YOSEF’S GREATNESS - MIKEITZ

The Parsha begins with the account of Yosef’s dramatic elevation from servitude in the Egyptian dungeons to the position of Viceroy over all of Mitzrayim. During its account of Yosef’s elevation, the Torah tells us that he had two sons: “And he called the name of the first-born Menashe, for ‘Hashem has caused me to forget (nashani) all my hardship and all my father’s household‘. And the name of the second he called Ephraim for, ‘Hashem has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.’ ” The simple understanding of the naming of Menashe is that Yosef was thankful to Hashem for enabling him to forget the great suffering he had endured in his fathers’ home. However, this pshat seems very problematic. It is not difficult to fathom why Yosef was happy to forget the pain he endured at the hands of his brothers, however it is very hard to understand how he could be glad to forget his grieving father . Accordingly, the Malbim suggests a different way to understand the naming of Menashe. He writes that Yosef was not glad to forget his family, in fact the very opposite was the case; he called his first-born Menashe to symbolize that he was worried that he would forget (nashani) all the suffering that he endured at the hands of his family. The second son was named Ephraim to symbolize that he recognized that Hashem had made him fruitful in the land of his suffering with the emphasis on the fact that even in the time of great success he did not forget the great suffering that he had endured in Mitzrayim.

The Malbim explains in this vein that Yosef made simunim for himself through the names that he gave his sons. He further writes that this demonstrates Yosef’s great righteousness in that he strived to remember the suffering that he had endured even in the times of good. He continues: “This is also the explanation of why we are commanded to eat Matzo together with Maror on Seder night; we should remember the Galus in the time of freedom, because the Galus is the reason for the freedom, and the bad brings the good .” However, the Malbim does not explain why exactly the ‘bad’ is the reason for the subsequent ‘good’. Further clarification is required as to why he considers that remembering the bad in the time of good indicates great righteousness.

A solution to these problems can be found in the Sifsei Chaim’s explanation of part of the ‘Al HaNissim’ prayer. In ‘Al HaNissim’ we thank Hashem for enabling us to defeat the Yavanim: “You placed the strong in the hands of the weak; and the many in the hands of the few; and the impure in the hands of the pure; and the evil in the hands of the righteous; and the guilty in the hands of those who toil in Your Torah.” The Sifsei Chaim asks that the first two of these praises do not seem to be parallel with the following three: The implication of the first two is that Hashem enabled the weak to be victorious even though they faced strong enemies; and the few to win even though they were fighting many. In contrast in the remaining praises the implication is that the pure were successful because their enemies were impure; and that the righteous defeated the Greeks because they were evil.

He explains that in truth, all the praises are parallel in that they all explain why the Hashmonaim defeated the Yavanim. When we say that Hashem placed the strong in the hands of the weak and the many in the hands of the few, we mean that He did so because they were weak and few in number they were successful, not despite that fact. The Sifsei Chaim continues that the Hashmonaim felt their physical weakness and lack of numbers and consequently realized that b’derech hateva they had no chance of overcoming the mighty Yavanim. Thus they fought with a strong sense of bitachon, recognizing that they could only succeed with great siata dishmaya. Because they did not rely on their own power, Hashem did indeed help them and caused them to achieve a miraculous victory .

With this explanation we can now understand why the Malbim stated that the suffering one endures is the very reason for the subsequent good that he experiences. When a person finds himself in a situation of difficulty and helplessness it is much easier for him to recognize that he does not have the ability to succeed. As a result of this recognition he turns to HaShem to save him from his desperate situation. Because of this bitachon, Hashem will likely respond by giving of His unlimited kindness to ensure that the person’s situation drastically improves. In this way the ’bad times’ that one endures can be the very cause of the subsequent ‘good times’. This feeling of helplessness was the key to the success of the Hashmonaim.

We can also now come to an understanding why the Malbim writes that remembering one’s earlier periods of suffering in times of tranquility is considered a sign of righteousness. When a person has everything that he needs he is far more prone to feelings of confidence in his own power and ability to succeed. He may no longer see the need to rely on Hashem, rather he will feel self-reliant. We see this in the second paragraph of Krias Shema: The Torah promises that if we observe the Mitzvos then we will receive abundance. Immediately following this, the Torah warns us about turning away from Hashem - this teaches that the very success that Hashem gives us may be the cause of us turning away from Him. An unfortunate consequence of this attitude of not relying on Hashem may be that Hashem will act measure for measure and desist from giving a person siata dishmaya and as a result he will be at the mercy of derech hateva.

A tzaddik, even in times of abundance, maintains the realization that everything he has is from Hashem and that his only source of success is Hashem’s continuing siata dishmaya. The greatness of Yosef was that even when he found himself in a position of great power, he never allowed himself to forget his previous situation of total helplessness. He strived to maintain the recognition that just as then he was in the hands of Hashem, in the same way he was still totally dependent on Hashem’s beneficence for his success. By feeling the same helplessness in the good times as he felt in the bad, Yosef merited continued siata dishmaya. It is far easier to feel the need to turn to Hashem in times of difficulty We learn from Yosef that even in time of plenty we must remember the more difficult periods of our life to remind us that even now we are totally reliant upon Hashem in every aspect of our lives. By maintaining this recognition at all times we are far more likely to merit that Hashem will continue to protect us at all times.

JOSEPH’S DREAMS - VAYEISHEV

The Torah Portion begins with an account of the deterioration of the relationship between Joseph and his brothers. Joseph’s two dreams played a very significant part in the increasing resentment of the brothers towards him. Close analysis of the dreams can provide us with more insight into how they caused such a rift amongst the brothers. The Beis HaLevi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soleveitchik notes that the Torah tells us after the first dream that the brothers hated Joseph, whereas after the second dream it does not state that they hated him, rather that they were jealous of him . What is the reason for this difference?

The Beis HaLevi answers this by examining the dreams more carefully. In the first dream Yosef said that he and his brothers were in the field and that their sheaves stood up and bowed down to his sheave; he did not say that the brothers themselves bowed down to him. In contrast in the second dream he compared them to stars and related that they bowed down to him. In this dream the stars represented the brothers and that they themselves bowed directly to Yosef . The

Beis HaLevi explains that the two dreams represented two separate areas in which the brothers would become subservient and inferior to Joseph. The sheaves in the first dream represented Yosef’s future superiority over the brothers in the realm of success in this world (Olam Hazeh). The bowing of their sheaves to his indicated that they would be dependent upon him for their physical sustenance. However, success in the physical realm does not make a person intrinsically superior to others, rather it means that he has more possessions. Accordingly, a wealthy person is not on a higher level than a pauper. Based on this, the Beis HaLevi explains that in the first dream which represented gashmius (physicality), the brothers themselves did not show their subservience to Joseph, rather their physical possessions are shown to be inferior to those of their brother. In contrast the second dream refers to Yosef’s future spiritual superiority over the brothers. Spiritual accomplishments do define the intrinsic greatness of a person. Accordingly, in the second dream, which represented ruchnius (spirituality), the brothers’ themselves bowed to Joseph, indicating his inherent spiritual superiority over them.

With this understanding the Beis HaLevi answers the initial question of why after the first dream the brothers hated Joseph whereas following the second, they were jealous of him. Hatred results when one resents another person’s actions, whereas jealousy arises when one feels inferior to his fellow. The brothers hated Joseph after the first dream because of its implication that they would need him for their sustenance and he would physically rule over them. However they were not jealous of him because the prospect of his greater wealth did not make them feel inferior to him. They saw physical attainment as something external to a person and therefore not worthy of jealousy. In contrast they were jealous of him after the second dream because that implied that he would be spiritually superior to them and this could indeed arouse their jealousy.

There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the Beis HaLevi’s explanation. Firstly, we learn that the material possessions of a person are of no consequence with regard to his true greatness. A wealthy person may be deserving of respect , but one should not envy his wealth because it does not represent a barometer of his real value. Only the spiritual level of a person determines the true greatness of a person and only that is worthy of envy.

It is very possible for a person to view his sense of importance in terms of his material possessions. One possible way of maintaining a correct perspective to material possessions is to look at what defines a great person in the Torah world. Wealth is of no significance in determining who is a ‘Gadol b’Yisroel’ (a term used to describe the greatest Torah scholars), indeed many Gedolim were extremely poor. What is important according to the Torah definition is the intrinsic spiritual greatness that a person attains. Reminding oneself of the qualities of our Gedolim can help us keep an accurate perspective of the insignificance of wealth to one’s true greatness.

One indication that a person that is very attached to his physical belongings is that he looks at them as part of his very being. For example, a person’s home may be so precious to him that any damage to it is equivalent in his eyes to damage to his own body. Another negative consequence of such an attitude is that a person who is so attached to the physical world can become a slave to it to the extent that it dictates his life in a damaging way. This was sadly evident in the years before the Holocaust in Germany. As the situation of the Jewish people in Germany deteriorated many Jews became increasingly aware of the need to escape. However, some of the wealthier Jews found it very difficult to leave their beautiful homes and possessions. Consequently far more poor Jews left Germany than their wealthy counterparts. Their attachment to their physical possessions proved fatally dangerous .

We learn from the dreams of Joseph that the only true measure of greatness is spiritual accomplishment and not material gain. May we all merit to recognize and achieve genuine greatness.

UNDERSTANDING THE OMER - EMOR

The Parsha outlines the Mitzvos involved with the Omer offering. On the second day of Pesach we are commanded to bring an offering of barley in the Beis HaMikdash and the Torah further instructs us to count forty nine days from the offering until the day before Shavuos.

Rav Yosef Salant zt"l in his sefer, 'Be'er Yosef' asks a number of questions about the Omer . Amongst them he notes that the Omer offering was the same volume as the other Mincha offerings - a tenth of an eiphah . Yet this is the only offering in which the volume is described by the name 'Omer' as opposed to simply saying, 'a tenth of an eiphah'. What is the significance of this change in name?

Secondly, he brings the Sefer HaChinuch who writes that purpose of Sefiras HaOmer (counting the Omer) is to count towards the day of the Giving of the Torah (Matan Torah), Shavuos. We count to demonstrate our excitement about reaching this holy day . Rav Salant points out that from the Sefer HaChinuch's explanation it is difficult to see any specific connection between the Omer and Matan Torah, rather it simply seems that there were 49 days between the two events and so we count from one towards the other. Is there a connection between the seemingly separate occasions of the Omer offering and Shavous?

He answers the first question by noting that the other time the word 'Omer' is used in the Torah is with regard to the Manna that the Jews received in the desert. In Parshas Beshalach the Torah states that Hashem commanded the people to gather from the Manna, "an Omer per person. " The Medrash also connects the Omer offering with the Manna. It tells us that the Omer offering was some kind of acknowledgement from the Jewish people to Hashem of the Manna that they received in the desert.

Rav Salant explains that during their time in the desert the people did not have to exert any effort in order to attain their sustenance. The Manna came directly from heaven without any input from the people. Further, no matter how much Manna a person tried to gather, he would never be able to take more than he was allotted, rather he would receive exactly what he needed. Because their sustenance was provided for, the people were free to involve themselves in learning Torah and Avodas Hashem.

However, when they entered Eretz Yisroel, the Manna from heaven stopped and they were required to acquire their livelihood (parnassa) through physical effort. With this change came a new danger: When a person sees his toiling bear fruit, there is the risk that his reliance on Hashem will weaken and he will come to attribute his success to his own hard work. In order to prevent this from happening, the Torah gave us the Omer offering; we offer the first produce of the season to Hashem, acknowledging that only He is the Source of our sustenance and not our own hishtadlus. By connecting the Omer to the Manna through the same term of volume, the Torah stresses that in truth there was no difference in how we attained our food in the desert and in Eretz Yisroel. In the same way that Hashem provided us with food in the desert, He was the source of our sustenance once that miraculous period ended. The only difference is that now we no longer merited to experience open miracles and therefore we had to exert a measure of physical effort in order to attain our parnassa.

The 'Be'er Yosef' adds a beautiful proof of the connection between the Manna and the Omer. He brings the Gemara in Kiddushin that says that the Manna stopped falling when Moshe Rabbeinu died, but the people continued to eat what was remaining until they entered the land on the 16th of Nissan . We also bring the Omer offering on that very date! Thus, every year, we begin counting the Omer on the day that the Manna stopped to further teach ourselves that the sustenance represented by the Omer is a continuation of the sustenance epitomized by the Manna.

He then goes on to explain the connection between the Omer and Shavous. Thus far we have see how the Omer teaches us that our livelihood comes from Hashem. However, such an awareness is not sufficient; we must also realize that earning a parnassa is not an end in itself, rather it is a means to a greater end - to enable us to have enough menuchas hanefesh so that we can focus on Avodas Hashem and learning Torah without being overburdened by concerns about our livelihood. In this vein, the Torah connects the counting of the Omer to Shavuos to teach us that the purpose of the sustenance that is symbolized by the Omer is to take us to Matan Torah, to enable us to learn and observe the Torah effectively. Thus, for forty nine days we count the Omer, thereby infusing ourselves with the realization that Hashem is the only Source of our livelihood and moreover, that His purpose in doing so is to enable us to get close to Him through learning and keeping his Torah.

The lessons of the Manna have had great relevance throughout Jewish history. In the time of the Prophet Yeremyahu, the people had made working a greater priority than learning Torah. Yeremyahu exhorted them to make learning Torah their main focus. They replied by claiming that they needed to work in order to survive . Yeremyahu responded by bringing out a container of Manna that was stored in the Beis HaMikdash . He showed them that Hashem has many ways of providing man with his parnassa and that he should realize the futility of focusing on one's physical sustenance to the exclusion of his spiritual well-being.

We no longer have the container of Manna to arouse us, however we still have the Mitzvo of counting the Omer - it stands as a constant reminder that there is no benefit in working beyond the boundaries of acceptable hishtadlus (physical effort) because ultimately Hashem is the sole provider of our parnassa. Moreover, it teaches us to remember that the purpose of having our physical needs is so that we can focus on the main Avoda of growing closer to Hashem . These lessons are applied differently to each individual, there is no 'right' amount of time one should spend working, learning, and being involved in other spiritual pursuits. However, during this period of Sefiras HaOmer it is worthwhile for each person to make his own cheshbon hanefesh of the balance of his involvement in gashmius and ruchnius. Does he work more than is really necessary? In his spare time, does he focus on ruchnius or does he 'bring his work home with him'? By asking such questions a person can hopefully internalize the lessons of the Omer. May we all merit to receive our livelihood without difficulty, and have ample opportunity to grow closer to Hashem.

THE BEHALA OF THE PERSIANS - MEGILLA INSIGHTS

There are numerous lessons that can be gleaned from a close analysis of Megillas Esther. One of the less discussed aspects of the Megilla is the fact that it is one of the main accounts of the second Galus (exile), that of Paras and Madai. It is extremely important to understand the nature of the four exiles because they represent the basic forms of evil in the world. We see this from the Medrash's explanation of the second verse in Chumash. The Torah states: "And the earth was tohu and bohu , with darkness upon the surface of the deep; and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The Medrash reveals to us a deeper allusion of the passuk. "..'The land was tohu', this is the Kingdom of Bavel, as it says, 'I have seen the land and behold it is tohu.' And bohu, this is the kingdom of Madai, as it says, 'And they rushed (vayavheelu) to bring Haman.' ...

The Maharal explains that right at the outset of creation, there were four aspects of evil that permeated the world, and these were exemplified by the four nations who exiled the Jewish people. Accordingly, it is very important to understand the specific aspect of evil of each nation of exile. What is the unique feature of the Persians? The Medrash describes them as representing the word 'bohu' in the verse, which relates to the word in Megillas Esther of 'vayavheelu'. This comes from the root of the word, 'behala'. which has no single translation in English; it relates to rashness, confusion and rushed behavior.

Why does the Medrash characterize the Persians as exemplifying the trait of behala? The Be'er Yosef offers a number of examples of the Persian’s behavior that demonstrate that they possessed this destructive trait. He brings the gemara in Megilla that describes the Persian King, Achashverosh, as one who constantly changed his mind, because of hasty decisions.. We see this when he rapidly has his wife Vashti killed, and then soon after, regrets his decision. Similarly, he swiftly orders the execution of Haman. One Rav explained that had Haman gone through a judicial process it is likely that Achashverosh would have calmed down and refrained from executing him. This rashness was not limited to the King. The gemara further states that when the King sent out the letter ordering the murder of the Jews in several months' time, the people would have killed them immediately if not for their suspicion about such letters. The Be'er Yosef points out that it was this trait of behala that posed such a danger to the Jewish people in this Galus, because when a person acts rashly, there is the risk that he will make drastic and often damaging decisions.

We see the seriousness of the trait of behala most starkly in the rebuke that Yaakov Avinu gave to his son, Reuven. Many years earlier, Reuven had sinned by moving Yaakov's bed. Yaakov criticized him for the rashness of his action. As a result of this character trait, Reuven lost his right to the bechora (first-born), his role as King, and his status as the Kohen (priest). It is evident from the harsh consequences of his momentary rashness, that the trait of behala is considered highly damaging. Rashness causes a person to make impulsive decisions without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of one's actions. This seems to have been Yaakov's criticism of Reuven's action in moving his father's bed. He acted impulsively without considering the consequences of his actions.

It is evident that rash behavior is clearly the cause of much of the negativity that plagues relationships. Hurtful words are usually said on the spur of the moment, as are outbursts of anger. By refraining from acting or reacting immediately to events, a person can eliminate much of the dangerous rashness that causes so much damage. In this vein, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l explains that the antidote to the trait of behala is provided by the Mishna in Avos: "Be deliberate in judgment." This teaches us that one should carefully assess his actions carefully before he performs them.

We learn from the Megilla that the second Galus was characterized by the trait of behala. This remains a trait that plagues our lives. May we all merit to overcome it.