Announcement - end of blog (in English, Spanish, French and Hebrew)

Hello For various reasons I will not post any more Divrei Torah on this post in any language. If you would like to still read my Divrei Torah there are two options. 1. To join my email list which sends out DT's every week. There is alist in English, Hebrew, Spanish and French. My email is: Gefen123@smile.net.il - please email me and I will put you on a list. 2. To buy my books - I have 3 books - one on the Parsha, on the Festivals and one on people in the Torah. One can buy the first two on paypal on the link on the blog. Or email me and we can arrange the sales. Bonjour Pour diverses raisons, je ne vais pas poster plus Divrei Torah sur ce post dans n'importe quelle langue. Si vous souhaitez en savoir encore mon Divrei Torah il ya deux options. 1. Pour rejoindre ma liste de courriel qui envoie DT de chaque semaine. Il est aliste en anglais, hébreu, espagnol et français. Mon email est: Gefen123@smile.net.il - s'il vous plaît écrivez-moi et je vais vous mettre sur une liste. . 2 Pour acheter mes livres - j'ai 3 livres - un sur la Paracha, sur les festivals et l'autre sur les gens dans la Torah. On peut acheter les deux premiers sur paypal sur le lien sur le blog. Ou envoyez-moi et nous pouvons organiser les ventes. Hola Por diversas razones, no voy a publicar más Divrei Torá en este blog en cualquier idioma. Si desea seguir leyendo mi Divrei Torá hay dos opciones. 1. Para unirse a mi lista de correo electrónico que envía DT de todas las semanas. Hay alist en Inglés, hebreo, español y francés. Mi correo electrónico es: Gefen123@smile.net.il - por favor envíeme un correo electrónico y te pondrá en una lista. . 2 Para comprar mis libros - tengo 3 libros - uno en la parashá, en los Festivales y otro a la gente en la Torá. Uno puede comprar los dos primeros de paypal en el enlace en el blog. O enviarme un correo electrónico y podemos arreglar las ventas. מסיבות שונות אני לא אפרסם יותר דברי תורה בפוסט הזה בכל שפה. אם אתה רוצה עדיין לקרוא דברי התורה שלי יש שתי אפשרויות. 1. כדי להצטרף לרשימת הדוא"ל שלי ששולחת DT של כל שבוע. יש alist באנגלית, בעברית, ספרדית וצרפתית. כתובת הדוא"ל שלי היא: Gefen123@smile.net.il - אנא שלח לי ואני אשים אותך ברשימה. . 2 כדי לקנות את הספרים שלי - יש לי 3 ספרים - אחד על הפרשה, בפסטיבלים ובאחד על אנשים בתורה. אפשר לקנות את שני הראשונים בpaypal על הקישור בבלוג. או שלח לי ואנחנו יכולים לארגן את המכירות.

נשא – אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה

בס"ד יהונן גפן לרפואה שלימה יהודה חיים בן שפרה הפרשה עוסקת בעניין הנזיר, אדם שנודר להינזר מיין, לא להיטמא בטומאת מת, ולגדל שערותיו . בעל ה"תורת אברהם" ר' אברהם גרודז'ינסקי זצ"ל , דן במספר קשיים המתעוררים ביחס למעמדו הרוחני של הנזיר. הוא מציין שבמקום אחד התורה מתארת את הנזיר כ"קדוש", שהזיר עצמו מהנאות העולם הזה , אולם מספר פסוקים לאחר מכן, כאשר מתוארים הקרבנות שעל הנזיר להקריב, אומרת התורה שהוא חייב בקרבן חטאת כדי לכפר על עבירה מסוימת שחטא בה. על איזו עבירה מדובר? רש"י מביא את דעת רבי אלעזר הקפר שחטא הנזיר הוא שציער את עצמו בכך שנמנע מההנאה של שתיית יין . אם כך, ישנה סתירה מובהקת – האם הנזיר מקיים בנזירותו מצווה גדולה, או להיפך – עובר עבירה. עונה ה"תורת אברהם" שהנזיר עושה את המעשה הנכון, זה אכן מה שעליו לעשות – הוא מרגיש נטייה מוגזמת להנאות הגוף, ולכן מוצא לנכון לפנות באופן דרסטי לצד השני, ולנדור על עצמו נזירות. אולם, במעשה כזה ישנו גם צד של חטא – ועליו יש לכפר בקרבן חטאת. הוא מסביר שהקב"ה ברא אדם המורכב מגוף ומנשמה יחד, וטעות היא לאדם לשלול לחלוטין את חלק הגוף שבו. עבודת האדם בעולם היא לחיות בתוך העולם הגשמי, בתוך חיי המעשה, ואותם לרומם, ומתוכם להתעלות. הנזיר מרגיש שהוא אינו מסוגל לנהוג כך, אם לא שיזיר את עצמו לחלוטין מהיין. הוא צודק במעשהו זה, אבל בו בזמן הוא גורם לגופו צער לא קל כיוון שלגוף ישנה רמה מסוימת של שעבוד לעולם הגשמי, והוא חש צער כאשר עליו להמנע מההנאות הקיימות בעולם הזה. לכן הוא נחשב ל"קדוש" על שלקח על עצמו משימה אמיצה כזו של טהרה, אולם יחד עם זאת עליו להביא קרבן חטאת על שציער את גופו . לאחר שהסביר את שני הצדדים השונים במעשה הנזירות, מגיע ה"תורת אברהם" לבעיה נוספת. הוא מביא את דברי הרמב"ן בתחילת פרשת קדושים שכותב שלא מספיק רק לקיים את המצוות, ולחיות חיי הנאות, אלא התורה מצווה עלינו "קדושים תהיו". קיום מצווה זו, לדברי הרמב"ן, כרוך בהתרחקות מהנאות העולם הזה. הוא אף מקביל בין הקדושה בה מצווה כאן האדם, ובין הנזיר, המתואר כ"קדוש" כיוון שהזיר עצמו מהיין. ומצד שני, הוא לא מזכיר אף לא ברמז קל כל חטא שנעשה על ידי התרחקות מהנאות גשמיות למרות שנראה לכאורה שיש בכך משום צער לגופו של האדם ה"קדוש". כותב ה"תורת אברהם" שדברים אלה של הרמב"ן מדברים על דרגה של "תלמיד חכם", אדם שמטרתו ושאיפתו היא להתקדש ולהתרחק מכל המותרות שבעולם הזה. ומכאן נובעת שאלה ברורה: מה ההבדל בין הנזיר שהינזרותו מהיין מהווה חטא, ובין ה"תלמיד חכם" שלא חוטא כל חטא, למרות שעושה מעשה דומה מאד למעשה הנזיר?! התשובה היא שישנו הבדל גדול מאד בין פרישותו של הנזיר ובין זו של התלמיד חכם. הנזיר נתון לתאווה חומרית חזקה מאד להנאות ארציות כמו שתיית יין. בעת שפורש מהן נגרם לו צער עצום, ולכן הוא נחשב חוטא בכך שמצער את עצמו. בניגוד לכך, ה"תלמיד חכם" לא חש כל כאב בהימנעות מהנאות הגוף כיוון שהוא אינו משועבד לדחפיו הגופניים. הוא חש ומבין באופן ברור לחלוטין עד כמה חסרות ערך וברות חלוף בטבען הן הנאות הגוף, כך שפרישה והימנעות מהם אינה מהווה עבורו קושי כה גדול. ואם כך, בעוד הנזיר צריך להקריב קרבן חטאת ולכפר על שציער את גופו, ה"תלמיד חכם" לא נחשב שעשה כל חטא. ניתן ללמוד מכך עיקרון עצום; הדרך האידיאלית להתרחקות ופרישה מהנאות העולם הזה, לא צריכה להיות כרוכה בתהליך קשה וכואב, אלא זה אמור לנבוע מהכרה בחוסר ערכם של הסיפוקים וההנאות הגשמיות. רעיון זה עומד בניגוד גמור לגישה החילונית והיחס החילוני לדחיית סיפוקים. ניתן לראות זאת באופן ברור בתחום הנפוץ של השאיפה לרדת במשקל על ידי דיאטה אינטנסיבית. על פי רוב נסיונות כאלה של דיאטה נוחלים כשלון, והסיבה העיקרים לכך היא שכאשר אדם מונע מעצמו אוכל, הוא גורם לעצמו צער וכאב עצומים. כאשר אדם מחליט לעשות כזו דיאטה, הוא לא משתחרר מתאוותו הטבעית לאכול אוכל ערב לחיך, ובדרך כלל להיפך – תשוקתו רק גדלה והולכת. כך הוא עובר תהליך קשה וכואב, בו הוא חוסם את עצמו בכוח מאכילה, אדם לא מסוגל להחזיק מעמד במצב כזה במשך זמן ממושך. נראה שהשקפת התורה לגבי עניין האכילה בכוחה לאפשר לאדם באופן אוטומטי לאכל בריא ואף לרדת במשקל . אם אדם מצליח להשתחרר משיעבוד הגוף להנאות הגשמיות, אזי הימנעות או התרחקות מהם תהפוך עד מהרה לעניין קל יותר ושאינו כרוך בכאב. מסופר על אדם, בן תורה, שהיה בעל משקל עודף, והיה רגיל לאכל כמויות גדולות מידי, הוא החליט להפחית את רמת הצריכה שלו לאוכל על ידי תהליך של עבודה פנימית בה יצנן את תאוות האכילה שלו, ויוריד את רמת השעבוד שלו לאוכל - אותו אדם הוריד 30 פאונד תוך חודשים ספורים! עדיין יש להבין כיצד יכול אדם להגיע לדרגה של תלמיד חכם, ובאמת להפריד את עצמו מהנאות גשמיות בלי לגרום לעצמו כל צער וקושי. נראה שהמפתח לכך הוא לפתח הערכה אמיתית וחזקה לרוחניות, כך באופן אוטומטי הוא ישתחרר מהשיעבוד לגשמיות. בחור ישיבה שאל פעם את ר' נח אורלווק שליט"א , שהוא מצפה לארוחת צהריים, יותר מאשר לתפלת מנחה – כיצד יוכל לשנות זאת? הר' אורלווק ענה שעליו להעמיק את הערכתו לתפילה, ובכך ללא ספק תרד העדפתו לארוחה. התנתקות מוחלטת זו מתאוות גשמיות שייכת ביותר ליחסנו לתורה, שבקבלתה אנו שמחים בחג השבועות. . המשנה באבות קובעת שהדרך לתורה היא "פת במלח תאכל ומים במשורה תשתה ועל הארץ תישן" . אין הכוונה דווקא שכדי להיות תלמיד חכם אדם חייב לחיות בכזה אופן, אלא, אומרת לנו המשנה, שעלינו לפתח כזו הערכה לתורה, עד שהנאות ארציות יהפכו אצלנו לחסרות משמעות. לכן, אם אדם מתאמץ ושואף להיות תלמיד חכם, עליו לרצות, ולהיות מוכן לחיות חיי הסתפקות. וכך, גם אם למעשה הוא חי ברמת חיים גבוהה יותר, למרות זאת הוא יהיה מסוגל להתמקד ולהנות מהנאות גבוהות יותר של לימוד תורה. אולם אם הוא מרגיש משיכה גדולה להנאות ונוחות גשמית, אזי הוא לא יהיה מסוגל להקדיש את כל כולו לתורה. עיקרון זה, של השתחררות מהכבלים של העולם הזה קשור לשבועות גם באופן אחר. ה"מגן אברהם" מדבר על המנהג הידוע בשבועות – ללמוד תורה כל הלילה. הוא כותב שהסיבה לכך מבוססת על דברי המדרש המספר שבלילה לפני מתן תורה ישנו היהודים כל הלילה והקב"ה היה צריך כביכול להעירם משנתם. בכך שאנו נשארים ערים כל הלילה אנו מתקנים את אותו לילה שלפני מתן תורה . איזו משמעות עומדת ביסוד דברים אלה? נראה שאמנם היהודים רצו לקבל את התורה, אבל יחד עם זאת, באיזה שהוא מקום היה קיים בהם גם חשש ודאגה מפני החיובים שיהיו כרוכים בכך. קבלת תורת ה' תחייב אותם לעצור את עצמם בעד רצונותיהם הטבעיים, ותעמיד בפניהם דרישות ותביעות גדולות. חשש זה התבטא בשנתם באותו לילה, שינה מיצגת "בריחה" מהאתגרים שהחיים מעמידים. מצוי מאד שכאשר אדם נתון בבעיה או בצרה כלשהי הוא פונה לישון, כדרך לברוח מבעיותיו. עם ישראל התכוננו והתרגשו לקראת מתן תורה, הם ידעו שהתורה תעניק להם דרך חיים עמוקה הרבה יותר, ומשמעותית הרבה יותר, אבל עמוק בפנים הם גם הרגישו שיעבוד להנאות הגשמיות עליהם הם יצטרכו לוותר . על מנת לתקן 'חטא' זה, אנו מונעים עצמנו משינה, כדי להוכיח ששמחתנו ואהבתנו את התורה, כה גדולה, ואינה שקולה כלל להפסד של הנאה גשמית כשינה. ראינו שישנן שתי דרכים בהן אדם מרחיק את עצמו מתאוותו העוה"ז. הנזיר, בפרישתו מתאוות גורם לעצמו צער קשה, בעוד התלמיד חכם לא חש כל כאב בהתרחקו ופרישתו מהנאות כאלה. מטרתנו היא להקטין את רמת השיעבוד של הגוף לדחפים גשמיים על ידי העצמת רגש ההערכה לרוחניות. חג השבועות הוא הזמן המתאים לעבוד ולפתח אהבת תורה, והערכה לחיי הרוח, על ידי ההכרה בכך שההנאה מלימוד התורה במשך לילה שלם שווה כל הון שבעולם, וודאי ששווה הפסד של מספר שעות שינה!

NASSO - THE FREEDOM OF TORAH

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

NASSO – INSIGHTS IN RASHI - THE POWER OF VISION

Bamidbar, Rashi, 6:2, sv. When a man will separate himself:…”Why was the section of the Nazir put next to the section of the Sotah? It comes to tell you that anyone who sees a sotah in her state of disgrace, should take upon himself to abstain from wine [by becoming a nazir], because wine leads to adultery.” Rashi, based on the Gemara, notes the juxtaposition of the passage of the sotah to the passage of the nazir. He explains that this comes to teach us that a person who sees the episode of the sotah should take on the nazirite oath in order to avoid the damaging effects of wine that caused the sotah to sin. The commentaries point out a difficulty in this Gemara: They ask that the seeing of the sotah’s degradation in and of itself should be sufficient to motivate a person to be extra careful in avoiding the factors that caused her to sin. Why, then do they need to take on the nazirite oath in order to ensure their future zehirus (care) from sin? Rav Yosef Leib Bloch zt”l offers a fascinating answer to this question. He argues that seeing the sotah can actually have a deleterious effect on the onlookers. For at the same time that he is seeing the sotah undergo great disgrace, he is also coming face to face with the person who has allegedly committed a serious sin. The yetser hara is so powerful that it can make him ignore the degradation that her sin caused her, and instead hone in on the sin that was committed and the lust that caused it. The following sad story proves this point: There was a man who was a hopeless drunkard. His son in desperation brought his father to see another drunk whilst that man was in a state of total degradation laid out on the street. However, instead of arousing the father to change, he actually went to the drunkard and asked him from where he attained his alcohol! Because of this powerful effect, the person who sees the sotah needs to take an extra undertaking to prevent himself from being drawn after the effects of sin. It still needs to be understood how the mere vision of the sotah can have such a powerful negative effect. Rav Yosef Leib’s son, Rav Elya Meir Bloch, zt”l, explained by quoting the Gemara in Megilla that tells us that it is forbidden to look at the face of an evil man. This is so serious because merely looking at something brings it into the soul of a person and makes a permanent imprint. The Ran says further that this imprint accompanies him for eternity. Accordingly, seeing an evil man can negatively affect the spiritual level of a person. This also works in a positive sense, whereby seeing holy people or things can have a strong positive effect on a person. This is demonstrated in the Gemara in Eruvin where Rebbe Yehuda HaNasi explains why he merited to be on a higher level that his contemporaries; the reason was that he once merited to see the back of the great Rebbe Meir. He adds that had he seen Rebbe Meir’s face then he would have been even greater. Another example of how what one sees changes the person is brought out based on the maamer Chazal that when Yaakov Avinu saw Yosef after so long he commented that Yosef had not stumbled in looking at forbidden things. How did Yaakov know that? The answer is that Yaakov could see in Yosef’s being that he had not sinned with his eyes - had he done so then Yaakov would have seen the imprint of those visions in Yosef. This again proves that what one sees actually affects a person permanently. The ramifications of Rav Bloch’s idea are very pertinent to our own lives. The most obvious lesson is that guarding our eyes from forbidden visions is something of utmost importance to our level of kedusha. A less apparent point is that even seeing things that are not necessarily forbidden can do great damage to one’s spiritual well-being. One example is the bombardment of violent images in the secular world. Studies show that the average teenager has seen more than a thousand deaths on various media. Exposure to such unhealthy images certainly affects a person’s sensitivity to violence. Another, somewhat surprising point is brought out by Rav Shimshon Pincus zt”l: He discusses whether women should be careful with regards to looking at immodest images. One may have thought that there is no problem for a woman to do so since technically there is no prohibition for a woman to see another woman immodestly dressed. However, in truth he writes that there is great damage done to a woman’s soul by looking at such images. This is because of the point made above, that the images we see penetrate our inner beings, and therefore, immodest images cause damage. He goes even further and says that women are even more influenced by what they see than men. Accordingly, a woman should also be vigilant in avoiding seeing immodest visions. To end on a positive note, the power of vision can also be used to elevate us; the sefarim hakedoshim teach us of a number of visions that elevate a person. These include looking at one’s tzitsit, holy books, shuls and batei midrash, the shin on the head tefillin, and as said earlier, looking at tzaddikim. May we merit to sanctify our eyes and thereby attain greater closeness to HaShem.

NASSO – THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

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

במדבר – שתי דרגות בעבודת ה'

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

BAMDIBAR – MOSHE’S “SONS”

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

BAMIDBAR - THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM

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

La grandeza de la innovación

La luz de la Torá - Bejukotai (Levítico 26:3-27:34) Por Rav Yehonasan Gefen En medio de una devastadora reprimenda, Dios nos consuela diciendo: "Y recordaré mi pacto con Yaakov, e incluso mi pacto con Itzjak, e incluso mi pacto con Abraham recordaré" (1). La pregunta obvia aquí es por qué los patriarcas fueron mencionados en orden inverso. Rashi, citando el Midrash, explica que el mérito de Yaakov —el más pequeño de los patriarcas— debería haber sido suficiente, pero que si no lo es, entonces con el de Itzjak debería alcanzar y, si tampoco alcanzara con ese, entonces con el gran mérito de Abraham seguramente sería suficiente (2). Por lo tanto, Yaakov es mencionado primero porque los patriarcas fueron mencionados en orden ascendiente de mérito. Hay dos formas en que podemos entender por qué Yaakov es el más pequeño de los patriarcas. Algunos explican esto como que es el menor de edad, pero muchos comentaristas escriben que es el menor en el sentido espiritual (3). El problema con esta explicación es que las fuentes rabínicas nos dicen que Yaakov fue el más grandioso de los patriarcas, siendo el único cuya progenie fue completamente recta, mientras que Abraham e Itzjak tuvieron descendientes que no ameritaron ser parte del pueblo judío. Entonces, ¿cómo podemos entender que el mérito de Yaakov para redimir al pueblo judío de su sufrimiento sea más débil que el de Abraham e Itzjak? También tenemos que explicar por qué Abraham es considerado más grandioso que Itzjak en este contexto. Pareciera que el hecho de que Yaakov haya sido el más perfecto de los patriarcas en términos de rasgos personales no necesariamente significa que haya tenido el mayor mérito. El mérito se deriva del logro en relación a la dificultad de la tarea, por lo que uno podría argumentar que pese a que Yaakov alcanzó el nivel más alto de los patriarcas, también tuvo una tarea mucho más fácil que la de sus antepasados. ¿En qué aspecto fue más fácil la tarea de Yaakov que la de Itzjak y la de Itzjak que la de Abraham? Abraham nació en un mundo de idolatría; su mayor desafío fue crear de la nada una filosofía y estilo de vida completamente nuevos, comenzar un nuevo período en la historia (4). Hacer esto fue una gran prueba ya que significaba que Abraham tenía que luchar en contra de todas las opiniones y los estilos de vida predominantes para comenzar algo en una escala muy pequeña e ir desarrollándolo con mucha paciencia. Itzjak nació en un mundo en que la nueva filosofía ya había sido creada; no necesitó crear ningún estilo de vida novedoso. Sin embargo, Rav Matisyahu Salomon escribe que sí hubo algo que tuvo que crear: el concepto de la tradición religiosa, la idea de que un hijo siga fielmente las directrices de su padre (5). En contraste, Yaakov no tuvo que comenzar una religión nueva y tampoco tuvo que iniciar el concepto de seguir una tradición. Sin dudas enfrentó grandes desafíos en su vida, pero en este aspecto en particular pareciera haberla tenido más fácil que sus antepasados. Entonces, a pesar de haber sido el más grandioso de los patriarcas, el mérito de Yaakov para redimir al pueblo de su sufrimiento era el menor (6). Rav Salomon explica extensamente cómo una de las principales fortalezas de Abraham fue su poder de hitjadshut, su capacidad para innovar (7). Rav Salomon nota que en la descripción que el Rambam hace de la contribución de Abraham al mundo utiliza la raíz de la palabra matjil (comienzo) no menos de cinco veces en una rápida sucesión (8). En las palabras de Rav Salomon: "Abraham fue un matjil, una persona que comienza cosas. Fue un revolucionario, un pionero… Fue el originador y fundador del pueblo judío. Abraham fue el primero en todo lo que hizo. No tuvo un padre al cual seguir y, por lo tanto, siempre estuvo abriendo nuevos horizontes" (9). Cuando tratamos de emular a Abraham, tradicionalmente nos esforzamos para aprender de su grandioso rasgo de bondad. Pero de aquí vemos que su capacidad de iniciativa también es un rasgo que debemos desarrollar. El Klí Iakar también enfatiza mucho la importancia de la innovación. En la parashá Bereshit, en el relato de cada uno de los siete días de la creación la Torá concluye cada día con una descripción de que era 'bueno' o 'muy bueno', a excepción del segundo día. Hay muchas explicaciones sobre el porqué de esta anomalía; el Klí Iakar escribe que en el segundo día no fue creado nada que fuera completamente nuevo y, por lo tanto, no podía ser descrito como 'bueno' (10). A partir de esta interpretación, vemos que algo es descrito como 'bueno' sólo cuando está asociado a una novedad. Hay muchas formas en las que la capacidad de innovar es importante en nuestras vidas. Es natural que una persona se habitúe a la forma en que se conduce en muchos aspectos de su vida, como en su crecimiento en Torá y rasgos personales, en sus relaciones y en su capacidad para crear y construir. A veces es conveniente dar un paso atrás y evaluar si es necesario buscar una nueva forma de enfrentar los desafíos de dichas áreas; hacerlo a menudo nos brindará formas alternativas para lidiar con las distintas situaciones, lo cual puede ser sumamente provechoso para nosotros. Un prominente educador cuenta la siguiente historia, la cual es un excelente ejemplo para lo que dijimos anteriormente. Había una mujer que estaba muy insatisfecha con el comportamiento de su marido y eventualmente decidió que quería divorciarse. Este educador le sugirió que, antes de dar un paso tan drástico, intentara cambiar su enfoque: que comenzara a enfocarse exclusivamente en su propio comportamiento y que intentara ser la mejor esposa que pudiera. Poco tiempo después de este consejo la mujer vio un cambio dramático en el comportamiento de su marido. Su voluntad de intentar un nuevo enfoque fue la clave para una inmensa mejoría en su matrimonio. Una de las áreas más importantes en que la innovación es crucial es en la creación y el desarrollo de ideas, movimientos u organizaciones nuevas que puedan ser de beneficio para la humanidad. Un ejemplo de esto es Sara Shenirer; su idea de crear una estructura de educación para mujeres que estuviera centrada en la Torá fue revolucionaria en su momento, pero ella tuvo la visión y persistencia para continuar con su novedosa idea y, al hacerlo, tuvo un efecto increíble en el pueblo judío. Otra prueba de que los nuevos comienzos pueden ser muy beneficiosos es que el ietzer hará la 'inclinación negativa' pone muchos obstáculos cuando decidimos comenzar algo nuevo (11), lo cual es la razón que hay detrás del dicho "todos los comienzos son difíciles". Además de adoptar un nuevo enfoque, es esencial mantener la visión en el resultado final, a pesar de los desafíos que uno pueda enfrentar en el proceso. Puede que Abraham no sea descrito como el más grande de los patriarcas, pero en el área de innovación con seguridad es el más importante. Quiera Dios que todos ameritemos aprender de Abraham cómo innovar exitosamente cuando sea necesario. Notas: (1) Bejukotai 26:42. (2) Rashi, ibíd. Torat Kohanim 26:49. (3) Ver Maskil LeDavid 24:42; Rav Yaakov MiLisa (el autor de Javot Dáat y Netivot) citado en Beshem Amrú. (4) De hecho, la Guemará en Avodá Zará 9a dice que la historia judía está dividida en tres épocas de dos mil años cada una. La primera es de vacío y la segunda es el período de Torá (que comenzó con los esfuerzos de Abraham para esparcir la Torá en todo el mundo). (5) Matanot Jaim, p.30. (6) Cabe destacar que Yaakov atravesó desafíos que a cualquier observador le parecerían increíblemente difíciles; sólo estamos diciendo que en el área de la innovación su tarea fue más fácil en comparación a Abraham e Itzjak. (7) Ibid. p.29. (8) Hiljot Avodá Zará Cap. 1, halajá 3. (9) Ibid. p.29-30. (10) Klí Iakar, Bereshit 1:8. (11) Un principio muy útil de la vida es que todo lo que es genuinamente importante es difícil de completar porque el iétzer luchará muy duro para evitar que tengamos éxito.

Parachat Bé’houkotaï – Renforcer notre bita’hon – Le point de vue de Rachi

« Si vous suivez Mes décrets et observez Mes Commandements et les accomplissez. » (Vayikra, 26:3.) « Je marcherai parmi vous, Je serai un D. pour vous et vous serez Mon peuple. Je suis Hachem, votre D., qui vous a fait sortir d’Égypte, pour que vous n’y fussiez plus esclaves… » (Vayikra, 26:12 -13.) Rachi commente, sur les mots « Je suis Hachem votre D. » : Je suis fidèle et vous devez avoir confiance en Moi ; Je peux faire toutes ces choses, puisque Je vous ai fait sortir d’Égypte et ai accompli pour vous de grands miracles. La paracha commence par nous faire la liste des grandes récompenses qu’Hachem promet au peuple juif s’il respecte la Thora. Cette section se termine par le rappel qu’Hachem a fait sortir les Juifs d’Égypte. Rachi, en se référant sur le Thorat Kohanim, explique qu’Hachem rassure les Bné Israël en leur disant qu’ils peuvent avoir confiance en Lui, qu’Il respectera Ses promesses ; la « preuve » qu’Il donne est qu’Il a déjà accompli pour eux de grands miracles ; ils peuvent donc compter sur le fait qu’Il peut en faire d’autres à l’avenir. Plusieurs questions peuvent être posées sur ce Rachi . Hachem leur fit ces promesses peu après les grands miracles de l’Exode. Pourquoi était-il alors nécessaire de rappeler au peuple les prodiges passés pour qu’il croie en de futurs miracles – les Juifs ne les avaient alors sûrement pas déjà oubliés ?! On peut répondre à cette question en expliquant une autre difficulté dans le récit de la Thora. Plus d’une fois dans le désert ; les Juifs se plaignirent à Moché de leur situation précaire et évoquèrent avec nostalgie les jours où ils étaient en Égypte. Par exemple, dans la paracha de Béa’alotekha, ils se lamentèrent de la manne qu’ils recevaient du Ciel et se rappelèrent de leur vie en Mitsraïm : « Nous nous souvenons du poisson que nous mangions en Égypte gratuitement, des concombres, des melons, des poireaux, des oignons et de l’ail. » Les commentateurs se demandent comment ils purent avoir une si courte mémoire et oublier le terrible esclavage qu’ils subirent. La réponse donnée est basée sur une guemara dans Roch Hachana, qui nous informe que les Juifs furent déchargés de l’esclavage durant leurs six derniers mois en Égypte. Pendant cette période, ils vécurent agréablement et purent consommer les aliments mentionnés dans leur plainte. Ainsi, quand ils se souvinrent avec attendrissement de leur vie en Égypte, ils repensaient aux six derniers mois, bien qu’ils aient, avant cela, subi de terribles souffrances. Ceci nous montre la force du yétser hara, qui peut raccourcir la mémoire d’une personne quand cela l’arrange. Dans ce cas, il leur fit oublier la barbarie de l’Égypte, pour six petits mois de « liberté ». C’est ce qui engendra leur lamentation si grave quant à leur situation dans le désert. Nous pouvons ainsi répondre à la question de départ, à savoir, pourquoi Hachem avait besoin de rappeler au peuple les grands miracles accomplis, comme garantie des récompenses à venir. En vérité, les Juifs avaient la mémoire courte ; cela signifie que malgré les prodiges réalisés peu de temps avant, il était très probable que, dès les premières difficultés qu’ils allaient rencontrer, leur confiance en Hachem faiblirait. Par conséquent, ils auraient eu tendance à oublier les bienfaits exceptionnels qu’Il leur avait prodigués durant l’Exode. Il était donc nécessaire de leur rappeler qu’Hachem pouvait accomplir de grands miracles en leur faveur, et d’utiliser le souvenir de ces événements pour renforcer leur foi en Hachem sur l’avenir. Cette explication a d’importantes implications dans nos vies. Nous traversons des moments de Bonté Divine, durant lesquels Hachem nous protège de manière manifeste. Pourtant, la Providence n’est parfois pas si apparente et nous risquons de nous faire du souci concernant certaines situations probables, comme des problèmes financiers ou de santé. Dans de telles situations, nous pouvons facilement oublier les bontés qu’Hachem nous a prodiguées, et laisser place au désespoir. En revanche, en nous remémorant constamment les bienfaits reçus d’Hachem, nous sommes certains qu’Il est toujours avec nous, même durant l’épreuve actuelle. Le ‘Hovot Halevavot fait remarquer, dans Chaar Habita’hon (le chapitre sur la foi), que l’une des deux façons de raffermir notre confiance en Hachem est se rappeler des bienfaits passés, y compris les choses que nous tenons pour acquis, comme le merveilleux cadeau qu’est la vie en soi . Ceci nécessite de nombreux efforts, car, comme nous l’avons expliqué, le yétser hara nous fait rapidement oublier les bontés d’Hachem. Mais en prenant le temps de contempler ce qu’Il a fait en notre faveur, nous réussirons à être plus confiants et sereins durant les moments difficiles.

בחוקותי – כוח ההתחדשות

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

BECHUKOSAI - THE GREATNESS OF INNOVATION

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

BECHUKOSAI – LIVING WITH OUR LEARNING

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

BECHUKOSAI – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – RAISING OUR BITACHON

Vayikra, 26:3: If you will follow My decrees and observe my Commandments and perform them. Vayikra, 26:12-13: I will walk among you, I will be G-d to you and you will be a people to me. I am HaShem, your G-d Who took you out of the land of Egypt from being their slaves… Rashi, Vayikra, 26:13, sv. I am HaShem your G-d: “I am reliable that you should believe in Me, that I can do all these [things] for, behold, I took you out of the land of Egypt and I performed for you great miracles.” The Parsha begins with an account of the great rewards that HaShem promises the Jewish nation if they observe the Torah. This section ends with HaShem reminding the people that He took them out of the land of Egypt. Rashi, based on the Toras Kohanim, explains that HaShem is reassuring the people that He can be relied upon to fulfill His promises; His ‘proof’ is the fact that He already performed remarkable miracles, thus He can be relied upon to also do so in the future. A number of questions can be asked on this Rashi. One is that HaShem issued these promises a very short time after the great miracles of the Exodus. Accordingly, why was it necessary for Him to remind the people of these miracles in order that they believe the promises of future miracles – surely they would not forget them so soon after they took place?! This question can be answered through understanding a different problem in the Torah narrative. On more than one occasion in the desert, the Jews complain to Moshe about their difficult situation and hearken back to the days that they were in Mitzrayim. For example, in Parshas Behaalosecha they complain about the manna from Heaven that they were eating and reminisce about their life in Mitzrayim: “We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge; the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic.” The commentaries wonder how they could have such short memories with regard to the terrible slavery that they endured. The answer given is based on the Gemara in Rosh Hashana that says that the Jews were freed from slavery for their last six months in Mitzrayim. In this time period they seemed to live comfortable lives and were able to eat the food mentioned in their complaints. Accordingly, when they fondly remembered their time in Mitzrayim they were thinking about their last six months, despite the facts that for many years before that they endured unbearable suffering. This demonstrates a powerful tool of the yetser hara to make a person have a short memory when it suits its purposes. In this instance, the yetser hara made them forget how terrible their time in Mitzrayim was, because of a mere six months of freedom. This caused them to complain so dramatically about their situation in the desert. With this principle we can answer our initial question as to why HaShem needed to remind the people about the great miracles as a reassurance that He would reward them in the future. The answer here too is that people have short memories; in this context it means that despite the fact that the Jewish people had recently experienced great miracles, it was very likely that when they would experience future hardships, their trust in G-d would falter. Consequently, they would be prone to forgetting the great kindnesses that He had done for them in the Exodus. Therefore it was necessary to remind them of HaShem’s ability to perform great miracles for them, so that they would use their memory of these events to bolster their trust in G-d in the future. This explanation has important ramifications on our lives. We too experience moments of clear Divine Kindness where it is obvious that HaShem is looking after us. Yet, on other occasions His Providence is not so evident and we can be prone to worrying about any number of possible situations, such as financial and health issues. In such situations we can easily forget the past kindnesses that HaShem has done for us and experience feelings of despair. Yet, by actively contemplating HaShem’s past actions we can be reassured that He is also with us in our current challenge. The Chovos Levavos makes this very point in Shaar Bitachon; he writes that one of the ways to increase our trust in G-d is to recall His numerous past kindnesses; this includes things that we take for granted including the gift of life itself. This requires an active effort, because, as we have seen, the yetser hara makes us quickly forget HaShem’s past kindnesses. But by spending a little time contemplating what He has done for us we can greatly increase our bitachon and serenity in difficult times.

BEHAR – GIVING WITH DIGNITY

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