Parachat Pin’has – Chimon et Lévi

L’ilui nishmas Adel Bas Mottle La paracha commence par la récompense accordée par Hachem à Pin’has pour le zèle dont il a fait preuve en tuant Zimri et Kozbi, qui avaient commis une grave faute. Pin’has était un descendant de Lévi tandis que Zimri appartenait à la tribu de Chimon. Ce n’est pas la première fois, dans la Thora, que ces deux tribus sont associées — Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky expose brillamment l’histoire de ces deux tribus et leur évolution très différente. Dans Vayichla’h, on nous raconte que Chekhem kidnappa Dina. Tous les frères se mirent d’accord pour la récupérer – ils projetèrent de persuader les habitants de Chekhem de pratiquer la circoncision, afin de venir délivrer Dina, pendant leur rétablissement. Néanmoins, Chimon et Lévi envisageaient une solution plus radicale ; ils étaient d’avis que tous les habitants de Chekhem étaient coupables de l’enlèvement de Dina et voulurent anéantir toute la ville en sauvant leur sœur. Jacob s’opposa fermement à cette idée, craignant que cela ne mette en péril la réputation de sa famille. Chimon et Lévi soutinrent leur action, affirmant : « Notre sœur doit-elle être traitée comme une prostituée ?! » Ce n’est qu’après plusieurs années que Jacob adressa sa réprimande finale aux deux frères. Dans Vayé’hi, alors qu’il bénissait ses fils, il critiqua Chimon et Lévi pour leur attitude impulsive. De plus, il les punit, en disant : « Je les séparerai dans Yaakov et les disperserai parmi Israël ». Cette punition a, à priori, comme but de séparer les deux frères afin d’éviter d’autres actes de violence de leur part. Cependant, Rav Kamenetsky remarque que Rachi fournit une autre explication – Chimon et Lévi deviendront des sofrim (personnes qui écrivent des rouleaux de Thora, des tefilin et des mezouzot) et des enseignants de Thora pour les enfants ; ils voyageront d’une ville à l’autre pour réparer les objets saints et pour transmettre la Thora au peuple juif . Pourquoi l’éducation juive de notre peuple fut-elle délibérément placée entre les mains de Chimon et Lévi ; en quoi est-ce une réponse « mesure pour mesure » à ce qu’ils firent subir aux habitants de Chekhem ? Il répond que Jacob remarqua qu’ils possédaient une qualité que les autres frères n’avaient pas. Il comprit quelle était leur motivation en tuant Chekhem – ils étaient prêts à risquer leurs propres vies pour défendre l’honneur de leur sœur. Les autres frères aussi constatèrent la situation terrible dans laquelle se trouvait Dina, mais seuls Chimon et Lévi ressentirent sa douleur comme si c’était la leur. Rav Kamenetsky écrit : « Yaakov vit que leurs actes provenaient d’une souffrance profonde et d’une compassion sincère pour la douleur d’autrui, et c’est ce qui les mena à un zèle ardent et sans limites… Seules de telles personnes, qui ressentent la souffrance de leur prochain, comme si elle leur est propre – feront preuve d’un dévouement assez grand et délaisseront leurs biens, afin d’errer de ville en ville, pour répandre la Thora de D. dans le monde et pour l’enseigner aux enfants d’Israël. » Bien que, dans l’épisode de Chekhem, Chimon et Lévi aient mal canalisé leur ardeur, Jacob vit en ce trait de caractère un potentiel qui pourrait être utilisé dans un but très positif, celui de répandre la Thora parmi le peuple juif. Or, dans la paracha de cette semaine, nous voyons à quel point les descendants de ces deux fils de Jacob, prirent deux voies très différentes : Pin’has, membre de la tribu de Lévi fut capable de focaliser son zèle en accomplissant la volonté de D. – son acte de violence mit fin à un fléau qui tua des milliers de personnes. D. le récompensa largement pour montrer qu’Il approuvait son acte qui était motivé uniquement par l’honneur du Ciel. Cependant, Zimri, prince de la tribu de Chimon, exprima le zèle de son ancêtre de façon prohibée, brisant les interdits que la Thora avait placés. Pourquoi ces deux tribus divergèrent-elles si radicalement l’une de l’autre ? Rav Kamenetsky explique que tandis que la plus grande partie du Klal Israël était esclave en Égypte, la tribu de Lévi était libre d’étudier la Thora. C’est cette période d’intériorisation des valeurs de la Thora qui permit aux Lévites de canaliser leur zèle de façon correcte. Les membres de la tribu de Chimon pour leur part, n’eurent pas l’opportunité d’étudier ainsi la Thora. Par conséquent, leur zèle ne fut pas aiguillé et s’exprima par des comportements interdits. Nous pouvons tirer une très grande leçon de l’explication de Rav Kamenetsky concernant la manière dont le zèle doit s’exprimer. Un zèle véritable doit mener une personne à un sentiment de douleur profonde lorsque quelqu’un agit de façon détestable. Le Alter de Kelm zt’’l, grande personnalité dans le monde de la Thora, manifesta une pareille sensibilité tout au long de sa vie : un jour, un autre Rav et lui-même virent un Juif prendre du foin dans le chariot d’un non-juif. Le Alter s’en désola, et fit triste mine toute la journée. Le soir, l’autre Rav lui demanda ce qui n’allait pas. Le Alter parut surpris de sa question : « Comment peut-on rester paisible, alors que tant de fautes sont commises dans le monde ? » Outre le sentiment de douleur devant une telle attitude, il faut tenter de rectifier le problème convenablement. Les éminents dirigeants du peuple juif ne se suffirent pas d’exprimer leur douleur devant des défaillances, mais ils firent tout ce qui leur semblait nécessaire pour améliorer la situation - puissions -nous tous mériter d’apprendre d’eux et d’aider à résoudre les nombreux problèmes que rencontre le peuple juif en ce moment, tant concernant l’assimilation massive et la pauvreté, que la façon dont la communauté orthodoxe est traitée en Erets Israël.

PINCHAS - WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables .” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people ? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua? Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’ . There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation , however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah? In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children . Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah. Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, the second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with the time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah, and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they made in Charan ’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt . The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’ ’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’ We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem .” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment . Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. H ae explains that the Torah is eternal and its eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality.. ” This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah. We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.

THE TRUE ZEALOUSNESS - PINCHAS

PARSHAS PINCHAS The parsha begins with Hashem rewarding Pinchas greatly for his act of zealousness in killing Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchas was from the tribe of Levi whilst Zimri was from the tribe of Shimon. This is not the first time in the Torah that these two tribes are associated with one another - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l provides an illuminating account of the history of these two tribes and how they developed in such different ways . In parshas Vayishlach, we are told of how Shechem kidnapped Deena. All of the brothers conspired to bring her back - their plan was to persuade the people of Shechem to do bris mila and then they would come and retreive Deena whilst the people were still recovering. However, Shimon and Levi planned a more drastic course of action - they believed that all of the people of Shechem were chayav misa for their part in the taking of Deena and proceeded to wipe out the whole city in the process of saving her. Yaakov Avinu strongly disagreed with their course of action, fearing that it would greatly damage the reputation of his family. Shimon and Levi defended their actions, saying, “should our sister be treated like a harlot?!” It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticised Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel. ” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah . Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi, what is the mida ceneged mida here? He answers that Yaakov saw that they possessed a positive mida that the other brothers did not. He recognised their motivation in destroying Shechem - they were willing to risk their whole lives in order to defend the kavod of their sister. The other brothers also saw the terrible situation in which Deena was in, but only Shimon and Levi felt the pain as if it were their own pain. Rav Kamenetsky writes: “Yaakov saw that their actions stemmed from an inner pain and genuine empathy with the pain of another, and this motivated them to a burning zealousness that was without limit, to the point where they could not find menuchas nanefesh until they destroyed the whole city. Only men of this character, who feel the pain of their fellow as if it is their own pain - only they would … be moser nefesh and give up their physical resources, in order to wander from city to city to spread the Torah of Hashem in the world and to teach the children of Bnei Yisroel.” Yaakov Avniu saw in Shimon and Levi a zealousness that could potentially be used for a very positive purpose, spreading Torah in Klal Yisroel. However, in this week’s parsha we see how the descendants of these two Bnei Yaakov, followed very different paths: Pinchas, a member of the Tribe of Levi, was able to channel his zealousness to doing the ratson Hashem - his act of violence brought an end to the plague that killed thousands of people. Hashem rewarded him highly to show that He acknowledged that Pinchas was acting purely leshem shamayim. However, Zimri, a Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, expressed the zealousness of his ancestor in a forbidden way, breaking boundaries that the Torah forbade. How did these two tribes divert so drastically from each other? Rav Kamenetsky explains that whilst most of Klal Yisroel were slaves in Mitzrayim, the tribe of Levi was free to learn Torah. It was this period of internalisation of Torah values that enabled the Leviim to channel their zealousness in the right way. In contrast the members of Shevet Shimon never had the opportunity to learn Torah in the same way. Consequently their zealousness was without guidance and therefore expressed itself in forbidden ways. Rav Kamenetsky observes: “When zealousness is guided and bound by the limits of the Torah then it will succeed…. But without guidance, boundaries, and the hanhagas haTorah… it [zealousness] does not have the power to succeed and ultimately will remove the kanai from the world.” There are numerous lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes. Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behaviour, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel. ’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel. Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today. ” Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world? ” Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularisation that was becoming rampant in their times. Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashem . May we all merit to be true kano’im leHashem.

THE TRUE KANO’US - PINCHAS

The parsha begins with Hashem rewarding Pinchas greatly for his act of zealousness in killing Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchas was from the tribe of Levi whilst Zimri was from the tribe of Shimon. This is not the first time in the Torah that these two tribes are associated with one another - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l provides an illuminating account of the history of these two tribes and how they developed in such different ways .

In parshas Vayishlach, we are told of how Shechem kidnapped Deena. All of the brothers conspired to bring her back - their plan was to persuade the people of Shechem to undergo bris mila and then they would come and retrieve Deena whilst the people were still recovering. However, Shimon and Levi planned a more drastic course of action - they believed that all of the people of Shechem were chayav misa for their part in the taking of Deena and proceeded to wipe out the whole city in the process of saving her. Yaakov Avinu strongly disagreed with their course of action, fearing that it would greatly damage the reputation of his family. Shimon and Levi defended their actions, saying, “should our sister be treated like a harlot?!”

It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticized Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel. ” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah . Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi?

He answers that Yaakov saw that they possessed a positive mida that the other brothers did not. He recognized their motivation in destroying Shechem - they were willing to risk their whole lives in order to defend the kavod of their sister. The other brothers also saw the terrible situation in which Deena was in, but only Shimon and Levi felt the pain as if it were their own pain. Rav Kamenetsky writes: “Yaakov saw that their actions stemmed from an inner pain and genuine empathy with the pain of another, and this motivated them to a burning zealousness that was without limit, to the point where they could not find menuchas nanefesh until they destroyed the whole city. Only men of this character, who feel the pain of their fellow as if it is their own pain - only they would … be moser nefesh and give up their physical resources, in order to wander from city to city to spread the Torah of Hashem in the world and to teach the children of Bnei Yisroel.”

Yaakov Avniu saw in Shimon and Levi a zealousness that could potentially be used for a very positive purpose, spreading Torah in Klal Yisroel. However, in this week’s parsha we see how the descendants of these two Bnei Yaakov, followed very different paths: Pinchas, a member of the Tribe of Levi, was able to channel his zealousness to doing the ratson Hashem - his act of violence brought an end to the plague that killed thousands of people. Hashem rewarded him highly to show that He acknowledged that Pinchas was acting purely leshem shamayim. However, Zimri, a Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, expressed the zealousness of his ancestor in a forbidden way, breaking boundaries that the Torah forbade. How did these two tribes divert so drastically from each other? Rav Kamenetsky explains that whilst most of Klal Yisroel were slaves in Mitzrayim, the tribe of Levi was free to learn Torah. It was this period of internalization of Torah values that enabled the Leviim to channel their zealousness in the right way. In contrast the members of Shevet Shimon never had the opportunity to learn Torah in the same way. Consequently their zealousness was without guidance and therefore expressed itself in forbidden ways. Rav Kamenetsky observes: “When zealousness is guided and bound by the limits of the Torah then it will succeed…. But without guidance, boundaries, and the hanhagas haTorah… it [zealousness] does not have the power to succeed and ultimately will remove the kanai from the world.”

There are a number of lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes.

Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behavior, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel. ’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel.

Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today. ”

Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world? ”

Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularization that was becoming rampant in their times.

Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashem . May we all merit to be true kano’im leHashem.

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA - PINCHAS

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables .” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people ? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’ .

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation , however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children . Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.

Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara . The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah, and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they made in Charan ’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt .

The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’ ’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’

We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem .” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment . Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality.. ”

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA - PINCHAS

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables[1].” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people[2]? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’[3].

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation[4], however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children[5]. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.

Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara[6]. The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah,[7] and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they[8] made in Charan[9]’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt[10].

The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara[11] derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’[12]’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’[13]

We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin[14] that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem[15].” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment[16]. Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality..[17]”

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.





[1] Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14.
[2] This question is asked by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita, Divrei Aggada, p.319.
[3] Ibid.
[4] See his continuation in Divrei Aggada, p.319-20 where he elaborates on the necessity to share one’s Torah with those who are distant from the true path. We also learn from his explanation that the ability and willingness to share Torah with others is a key trait in determining an effective leader.
[5] The Mishna in Avos, 1:1 tells us that we must “establish many students.” The Tiferes Yisroel writes that it is not enough to merely teach one’s own children but one must teach other Jews as well.
[6] Avoda Zara, 9a.
[7] Chazal say that Adam HaRishon, Noach and Shem v’Ever learnt Torah.
[8] ‘They’ refers to Avraham and Sarah.
[9] Avraham was 52 years old when the era of Torah began - see Rashi, Avoda Zara, 9a.
[10] One may ask that Avraham was not the first to teach Torah - Shem and Ever had yeshivas where they taught students. The difference is that Avraham taught Torah to those who did not otherwise have any desire to learn it, whereas Shem and Ever waited for people willing to learn to come to them - see Rambam, Hilchos Avoda Zara, Ch.1 Halacha 3, with Raavad and Kesef Misha who elaborates on the qualitative difference between Avraham‘s teaching and that of Shem and Ever. Also see Shut Chasam Sofer, hakdamo to Yoreh Deah, and Chomas Hadas of the Chofetz Chaim who elaborate on the differences between Avraham and the great men that preceded him. Another possible difference between Avraham and Shem and Ever is that taught already righteous people, whereas Avraham drastically changed the direction of people’s lives - this is supported by the Gemara’s citing of the passuk that refers to the souls that Avraham made - this suggests that merely teaching a person Torah is not the end goal, rather this is a means to making people change their lives through the torah that they are taught. Rav Yaakov Emden zt”l writes that when the Mishna in Avos ( 4:6) says that the highest level is ‘lilmod al menas laasos‘, it means learning in order to make others do - this is considered a higher level than lilmod al menas lelamed because the goal of teaching is to cause greater Mitzva observance.
[11] Sandedrin, 99b.
[12] See Iyov, 5:7. Mishlei, Ch.16.
[13] Maharsha, Sanhedrin, 99b.
[14] Sanhedrin, 99a.
[15] Shelach, 15:31.
[16] Included in this list are one who is megaleh panim b’Torah and one who claims that the Torah is not from heaven.
[17] Benyahu, Sanhedrin, 99a, quoted in ‘Peninei Ben Ish Chai, Shelach, p212.

THE TRUE KAN'AOS - PINCHAS

PARSHAS PINCHAS - THE TRUE KANO’US By Yehonasan Gefen

The parsha begins with Hashem rewarding Pinchas greatly for his act of zealousness in killing Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchas was from the tribe of Levi whilst Zimri was from the tribe of Shimon. This is not the first time in the Torah that these two tribes are associated with one another - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l provides an illuminating account of the history of these two tribes and how they developed in such different ways[1].

In parshas Vayishlach, we are told of how Shechem kidnapped Deena. All of the brothers conspired to bring her back - their plan was to persuade the people of Shechem to undergo bris mila and then they would come and retreive Deena whilst the people were still recovering. However, Shimon and Levi planned a more drastic course of action - they believed that all of the people of Shechem were chayav misa for their part in the taking of Deena and proceeded to wipe out the whole city in the process of saving her. Yaakov Avinu strongly disagreed with their course of action, fearing that it would greatly damage the reputation of his family. Shimon and Levi defended their actions, saying, “should our sister be treated like a harlot?!”

It was only many years later that Yaakov gave his final tochacha to the two brothers. In parshas Vayechi, in his brachos to his sons, he criticized Shimon and Levi for their impulsiveness. Moreover, he punished them, saying, “I will separate them in Yaakov and disperse them within Yisroel.[2]” The simple understanding of this onesh it that its purpose was to separate the two brothers in order to prevent them from further violence. However, Rav Kamenetsky notes that Rashi provides a different explanation - that Shimon and Levi will be sofrim and melamdei tinokos who will travel from city to city to fix the tashmishei kedusha and to teach the Bney Yisroel Torah[3]. Why was the future Torah education of Klal Yisroel put davke in the hands of Shimon and Levi?

He answers that Yaakov saw that they possessed a positive mida that the other brothers did not. He recognized their motivation in destroying Shechem - they were willing to risk their whole lives in order to defend the kavod of their sister. The other brothers also saw the terrible situation in which Deena was in, but only Shimon and Levi felt the pain as if it were their own pain. Rav Kamenetsky writes: “Yaakov saw that their actions stemmed from an inner pain and genuine empathy with the pain of another, and this motivated them to a burning zealousness that was without limit, to the point where they could not find menuchas nanefesh until they destroyed the whole city. Only men of this character, who feel the pain of their fellow as if it is their own pain - only they would … be moser nefesh and give up their physical resources, in order to wander from city to city to spread the Torah of Hashem in the world and to teach the children of Bnei Yisroel.”

Yaakov Avniu saw in Shimon and Levi a zealousness that could potentially be used for a very positive purpose, spreading Torah in Klal Yisroel. However, in this week’s parsha we see how the descendants of these two Bnei Yaakov, followed very different paths: Pinchas, a member of the Tribe of Levi, was able to channel his zealousness to doing the ratson Hashem - his act of violence brought an end to the plague that killed thousands of people. Hashem rewarded him highly to show that He acknowledged that Pinchas was acting purely leshem shamayim. However, Zimri, a Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, expressed the zealousness of his ancestor in a forbidden way, breaking boundaries that the Torah forbade. How did these two tribes divert so drastically from each other? Rav Kamenetsky explains that whilst most of Klal Yisroel were slaves in Mitzrayim, the tribe of Levi was free to learn Torah. It was this period of internalization of Torah values that enabled the Leviim to channel their zealousness in the right way. In contrast the members of Shevet Shimon never had the opportunity to learn Torah in the same way. Consequently their zealousness was without guidance and therefore expressed itself in forbidden ways. Rav Kamenetsky observes: “When zealousness is guided and bound by the limits of the Torah then it will succeed…. But without guidance, boundaries, and the hanhagas haTorah… it [zealousness] does not have the power to succeed and ultimately will remove the kanai from the world.”

There are numerous lessons we can derive from Rav Kamenetsky’s explanation. One is that extreme character traits should only be applied if they are harnessed by Torah guidance. A person that acts and speaks out against people in the name of ‘kano’us’ risks being guided not by the Torah, but by base motivations such as lust (as in the case of Zimri) or love of machlokes.

Another vital lesson is the novel understanding of how zealousness should express itself. The ‘kanoi’ may on occasion, be forced to resort to extreme behavior, however this should clearly be the exception to the rule True zealousness should bring a person to a tremendous feeling of pain at the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro or lack of Torah learning. This pain should drive him to strive to rectify the problem by spreading Torah. This is the form of zealousness that the Leviim express on a permanent basis, as is borne out by the words of the Rambam: He asks why the Leviim were not zocheh to their own inheritance in Eretz Yisroel. He answers, “because they were separated to serve Hashem and to teach his just ways and righteous laws to the rabim, as it says, ‘they will teach the laws to Yaakov and the Torah to Yisroel.[4]’” The tribe of Levi possessed the mida of kano’us and were able to direct it to positive effect - they channel the pain they feel at Chilul Hashem to spread Torah and mitzvos throughout Klal Yisroel.

Of course this role is not limited to the Leviim. Many of our Gedolim have expressed the mida of zealousness: One Simchas Torah, Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was looking uncharacteristically gloomy. When asked why he looked so sad on such a happy day, he answered, “today is the time to rejoice over our precious holy Torah. But that is just what makes me sad - for Torah is dying today. Few people follow it, even fewer learn it, and their numbers dwindle from day to day. The more I think about the wonderfulness of the Torah, the more upset I become about the low state it is in today.[5]”

Rav Salanter’s great talmid, the Alter of Kelm zt”l emulated his Rebbe in this area: On one occasion he and Rav Zvi Broide zt”l noticed a Jew taking hay from a gentile’s wagon. After that the Alter was sad, and went about all day with a long face. That evening Rav Broide asked what the matter was. The Alter seemed surprised at the question. “How can a person be at peace when he sees so much sin in the world?[6]”

Of course, feeling pain is not sufficient - the true zealot will act upon it. How? By acting to remove the Chilul Hashem caused by aveiro and lack of Torah study. Indeed, our leaders were not restricted to feeling bad about the matsav of Klal Yisroel. Rav Salanter, the Chofetz Chaim zt”l and the Alter of Novardok zt”l as well as many others, all went to great lengths to teach Torah to those drifting from Torah. There are many accounts of their desperate efforts to stem the tide of secularisation that was becoming rampant in their times.
Thus we have seen that a person that has the kanao’us sanctioned by the Torah will, in the long-term, direct it, not to destruction, but to building. We live in a time where Chilul Hashem is rampant - our avoda is twofold. Firstly, to develop a sense of deep pain at the sheer number of Jews with no connection to Judaism, and second to act upon this pain. But, as the Chazon Ish writes, nowadays the way we can achieve this is not through force but through love - by teaching them the ways of Hashem we can erase the Chilul Hashe
[1] Emes leYaakov, Vayishlach, p.188-9. Vayechi, p.237-8.
[2] Vayechi, 49:7.
[3] Emes LeYaakov, Vayishlach, ibid.
[4] Hilchos Shemittah v’Yovel, Ch.13, hal 12.
[5] Zaitchik, Sparks of Mussar, p.41.
[6] Ibid. p.76.

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA - PINCHAS

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu ‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables.” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago - that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash - this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people - that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah - that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’.

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation, however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it - it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah - the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.
Another source for the concept that ’Torah’ intrinsically involves enabling others to learn Torah is found in the Gemara in Avoda Zara. The Gemara says that world history is split into three periods of two thousand years: The first is called the ‘two thousand years of nothingness’, The second period is known as the ‘two thousand years of Torah.’ The commentaries explain that the years of nothingness are so called because of the lack of Torah in the world during that time, whereas the years of Torah mark the beginning of Torah’s presence in the world. The Gemara says that the years of Torah began with time that Avraham began teaching Torah to the world, as represented by the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. However, there is a difficulty with saying that the years of Torah began only at this point in time. There are many maamarei Chazal which clearly state that there were great people who lived before Avraham and learned Torah, and yet they lived in a time that is described as being absent of Torah, moreover Avraham Avinu himself learnt Torah long before he began teaching others - the era of ‘Torah’ only began with the ‘souls that they made in Charan’. - why is this the case? Rav Zev Leff Shlita explains that Avraham Avinu did something more than his illustrious predecessors - he taught Torah. The era of ’Torah” only begins when Torah is taught as well as learnt.

The Maharsha makes a comment that develops this theme further by showing that, in addition to regular ’learning’ of Torah even the concept of ‘Ameilus b’Torah’ is intrinsically bound up with teaching Torah. The Gemara derives the importance of ‘ameilus b’Torah’ from various passukim in Tanach that mention the word, “l’amal’’ (to toil). The Maharsha writes that the letters of ‘l’amal’ (lamed, ayin, mem and lamed) make an acronym of ‘lilmod al menas lelamed.’

We have seen many sources that show that learning and teaching Torah are in the same category. It still needs to be explained why teaching Torah is so fundamental in Jewish thought. The Ben Ish Chai zt’l provides us with a deeper understanding of this inyan. He brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin that quotes the passuk in Shelach saying that person who serves other gods has “degraded the word of Hashem.” The Gemara then describes other modes of behavior that deserve this devastating indictment. Surprisingly, the Gemara adds that the passuk includes “one who learns and does not teach.” The Ben Ish Chai asks why the Gemara speaks so harshly about one who learns but does not teach. He explains that the Torah is eternal and it’s eternal nature is preserved by passing on its teachings to the next generation. However, he writes that “a person who learns but does not burden himself to teach his fellow damages the eternal nature of the Torah because the Torah that he learns cannot move on to the next generation…therefore it is understood why Chazal describe this man in such a severe manner - because he prevents the chain of the passing down of Torah from generation to generation and nullifies the Torah’s eternal quality..”

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah - his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah - it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.