padre es entender que quizás su hijo es diferente a él, aceptarlo como es y trabajar en sus fortalezas. Del mismo modo, puede que un niño encuentre difícil sentarse durante largos períodos de tiempo y enfocarse en el estudio; si un padre o un maestro ejercen demasiada presión sobre el niño, lo más probable es que cuando crezca se rebele. Pese a que este mensaje aplica principalmente a la paternidad, también aplica en gran medida a nuestro servicio a Dios. Puede que a veces nos sintamos inadecuados en algunas áreas de la vida ya que no "encajamos" en el consenso de la sociedad en la que vivimos. Sin embargo, si se nos permitiera expresar nuestras fortalezas, podríamos encontrar más satisfacción en nuestras vidas, personalidades o estudio. Obviamente esto debe ser hecho con una guía y con un estricto apego a la mesorá. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios de alentar a una persona a expresar su individualidad dentro de la Torá? Anteriormente dijimos que la Ieshivá que hacía el mayor hincapié en esta idea era Slobodka. Si nos fijamos en los egresados de todas las grandes Ieshivot, veremos que Slobodka fue por lejos la que produjo más rabinos importantes . Y lo más sorprendente de todo es ver cuán diferentes eran todos estos rabinos entre sí. Al enfocarse en la singularidad de cada individuo, el Alter pudo sacar a la luz lo mejor de cada uno de sus estudiantes. Si logramos emularlo, entonces tendremos una probabilidad mucho mayor de que todos nosotros —tanto nuestros hijos como nuestros estudiantes, e incluso nosotros mismos—, vivamos una vida mucho más feliz y exitosa.

תולדות – יצחק אבינו

התורה מקדישה שלוש פרשיות לתיאור מעשי אברהם אבינו, ושלוש פרשיות לחייו של יעקב אבינו. לעומת זאת, רק פרשת תולדות מתמקדת ביצחק אבינו. ואף בפרשה זו מתוארת רק פרשיה אחת בה היה מעורב רק יצחק אבינו ולא אחר מהאבות; והיא תיאור התקופה בה היה יצחק בגרר – ארץ פלישתים. בעקבות הרעב שפקד את ארץ ישראל נאלץ יצחק לעבור לגרר. בהגיעו לשם הוא מודיע שרבקה אשתו – היא אחותו, כפי שעשה אביו אברהם שנים קודם לכן. לאחר מכן מתארת התורה באריכות כיצד סתמו הפלישתים את הבארות שחפר אברהם, וכיצד פתח אותם יצחק שנית. יצחק סבל מעוינות קשה מצד אנשי המקום הפלישתים, ובסופו של דבר הוא כורת ברית עם אבימלך מלכם. במבט שטחי קשה מאד לשאוב כל לימוד משמעותי מסיפור זה, אולם האמת היא שמכאן ניתן לקחת את המפתח להבנת מהותו של יצחק אבינו. המאפיין הבולט ביותר במעשי יצחק הוא שהם דומים מאד למעשי אביו. כאשר היה רעב בימי אברהם הוא פנה לארץ מצרים; יצחק רצה לעשות כן גם כעת, אולם הקב"ה מורה לו לא לעזוב את ארץ ישראל. ואז הוא שב אל הבארות שאביו חפר – ופותח אותם מחדש, הוא קורא להם את אותם שמות שקרא להם אביו . רבינו בחיי כותב שממעשי יצחק כאן נלמד עניין המסורה. עד עולם, בכל עתיד עם ישראל – בן ילך אחר אביו . יצחק לא רצה לסטות אף בפסיעה אחת מהדרך שהתווה לו אביו. ר' מתתיהו סלמון שליט"א מבאר את תפקידו של יצחק מבין האבות: אברהם היה הראשון – ה"חלוץ"; הוא הניח את היסודות ושרטט את הקווים המנחים את עם ישראל לדורותיו. עבודתו של יצחק הייתה לקבל ולגבש את כל מעשי אביו, לצעוד במדויק בדרך שהתווה, ובכך להנחיל לדורות הבאים את עניין המסורה. עבודת חייו של יצחק לא הייתה לסלול שבילים חדשים אלא לצעד באמונה בעקבות אביו. ולכן כאשר פוקד רעב את הארץ הוא מיד מתכנן לרדת למצרים, כיוון שכך עשה אביו. וכאשר הוא מגיע לגרר – הוא חופר בדיוק את אותן בארות שחפר אביו, וקורא להם בדיוק בשמות שנתן להן אביו . מצד שני, ישנו מאפיין בולט נוסף בחיי יצחק אבינו שנראה לכאורה סותר את העיקרון של הצעידה העקבית אך ורק בדרכי אביו. חז"ל אומרים שאברהם ויצחק היו בעלי מבנה אישיות שונה לחלוטין; אברהם מיצג את מידת החסד – נתינה ללא גבול ומידה לכל אחד ואחד. יצחק, לעומת זאת מאופיין במידת הדין והגבורה. האמת היא שחלק עיקרי בגדולתו של יצחק הוא העובדה שהוא לא היווה העתק מושלם של אביו; ניתן לראות זאת בהסבר חז"ל מדוע תפילתו של יצחק להיפקד בילד נענתה קודם שנענתה תפילת רבקה. רש"י מביא את דברי הגמרא שאומרת ש"אינה דומה תפילת צדיק בן צדיק לתפילת צדיק בן רשע" . לכאורה קשה מאד להבין זאת, אדם שהתגבר על השפעה שלילית שהיתה עליו בצעירותו והפך לצדיק, אמור לכאורה להחשב בעל זכויות גדולות יותר מאדם אחר שנולד להורים צדיקים. התשובה היא שצדיק בן צדיק מתמודד עם ניסיון קשה עוד יותר – שלא להיות העתק בלבד של אביו. אברהם אבינו היה המודל לחיקוי הגדול ביותר שיכול אדם לראות מולו, הטבעי והפשוט ביותר עבור יצחק היה לנסות לחקות כל מעשה ומעשה של אביו. אולם יצחק לא הסתפק בכך; הוא סלל את דרכו שלו בדרך העולה בית קל. ראינו שמצד אחד יצחק מיצג את עניין המסורה, שלא לסור ימין ושמאל מדרך אבותינו. ומצד שני, אישיותו של יצחק הייתה שונה לחלוטין מזו של אביו! כיצד ניתן להבין שני מאפיינים סותרים אלה של יצחק? האמת הברורה היא שאין כאן כל סתירה; כל יהודי ויהודי נולד כחוליה בשלשלת הדורות המתחילה באברהם אבינו; אנו מחוייבים לדבוק באמונה בכל עיקרי ההשקפה, ההוראות והנחיות שמנחילה לנו שלשלת המסורה. אדם לא יכול לחדש לעצמו השקפות או הנהגות; ישנה מסורת המדריכה אותו כיצד לחיות את חייו. אולם עם זאת, אין הכוונה שכל החוליות בשרשרת תהיינה בהכרח זהות לחלוטין – ישנן דרכים רבות בהן יכול אדם לבטא את עצמו ואת אישיותו המיוחדת בתוך דרך המסורה. ה"חפץ חיים" זצ"ל שואל מדוע מדגישה התורה ש"עץ החיים" עמד דווקא ב"תוך" הגן – באמצע גן עדן. הוא משיב שישנו גרעין אחד של אמת מרכזית, וסביבו מתאספות המוני נקודות של אמת ומרחק כל נקודה מהמרכז שווה. כך, ישנן גישות ודעות רבות לאין מספר בתוך היהדות, כל אחת מהן מתאימה לשטחים אחרים ולתכונות אופי שונות. אולם כל עוד דרכים אלה עומדות בתוך גבולות המסורה – כולן שייכות וקשורות לאמת המרכזית . בישיבה אחת היה מודגש במיוחד הרעיון שהאדם לא צריך להכניס את עצמו דווקא לתוך תבנית מסוימת, אלא כל אחד יתפתח בהתאם לאישיותו, ישיבת סלבודקה. הסבא מסלבודקה הדגיש מאד את ייחודיותו של כל אחד ואחד. הוא חשש מקבלת מגידי שיעורים ומשגיחים בישיבתו שאישיותם קוסמת וכריזמטית מידי שמא יסחפו אחריהם את התלמידים ויגרמו להם לשאוף להיות חיקוי מושלם של רבותיהם . ר' ירוחם ליבוביץ זצ"ל, המשגיח הגדול של ישיבת מיר ביקר פעם אצל הסבא. ביום הראשון של הביקור הסבא הוכיח אותו בתקיפות רבה עד שכל הישיבה יכולה היתה לשמוע את הקולות מבעד לדלת הסגורה. תוכחה זו נמשכה יום אחרי יום קרוב לשבוע. מה הפריע לסבא? הוא הרגיש שר' ירוחם הוא כל כך אהוב וכריזמטי עד שהוא הופך את בחורי ישיבת מיר ל"כפילים" שלו – כל בחור ובחור הוא כדוגמת ר' ירוחם – במקום להניח להם לפתח ולבטא את אישיותם הייחודית . ר' יעקב קמינצקי אימץ גישה דומה בתחום ההשקפה – גישתו הייתה שאם אדם נוטה לכיוון זרם מסוים ביהדות, אל לו להימנע מלהיכנס ולהתערב בזרם זה, גם אם הוא נוגד את דרך ההשקפה של הוריו ומשפחתו. משפחה מסוימת שהייתה קרובה לר' יעקב הוכתה בהלם כאשר בנם הצעיר הודיע להם שהוא מעוניין להיות חסיד סקווער. הם נכנסו עם בנם לר' יעקב מתוך ציפיה שהוא ישכנע את בנם שבנים למשפחות ליטאיות לא נהפכים לפתע לחסידים. להפתעתם, ר' יעקב הקדיש את זמנו כדי להבהיר להם שאין שום בעיה בכך שבנם מעוניין לצעוד בדרך שונה מהם בעבודת ה'. הוא הסביר שמן הסתם יש לבנם צורך רגשי מסוים, והוא מרגיש שיוכל להגיע על סיפוקו אם יהפוך לחסיד, עליהם לכבד רגשות אלה. ר' יעקב אף המליץ להם על צעד נוסף, קיצוני הרבה יותר ממה שתיארו לעצמם – לשלוח את הבן לישיבת סקווער ! העיקרון שישנן דרכים רבות שונות וכשרות לכל יהודי שומר תורה ומצוות בהן יכול הוא לבטא את עצמו ואישיותו – קשור לשטחים רבים בחיינו, כפיתוח תכונות אופי, לימוד התורה והשקפה: בכל חברה שהיא ישנה נטייה מסוימת לסוג אחר של תכונות אופי וכוחות נפש – שהם הנחשבים יותר מהאחרים. לדוגמא, אדם חברותי ובטוח בעצמו בדרך כלל נחשב חיובי מאד, לעומת זאת הבישן והחששן בדרך כלל פחות נחשב בחברה. הורה חברותי ומוחצן מאד לילד מפנם יותר עלול לראות באופיו השקט של בנו פגם מסוים ולנסות לדחוף אותו לשנות את מזגו. אולם, סביר ביותר שהוא רק יצליח לגרום לו להאמין שמשהו בו לוקה בחסר. זוהי עבודתו של כל הורה ומחנך – לקבל את העובדה שייתכן ובניו יהיו שונים ממנו, לקבלם בדיוק כפי שהם ולכוונם לפי כוחותיהם ואישיותם המיוחדת. בדומה לכך, ייתכן מצב בו ילד מתקשה לשבת זמן ממושך ולהתרכז בלימוד. אם ההורה או המורה לוחץ יותר מידי על הילד שילמד, קיים סיכון שכאשר יגדל הילד – הוא יבעט בכל הקשור ללימוד . אפילו בתוך עולם לימוד התורה אדם עלול לחוש לפעמים לא מסופק ממתכונת של לימוד גמרא במשך כל היום. ישנם רבים הנהנים מהעמקה בשטחים אחרים של התורה כנביא, השקפה ומוסר. היה מומלץ (על פי הדרכת רבנים) לעודד בנים ותלמידים בעלי נטיות כאלה לפנות ללימוד בשטחים אלה במקום לגרום להם להרגיש לא שייכים לעולם התורה רק בשל העובדה שהם מתקשים בלימוד הגמרא, מצב הגורם להם במקרים רבים לעזוב את הכל . וכפי שראינו מסיפורו של ר' יעקב, אין מה לדאוג אם יש ילד או תלמיד אחד הבוחר לפתח את עולם היהדות שלו בדרך שונה מהוריו. יש לציין כי אמנם חינוך הבנים הוא השטח בו רעיון זה משמעותי ביותר, עם זאת גם לגבי עבודת ה' האישית שלנו שייך נושא זה. גם אנו עלולים לחוות לפעמים תחושה של "לא בעניינים". מוסכמות החברה בה אנו חיים לא תמיד תפורים בדיוק על פי מידותינו. במקרים רבים נוכל להגיע לסיפוק בעבודת ה', בעבודת המידות או בלימוד, אם נרשה לעצמנו לבטא את הכוחות האישיים הגלומים בנו. ללא ספק, מעשים אלו חייבים להיעשות על פי הנחיה, ותוך היצמדות מוחלטת למסורת הנתונה לנו. עד כמה חשוב לעודד בני אדם לבטא את ייחודיותם בתוך עולם התורה? אמרנו קודם שהישיבה שהדגישה ביותר רעיון זה הייתה סלבוקה. אם נבחן את פירותיהן של הישיבות הגדולות בדור הקודם – ניווכח לראות באופן ברור שישיבת סלבודקה הוציאה תחת ידה את המספר הגדול מאד של גדולי תורה . ומה שבולט מאד בגדולי עולם אלא הוא עד כמה היו הם שונים זה מזה. על ידי שהתייחס הסבא מסלבודקא באופן מיוחד לייחודיות של כל אחד ואחד עלה בידו להוציא את הטוב ביותר מכל תלמידיו. אם אנו נלך בעקבותיו יגדלו עד מאד סיכויינו להעניק לעצמנו, לילדינו ולתלמידנו הרבה יותר שמחה והצלחה בכל שטח בחיים!

TOLDOS – THE SOURCE OF BRACHA

When famine strikes Eretz Yisroel, Yitzchak Avinu plans to go to Mitzrayim. However, Hashem instructs him to remain in Eretz Yisroel and go to the land of the Plishtim and Hashem assures him of great blessing: “I will increase your offspring like the stars of the heaven; and I will give to your offspring all these land; and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring. Because Avraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards (Mishmarti), My Commandments, My decrees and My Torahs. ” The commentaries differ on the meaning of the word, ‘mishmarti’ in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s righteousness. The Seforno offers a novel interpretation of ‘Mishmarti’. He writes that this refers to the trait ‘that is guarded (mishmeres) to me’, which is that of chesed, thus Hashem is praising Avraham for being so proficient in emulating Hashem’s own mida of chesed. The whole foundation of Hashem’s creation is chesed, and Avraham emulated this trait by doing the greatest possible chesed of giving others the opportunity to get close to Hashem. The Seforno continues in the same section to address a very difficult problem with this passuk: On two occasions in the Parsha, Hashem blesses Yitzchak, but only in the merit of Avraham. The first is the passuk above and the second is after Yitzchak’s travails with the Plishtim; “.. I will bless you and increase your offspring because of Avraham my servant. ” The Seforno contrasts this with both Avraham and Yaakov who were always blessed in their own merit and not in that of their fathers. He explains that Avraham and Yaakov were both involved in teaching others from early in their lives. Avraham’s exploits are well-known and the Seforno writes with certainty that Yaakov taught people who came to the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever . Accordingly, they were blessed in their own merit throughout their lives. In contrast, up to this point, Yitzchak did not call out in the name of Hashem, and consequently did not merit to be blessed in his own merit. He is blessed in his own merit only after he emulates his father and does call out in the name of Hashem: “He built an altar there, and called in the name of Hashem. ” Soon after, Avimelech approaches him to make peace and ends by calling him, the “Blessed of Hashem. ” It is at this point, the Seforno writes, that Yitzchak is blessed in his own merit. Rav Elyashiv shlita comments on the implication of this Seforno. Yitzchak Avinu was one of the three Avos, who was willing to give up his life for Hashem in the Akeida, and who was so holy that he could never leave Eretz Yisroel. Yet the Torah writes about him as if he has no merit until he calls out in the name of Hashem! Rav Elyashiv writes; “We see from here the incredible merit and reward that one receives for spreading Yiras Hashem to the people. ” It still needs to be understood why exactly Yitzchak’s great righteousness was not sufficient to earn him the right to be blessed in his own merit until he spread Hashem’s name. Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l writes that ‘bracha’ means ribui (abundance). Thus, the purpose of bracha is to cause an increase or continuation in something. Based on this, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that a person is only worthy of receiving the bracha of ribui if he himself contributes to causing ribui and continuity in the world by causing others to follow the Derech Hashem. Accordingly, despite all his great acts, Yitzchak only received blessing in his own merit when he himself contributed to the increase of people who would follow the Derech Hashem. The question remains as to why Yitzchak refrained from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point. Rav Elyashiv suggests that the explanation for this is that since his father had already spread awareness of Hashem, there was no need for him to do so. However, Rav Elyashiv points out, we see the great reward that Yitzchak later received for doing so even though his father had already done so. We learn from here a lesson that is highly relevant in the world today - that the fact that there are some people who devote time and effort to spreading Torah does not exempt everyone else from also contributing in some form. A person may argue that since there are people already involved, there is no need for him to do so. The problems with this argument are twofold: Firstly, we see from the Seforno that in a person needs to be involved in bringing others close to Hashem for his own benefit and to be worthy of bracha. Secondly, there are a tremendously small number of people who are involved in any form of Kiruv rechokim (including part-time Kiruv, such as learning a few hours a week with a beginner or having secular people for Shabbos) in comparison to the numbers of secular Jews who are leaving Judaism in the millions. The only possible way to stem the tide is if every Jew takes upon himself to devote some amount of time to Kiruv. Indeed a little known fact is that the Gedolim have demanded that every ben-Torah must contribute some of his precious time to being mekarev secular Jews: Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l issued a ‘call to action’ to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no-one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigor. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no-one else, so too must our yeshiva students …. There are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.” Other Gedolim have issued similar ‘calls to action’. In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe zt”l exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visit the homes of secular families and show them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit. Great talmidei chachamim have always taken every opportunity to emulate Avraham Avinu’s efforts to bring people close to Hashem. The well-known Maggid Shiur, Rav Mendel Kaplan zt”l made great efforts to befriend and teach secular Jews whenever he encountered them. His outreach even extended to children. A non-religious secretary in the yeshivah once brought her nine-year old son with her to work. When Reb Mendel saw the little boy playing in the hall, he called him over, pointed to a Chumash and asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Sure” the boy answered, “it’s a Bible.” “No,” answered Reb Mendel, “this is a Chumash.” He then pulled up two chairs and sat with the boy for an hour, teaching him Chumash on a level that the child could understand and appreciate. Later that day someone asked him why he had devoted so much of his precious time to a nine-year old boy. Answered Reb Mendel, “I hope that I’ve a planted a seed that will grow years from now.” We may think, that we cannot have any positive effect on unaffiliated Jews, however one can never know what seeds he plants that may bloom in a seemingly unconnected way many years later. Rav Kaplan was a great talmid chacham who reached great heights in his own Torah learning and general righteousness. However, he recognized that this did not absolve him of his responsibility to look for opportunities to ‘call in the name of Hashem’. We learn from the Seforno that even a great tzaddik is not worthy of bracha unless he spreads G-d awareness in the world. Rav Elyashiv further teaches us that there is no validity to the argument that others are already doing so is. May we all be zocheh to play our role in being vayikra b’shem Hashem.

CHAYEI SARAH - THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction ! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs. We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer. The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach! We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook. Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being. What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem. The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

CHAYEI SARAH – RELYING ON MIRACLES

After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah point out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah note that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered. There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey. It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food. According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will. Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible. We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion. There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work. The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.

CHAYEI SARAH - CHESED AND CHACHMA

Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ her will You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master. ” The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly . In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak . The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached. The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people . The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them . The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs! Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.

Parachat ‘Hayé Sarah – Faire du ‘hessed avec ‘hokhma

Avraham Avinou envoie son fidèle serviteur, Eliezer, chercher une conjointe convenable pour son fils vertueux, Its’hak Avinou. Lorsqu’Eliezer arrive à destination, il prie Hachem de lui envoyer un signe lui permettant de savoir qui pourrait correspondre et être la femme d’Its’hak. Il demande : « Que la jeune fille à qui je dirai : "Veuille pencher ta cruche afin que je boive" et qui répondra : "Bois, puis j’abreuverai aussi tes chameaux", soit celle que tu as destinée à ton serviteur, pour Its’hak et que le puisse reconnaître par elle que tu t’es montré favorable à mon maître ! » Les commentateurs expliquent qu’il ne fit pas simplement la demande d’un signe au hasard, mais il voulait s’assurer que la future matriarche ait une bonté suffisamment développée. Par la précision des mots de sa prière, ils déduisent qu’il ne suffisait pas qu’elle exauce uniquement sa requête et lui donne de l’eau ; il projetait de ne demander de l’eau que pour lui-même et attendait que, de sa propre initiative, elle lui propose d’abreuver également ses chameaux. Le Seforno note qu’il souhaitait qu’elle aille au-delà de sa demande explicite ; qu’elle perçoive que ses réels besoins étaient en réalité plus importants et qu’elle agisse en conséquence . Dans le même ordre d’idées, le Malbim souligne qu’il ne suffisait pas que Rivka soit gentille, Eliezer voulait qu’elle fasse preuve d’une ‘hokhma (sagesse) qui lui permettrait de répondre au mieux à ses besoins. Il expose plus loin la prière d’Eliezer en détail ; ce dernier espérait qu’elle penche la cruche vers lui et non pas qu’il la lui prenne des mains et qu’il boive. Il voulait qu’au lieu d’être contrariée de sa présumée fainéantise, elle essaie de le juger favorablement et qu’elle s’imagine qu’il avait une douleur quelconque aux mains. Ainsi, elle comprendrait que si déjà il n’eut pas la force de tenir la cruche pour lui-même, il était encore moins capable de puiser de l’eau pour ses chameaux. Donc, elle accomplirait la tâche ardue d’abreuver toute seule les dix chameaux ! Quand elle passa cette épreuve avec succès, Eliezer comprit qu’il avait trouvé la partenaire idéale pour Its’hak . Le Seforno et le Malbim montrent que Rivka ne devait pas seulement être gentille, mais elle devait faire preuve d’une sagesse qui lui permettrait d’identifier les réels besoins d’Eliezer sans qu’il ne lui fasse de demande explicite. Nous apprenons de cet épisode que pour faire du ‘hessed de façon optimale, une personne doit montrer des signes de sagesse. Apparemment, cela ne nécessite pas un QI particulièrement élevé, mais il faut être attentif aux gens qui nous entourent pour percevoir leurs besoins et les satisfaire plutôt que d’attendre que l’on nous en fasse la demande. Le Beth HaLévy puise une idée semblable d’un passouk à la fin de la Méguilat Esther. En faisant l’éloge de Mordékhaï qui était le dirigeant du peuple juif, la Méguila nous informe qu’il était « dorech tov lé’amo », c’est-à-dire qu’il recherchait le bien pour son peuple . Le Beth HaLévy demande quelle est la particularité de Mordékhaï ; en effet, tous les dirigeants en Thora veulent assurément le bien du peuple. Il explique que Mordékhaï n’attendait pas que les gens viennent à lui et lui demandent de l’aide. Il les devançait, venait vers eux, essayait d’identifier leurs manques et tentait de les aider . Le Beth Halévy lui-même illustrait cette qualité, la capacité de comprendre les besoins d’autrui avant même que l’on ne s’adresse à lui, grâce à son esprit éveillé. Un soir du séder, on lui demanda s’il était permis de boire du lait pour les « quatre verres ». En réponse, il envoya un messager chez la personne qui posa la question, avec une grande quantité de vin et de viande. Manifestement, il n’avait pas assez de vin pour les quatre verres. De plus, s’il prévoyait de boire du lait, c’est qu’il n’avait évidemment pas de viande à manger. Il agit en conséquence et subvint à leurs besoins non formulés ! Au quotidien, nous rencontrons des gens qui peuvent avoir besoin d’une certaine assistance. Mais, très souvent, ils sont trop gênés pour demander explicitement cette aide il faut donc essayer l’émuler l’attitude de Rivka et de résoudre leurs problèmes. On découvrit un jour qu’un homme vivait dans une pauvreté extrême. Comment le remarqua-t-on ? Un ami lui prêta 25 shekels quelques semaines plus tôt et demanda avec désinvolture à son ami s’il pouvait le rembourser. L’emprunteur pâlit du fait de son incapacité totale à rembourser un tel prêt. Cette réaction préoccupa son ami qui fit quelques recherches et découvrit que cet homme n’avait pas assez d’argent pour acheter les produits de base. Parfois, l’expression du visage d’une personne, ou un commentaire désinvolte peut indiquer un certain besoin. Nous avons la possibilité de prêter attention à ce genre d’allusions et ainsi d’augmenter grandement notre aptitude à faire du ‘hessed.

TOLDOS - YITZCHAK AVINU

The Torah devotes three parshios to Avraham Avinu and Yaakov Avinu. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Yitzchak Avinu. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Yitzchak and no other Av; the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Phlishtim. Yitchak is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rivka, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Plishtim sealed wells that Avraham had dug, and how Yitzchak re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Plishtim and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Yitzchak Avinu. The most striking aspect of Yitzchak’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Avraham’s time he headed for Mitzrayim; Yitzchak planned to do the same thing until Hashem told him not to leave Eretz Yisroel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them . Rabbeinu Bachya states that from Yitzchak’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Yitzchak did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita explains Yitzchak’s role among the Avos: Avraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Yitzchak’s avoda was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of mesora. Yitzchak’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine comes to the land, he immediately thinks of going to Mitzrayim because his father did so. And when he comes to Gerar he digs the same wells and gives them the same names that Avraham had given them . However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha . This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to be deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path toward Avodas Hashem. We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is clearly no contradiction here; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many different approaches to Judaism that emphasize different areas and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity . There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality . Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression . Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than even the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva ! The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jew to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, including development of character traits, limud haTorah and hashkafa: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths. Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel . Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else . And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinuch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora. How important is it that a person be encouraged to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim . And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of giving ourselves, our children and our students happier and more successful lives.

The Guiding Light - Jaiei Sará (Génesis 23:1-25:18)

Bondad con sabiduría (Kindness with wisdom) Por Rav Yehonasan Gefen Abraham envió a Eliezer, su fiel sirviente, para que encontrara una esposa adecuada para su hijo Itzjak. Cuando Eliezer llegó a su destino, le rezó a Dios para que le mandase una señal mediante la cual pudiese saber quién debía ser la esposa de Itzjak. Él rezó: “Que la joven a quien yo le diga: ‘Por favor inclina tu cántaro para que yo beba’, y me responda: ‘Bebe, y también abrevaré a tus camellos’, que ella sea la que has designado para tu siervo Itzjak, y sabré mediante ella que Tú has hecho bondad con mi señor” . Los comentaristas explican que Eliezer no pidió una señal aleatoria, sino que quiso asegurarse que la futura matriarca tuviera un sentido de bondad altamente desarrollado. Los comentaristas ven en la exactitud de su plegaria que no era suficiente que ella simplemente respondiera a su pedido de agua; él planeaba pedir agua sólo para sí mismo, y esperaba que la joven reaccionara en base a su propia iniciativa y ofreciera agua también para los camellos. El Sforno explica que Eliezer quería que ella ahondase en el pedido de agua para sí mismo, que percibiera que sus necesidades reales eran mucho mayores y que actuase consecuentemente . De un modo similar, el Malbim señala que no alcanzaba con que Rivka fuera bondadosa; Eliezer quería que demostrara una sabiduría que le permitiera satisfacer sus necesidades de la mejor forma. Analizando cuidadosamente el pedido de Eliezer, el Malbim nota que Eliezer le pidió que ella inclinara el cántaro hacia él, en lugar de ser él quien lo tomase y bebiese por sí mismo. Eliezer esperaba que en lugar de enojarse por su pereza, ella intentara juzgarlo para bien y pensara que quizás él tenía alguna clase de dolor en sus manos. Consecuentemente, ella advertiría que si él no tenía la fortaleza suficiente como para sostener el cántaro por sí mismo, mucho menos podría extraer agua para sus camellos. Entonces, ¡ella misma realizaría la ardua tarea de abrevar a los diez camellos! Cuando pasó estas pruebas con éxito, Eliezer se dio cuenta que había encontrado una pareja apropiada para Itzjak . El Sforno y el Malbim muestran que no era suficiente con que Rivka fuera amable; necesitaba demostrar que tenía la sabiduría necesaria para percibir las necesidades reales de Eliezer sin que él se las dijese directamente. De aquí podemos aprender que para poder realizar actos de bondad de forma óptima se necesita tener sabiduría. Esto no significa que hace falta tener un coeficiente intelectual extremadamente alto, sino que uno debe estar consciente de la gente que lo rodea de forma tal que pueda percibir sus necesidades y satisfacerlas en lugar de esperar a que los demás se aproximen a uno. El Beit Halevi deriva un punto similar del versículo final de Meguilat Ester. Al alabar a Mordejai como líder del pueblo judío, la Meguilá nos dice que "era un doresh tov leamó", es decir, que buscaba el bien para su pueblo . El Beit Halevi pregunta, basado en que seguramente todos los líderes quieren el bien para su pueblo, ¿cuál era la singularidad de Mordejai? Y explica que Mordejai no esperaba hasta que las personas fueran donde él para pedirle ayuda, sino que se adelantaba y se acercaba a las personas, trataba de advertir sus necesidades y veía cómo podía ayudarlas . El Beit HaLevi mismo —gracias a su aguda percepción— personificaba este rasgo de entender las necesidades de las personas antes de que fueran donde él. En una noche de Pesaj, una persona le preguntó si era posible usar leche para las Cuatro Copas. Su respuesta fue mandar un mensajero a la casa de quien le había hecho la pregunta con una generosa cantidad de vino y carne. Él se había dado cuenta que obviamente esa persona no tenía vino para beber las cuatro copas, pero no sólo eso, sino que dado que planeaban beber leche, evidentemente tampoco tenían carne. ¡Actuó consecuentemente y proveyó todas sus necesidades! En nuestras vidas, constantemente nos encontramos con personas que necesitan algún tipo de ayuda, pero están demasiado avergonzadas como para pedirla explícitamente. Es ahí donde hace falta que nos esforcemos para emular a Rivka y descifrar sus necesidades. Por ejemplo, una persona descubrió que su amigo vivía en la absoluta miseria. ¿Cómo lo descubrió? Él le había prestado a su amigo 25 shekalim unas semanas atrás, y le pidió si podía devolverle el dinero. Ante la imposibilidad de devolver el préstamo, la cara del prestatario se tornó blanca. Esa reacción alertó a su amigo, quien hizo algunas investigaciones y descubrió que aquel hombre no tenía suficiente dinero ni siquiera para satisfacer sus necesidades más básicas. En ocasiones, la expresión facial de una persona o un comentario casual indican una necesidad particular. De nosotros depende el desarrollar nuestro poder de observación, con lo cual aumentará en gran medida nuestra capacidad para hacer el bien.

חיי שרה – המלחמה בין הגוף והנשמה

לאחר שעמד אברהם אבינו בנסיון העקידה, בפטירת שרה אשתו, הוא נאלץ לעמוד מול עפרון החיתי במשא ומתן ממושך כדי להשיג חלקת קבר לשרה אימנו. בסופו של דבר, הוא קנה את מערת המכפלה במחיר עצום – 400 שקל כסף. הפרשנים מציינים שבדרך כלל שמו של עפרון נכתב עם האות ו', מלבד בפסוק המתאר את ביצוע העסקה, בפסוק זה שמו של עפרון נכתב ללא ו' – "עפרן". רש"י מסביר שעפרון אמר הרבה ועשה מעט, בתחילה הוא אמר לאברהם שהוא מוכן לתת לו את אחוזתו בחינם, אולם בסופו של דבר הוא דרש עליה מחיר מפולפל. כתוצאה מכך ערכו של עפרון ירד מאד. בעל הטורים כותב הסבר נוסף על הו' החסרה בפסוק זה. הוא כותב שהגימטריה של המילה עפרן היא 400 – הסכום המדויק אותו הרויח עפרון מעסקה זו ! מהי המשמעות של עניין זה? ר' אלחנן פישמן שליט"א מסביר שכאשר עפרון קיבל מאברהם אבינו סכום כזה של כסף, הוא חש שהוא מקבל בכך ערך מסוג חדש – מרגע זה הוא ראה את עצמו כ"שווה" 400 שקל כסף. הדימוי העצמי של עפרון התבסס על מצבו הכלכלי. הוא נפל בפח של יצר הרע מצוי מאד, מצבו הגשמי היה חשוב ומודגש בעיניו הרבה יותר מדרגתו הרוחנית. ישנה נטייה טבעית לנהוג כך כיוון שמאז חטא אדם הראשון האדם קשור ומודע הרבה יותר לגופו מאשר לנשמתו. ר' מוטי ברגר שליט"א אומר שאנו נוטים לזהות את עצמנו על ידי הגוף שלנו – לדוגמא, כאשר אדם חולה הוא אומר "אני לא מרגיש טוב", גופו שחש לא בטוב מזוהה אצלו כ"אני". נכון היה יותר לומר "גופי אינו חש בטוב", שהרי הנשמה שבתוכנו היא העיקר המרכיב אותנו. חלק חיוני מאד בעבודת ה' הוא לפתח מודעות גבוהה יותר למציאות הנשמה ולצרכיה. נוכל לקבל הבנה עמוקה יותר בסוגית היחסים בין הגוף והנשמה, אם נמשיך ונעמיק באותה גימטריה שהביא בעל הטורים. כאשר עפרון קיבל את הכסף מאברהם, הוא ודאי הרגיש שמעלתו וחשיבותו בעולם עלו לאין ערוך – הוא הפך לאדם עשיר. אולם למעשה אות אחת נפלה משמו, ואנו יודעים ששמו של אדם משקף את מהותו. מכך ניתן ללמוד שהערך האמיתי שלו כאדם דווקא ירד. יתירה מזאת, העובדה שהאות שנפלה משמו היא דווקא האות ו' משמעותית ביותר. ו' היא אות של חיבור; ו' החיבור מוסיפה ומחברת מילה למילה. אף צורת האות ו' מרמזת על משמעות החיבור שלה; צורת האות ו' היא כוו – קרס, המחבר בין שני חפצים. כאשר עפרון זכה בעושר גשמי, הוא ירד ברוחניות ואיבד את הקשר שלו עם הקב"ה. כאשר אדם מעניק חשיבות גדולה מידי לגופו, ממילא נשמתו נפגמת מכך. גם בפרשת השבוע הבא ניתן ללמוד על היחס ההפוך הקיים בין הגוף ובין הנשמה. הנביא אמר לרבקה ששני העוברים שבבטנה יתפתחו לשני עמים, ותמיד אחד יעמוד כנגד השני, ובמפלתו של האחד – יקום השני ויעלה"" . הפשט של פסוק זה הוא שבין עם ישראל ובין אדום מתקיים תמיד יחס של מאזניים – כאשר אחד עולה – השני יורד למטה. אולם ישנם מפרשים הרואים מלחמה אחרת המרומזת בפסוק זה – יעקב מרמז על הנשמה, ואילו עשו – על הגוף; ובין שני כוחות אלו מתקיים מאבק תמידי. אם הנשמה היא השולטת – כוח הגוף נחלש כתוצאה מכך. דוגמא מובהקת לכך היא הסיפור אודות ה"בית יוסף": בעקבות מדרגתו הרוחנית הגבוהה, הוא היה זוכה לעיתים קרובות להתגלות מלאך מן השמים. והנה, במשך מספר ימים המלאך לא נגלה אליו. נאמר לו שהסיבה לכך היא שבאחד הימים, כשהיה חם מאד הוא הקדיש יותר מידי זמן כדי להשיג מים קרים. דאגה זעירה זו לצרכי הגוף שלו השפיעה וגרמה לירידה במדרגתו הרוחנית עד כדי כך שהוא לא היה ראוי לדבר עם המלאך! רואים ממקורות אלה שלא ייתכן מצב בו אדם משקיע גם בגופו וגם בנשמתו. אדם עלול לחשוב שלא כך הוא – הוא יכול לעסוק בתורה ובמצוות ובו זמנית לשאוף להישגים גשמיים ונוחות פיזית. אולם בסופו של דבר כזה אדם נשאר רק עבד לגופו; ייתכן שהוא יוכל לקיים מצוות אבל ההשקעה והשאיפות הגשמיות לא יתנו לו לגדור את עצמו מתאוות ממון, תאוות אכילה וכדומה, זהו סימן מובהק לכך שהגוף הוא הוא השולט בו והוא הקובע לו את חייו. ר' שלמה ברוודה שליט"א מתאר עניין זה על ידי שני סיפורים: פעם אחת הוא שלח בחור ישיבה לאמריקה ללמוד בישיבה טובה מאד שם. כאשר הוא הגיע הוא התרשם מאד מהתמדתם של הבחורים. אולם, הוא היה מופתע לחלוטין בהפסקת הצהריים – אותם בחורים שעד עתה למדו בכזה חשק והתלהבות, היו עסוקים כל כולם באכילה מתוך להט והתלהבות גדולה! הר' ברוודה אומר שבחורים אלו היו עבדים לגוף שלהם. במקרה אחר, דיבר הר' ברוודה בפני מספר גדול של בנות נעורים חרדיות. בשלב מסוים בהרצאתו הוא אמר שהמטרה בחיים אינה לחיות בבית היפה ביותר המרוהט בשלמות עם מיטב הרהיטים. מאוחר יותר באותו יום ניגשה אליו אחת המורות, ואמרה שבת אחת מתוך הקהל נבוכה מאד מדבריו. היא גדלה בבית שומר תורה ומצוות אשר בו מודגש מאד הצורך לחיות ברמת חיים גבוהה, ולהשקיע בנוחות פיזית כמה שיותר. לאחר ששמעה את דברי הר' ברוודה, היא הפנימה אותם והבינה את נכונותם. היא קלטה פתאום שהיא חונכה בגישה מנוגדת להשקפת התורה. הר' ברוודה אומר שייתכן ותהיה מלחמה ממש בין הגוף ובין הנשמה. הגוף הוא בעל כוח גדול, בדרך כלל הוא מתגבר על השאיפה הקיימת באדם לרוחניות. אולם אם נבין לפחות שאנו נתונים במאבק, נוכל להתחיל לחזק את כוח הנשמה שלנו. אולם, טוען ר' שלמה ברוודה, לרבים משומרי התורה והמצוות אין כלל מלחמה. אדם לא עומד בפני שום קונפליקט כאשר יש בפניו עוגה טעימה, כאשר הוא אינו רעב – הוא בולע את העוגה בלי לחשוב פעמיים. אולם הגרוע ביותר הוא כאשר הוא לא מזהה אפילו שהגוף שלו שולט לחלוטין בכל ישותו. מה יכול אדם לעשות על מנת להצטרף לכל הפחות למלחמה? דוד המלך אומר שישנן שתי דרכים לאדם לעבוד על עצמו – "סור מרע ועשה טוב" . "סור מרע" - הכוונה כאן היא להרפות מעט את אחיזתנו בצרכי הגוף. הר' ברוודה מציע כיצד ניתן להתחיל בעבודה זו; כאשר אדם אוכל ארוחה עיקרית – לאכל רק מסוג אחד – הוא יכול לקחת כמה שרוצה מאותה מנה, אולם לפחות הוא מפתח בכך את היכולת להימנע מלקחת עוד משהו – על ידי כך ניתן יהיה להתחיל במאבק בין הנשמה ובין הגוף. אולם אנו חייבים גם לעסוק ב"עשה טוב" – על ידי שנפתח את הצד הרוחני שלנו, באופן אוטומטי יחלש הקשר שלנו עם העולם הגשמי. אל ר' נח אורלווק שליט"א ניגש פעם בחור ואמר לו שהוא מצפה לארוחת צהריים יותר מאשר לתפילת מנחה – ושאל כיצד עליו לעבוד על כך? הר' אורלווק ענה לו שעליו להשתדל להעריך יותר את התפילה, על ידי שיעשה כך, באופן בלתי נמנע הוא יחוש פחות ציפייה ופחות התלהבות מהנאות גשמיות. הר' ברוודה אף מציע כיצד ליישם רעיון זה למעשה - בעשר הדקות הראשונות של פסוקי דזמרה, יעשה כל שביכולתו כדי להתרכז אך ורק בסידור ולא להביט סביב. כאשר אדם נוהג כך הוא בעצם מנתק את עצמו מכל הגורמים המסיחים את דעתו ומונעים ממנו את הריכוז אך ורק בתפילה. הר' ברוודה אומר שאנשים אמרו לו שרעיון זה גרם להם לעלייה משמעותית ביותר בעבודת ה'. המלחמה בין הגוף ובין הנשמה היא ארוכה ומאתגרת, אולם, אם לכל הפחות נצטרף למלחמה – הרי בידינו להצליח. המהר"ל מציין נקודה חשובה מאד בדברי רש"י על יחסי המלחמה בין יעקב לעשיו . הוא כותב שרש"י אומר שכאשר יעקב יורד למטה – עשיו עולה, אולם הוא לא כותב את ההיפך. המהר"ל מסביר שיעקב הוא הקובע מי יהיה חזק יותר – עשיו לעומת זאת רק נתון לתוצאת מעשי יעקב – אם הם נכשלים – הוא עולה, אולם אם יעקב עולה ומצליח – אין לעשיו כל אפשרות לעלות. באותה מידה ניתן לומר בהקשר למלחמה בין הגוף והנשמה: ביד האדם לקבוע מי השולט בו – אם הוא מתאמץ ומשתדל להגביר את כוח נשמתו – אזי כוח הגוף מתרפה מיידית. מי ייתן וכולנו נזכה להצליח להצטרף למלחמה בין הגוף ובין הנשמה.

INSIGHTS IN RASHI: CHAYEI SARAH – ELIEZER’S HIDDEN INTENT

Bereishis, 24:39: “And I said to my master, ‘Perhaps ((אלי the woman will not follow me?” Rashi, Bereishis, 24:39, sv. Perhaps: אלי is written [without the ‘vav’]: Eliezer had a daughter and he was searching for a way in which Avraham would turn to him [so that Yitzchak] would marry his daughter. When Avraham instructed his faithful servant, Eliezer to search for a wife for Yitzchak, Eliezer asked what would happen if, perhaps, the woman would not want to come with him. When Eliezer found Rivka he retold the story to Besuel and Lavan. In the initial account of his discussion with Avraham, the hebrew word for perhaps, אולי, is spelt in the normal way (with a vav). However, when he retells the story the Torah spells the wordאלי without the vav. This alludes to a different word meaning “to me” which alludes to us that Eliezer was hoping that he would not find a wife for Yitzchak on his travels and therefore Yitzchak should come “to him” to marry his daughter. The commentaries ask why the Torah only made this allusion the second time that Eliezer said these words; it would have seemed more logical to tell us on the first occasion? The Kotsker Rebbe zt”l explains that the first time Eliezer expressed his reservations he was not consciously aware of his underlying hope that Yitzchak would marry his daughter. Therefore there is no allusion to his selfish motives at that time. The reason for this was that he was unable to view the situation totally objectively and realize that he had ulterior motives. After he had found a wife for Yitzchak he could have a totally unbiased view of what had happened. He then recognized retroactively that the root cause of his objection to Avraham was the hidden hope that his own daughter would marry Yitzchak. The Kotzker Rebbe’s explanation demonstrates to us how easily one can get caught in the trap of selfish motives without even realizing. A person can only recognize these motives with the benefit of the objectivity that comes after the event, but by then it is often too late. How can a person avoid this problem at the time that it takes place? The Mishna in Avos helps answer this question: It instructs us: “...Acquire for yourself a friend. ” Rabbeinu Yonah writes that one of the benefits of having a friend is that he can help you in observing Mitzvos. “Even when a friend is no more righteous than him and sometimes he even acts improperly, nonetheless he does not want a friend to do the same [action], because he has no benefit from it. ” He then brings as a proof to this idea the principle that “a person does not sin on behalf of someone else.” This means that a generally observant person usually sins because he is blinded by some kind of desire for pleasure, however with regard to someone else we presume that he is not blinded in the same way and therefore we do not suspect him of sinning on behalf of others. This idea is applied in a number of places throughout the Gemara . Rabbeinu Yonah thus teaches us the importance of acquiring at least one friend who can act as an objective onlooker towards our own actions and warn us when ulterior motives are clouding our reasoning. This friend need not necessarily be on a higher level than ourselves – it is his objectivity that makes him more able to discern our true intentions. In this way we can hope to avoid the pitfalls of being clouded by the yester hara and can attain clarity in the underlying motives for our actions.

AVRAHAM – REACTING TO SUCCESS AND FAILURE

There are many aspects of Avraham Avinu’s greatness that are discussed a great deal, in particular his perfection in the trait of kindness. However, on deeper examination we see other, more subtle facets of his greatness. Throughout his life, Avraham underwent numerous difficult challenges and setbacks. Some of these tests ended with great success but others did not necessarily culminate in the way that Avraham would have hoped. The way in which he reacted to these events teaches us tremendous lessons in how to respond to both success and adversity. Surely the most difficult challenge that Avraham ever faced in his eventful life was that of the Akeida, whereby he was commanded to slaughter his only son despite having no understanding of the reason for doing so. Finally, at the end of the arduous test he is told by the Malach that he has passed the test and thereby merited the blessing that his descendants will be like the stars of the Heavens. Avraham’s measure of success is further elucidated by a Yalkut Shimoni quoted by Rav Yissochor Frand shlita. When Avraham was about to slaughter his son at the Akeida, the Malach called to him, “Avraham,Avraham” Why did the Malach say his name twice? The Yalkut explains that there are two images of each person - his worldly image and his heavenly image; his worldly image is what he makes of himself in this world, and his heavenly image represents what he could become if he fulfill his potential. Avraham, after he passed the last of his ten tests, finally reached his complete potential and consequently his two images became identical. The Malach mentioned the two ‘Avrahams’ together, the Avraham of olam hazeh and the ideal Avraham of olam haba, indicating that the two of them were now the same. Thus at this point in time Avraham had reached the pinnacle of greatness, indeed he had attained spiritual perfection. How would a person react after such a momentous event? A little pride in his achievements would be understandable; Or at least a feeling of elation and celebration would be reasonable. Yet Avraham’s reaction was very different. The verse immediately after the Akeida tells us: “Avraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer Sheba and Avraham dwelled in Beer-Sheba.” The commentaries note the Torah’s wording that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, Eliezer and Yishmael. This wording denotes a sense of being on the same level or with the same feelings. Thus, here the Torah is telling us that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, in that just as they had not undergone any great experience at the Akeida, so too Avraham travelled as if he had not faced and passed the most difficult test that any man had ever faced. He felt no sense of pride and even no sense of celebration, rather he returned to Beer-Sheba to continue his holy work of teaching the world about the Divine Presence. Avraham’s greatness with regard to the aftermath of the Akeida is further demonstrated by his conduct in the subsequent incident discussed by the Torah; that of his dealings with the wily Efron in his efforts to acquire the Maaras HaMachpeila as a burial place for his wife, Sarah Imanu. Rabbeinu Yonah makes a seemingly baffling point – the Mishna in Avos tells us that Avraham faced ten extremely difficult tests, and most commentators explain that the Akeida was the final test. However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes that Avraham’s difficulties in finding a burial plot for Sarah constituted his final test. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita asks how it is fathomable that after the ultimate challenge, that of the Akeida, there could be yet another challenge that Avraham needed face – surely the Akeida represented the pinnacle of human achievement and no further tests were necessary! He answers that of course the Akeida was the most difficult test that Avraham faced, however the final test offered a different challenge. It is human nature that after a person succeeds in a difficult endeavor he may have a tendency to want to rest on his laurels, and to feel that he has a right to relax a little. After enduring the incredible challenges involved in the Akeida it would have been understandable for Avraham Avinu to hope for a little respite. Accordingly, when he was immediately faced with the tragic death of his wife and the subsequent difficulties in acquiring a burial plot for her, he could have easily become frustrated with the course of events and harbored feelings of complaints towards HaKadosh Baruch Hu. However, Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us, he succeeded in this very different kind of test, by accepting that even after he reached his full potential, he was still liable to face new challenges. This teaches us a further dimension in Avraham’s greatness in his response to success. Not only did he remain humble, but he also remained prepared to face whatever new challenges could arise. We have thus far seen how Avraham reacted to success without letting it affect his humility or hindering his Avodas HaShem. Yet how did Avraham react on the rare occasions where he did not succeed in his endeavors? One such instance occurred when HaShem informed Avraham of His plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of their evil behavior. Avraham launched into a lengthy attempt to rescue the people of Sodom. He argued that if there were fifty righteous people then HaShem should save the whole city, and so on until it became clear that there weren’t even ten. Once this had been determined and the decree had been issued the Torah makes a seemingly superfluous comment. “HaShem departed when He had finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his place.” What is the significance of the fact that Avraham returned to his place; what lesson is it teaching us? The Steipler Gaon zt”l addressed this question in making a vital point to Rav Elazar Shach zt”l. On one occasion the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah made a certain decision in opposition to the views of Rav Shach and the Steipler. The matter was of such importance to Rav Shach that he felt a great sense of despair and his spirits were broken. Rav Shlomo Lorincz zt”l writes that soon after this incident he visited the Steipler who asked him how Rav Shach was faring. He answered that Rav Shach was thoroughly dejected and did not know which way to turn. So great was his disappointment that he said he had no more strength to continue. The Steipler listened to this sadly and said, “I would like you to go to Rav Shach for me and tell him the following.” The Steipler proceeded to ask the aforementioned question as to the significance of the fact that “Avraham returned to his place.” He answered with the following words. “What this means is that the Torah wants to teach us – tell Rav Shach this – that when one has done everything in order to save a situation and the goal has not been achieved one must implement, ‘And Avraham returned to his place’. One has to go back and resume the activity that one is obligated to engage in, continuing as though nothing untoward has happened. Under no circumstances whatsoever does lack of success justify a person giving way and being unable to carry on his holy work. Repeat this, word for word, on my behalf. He has done everything without missing a single detail, therefore he must also fulfill, ‘And Avraham returned to his place,’ and continue leading Klal Yisroel as before.” Rav Lorincz reports that when he conveyed this message to Rav Shach, Rav Shach replied that he accepted this lesson and would return to his work on behalf of Klal Yisroel. The Steipler’s astute observation demonstrates Avraham’s attitude to failure – he recognized that he did his utmost to achieve his goal but when he failed he did not let that failure prevent his holy work. By the fact that a man as great as Rav Shach faced great difficulty in overcoming this challenge, it is clear that this is a test that can affect everyone. Avraham’s reaction to his setback teaches us the proper way to react to failure. We have seen yet another facet to the greatness of Avraham Avinu – he excelled in his reaction to both success and failure. Perhaps the underlying trait that enabled him to succeed in all the tests that we have mentioned was his great humility. That taught him not to become haughty or complacent in the face of success, and not to despair when, through events beyond his power, he could not fulfill his goal.