Rav Berkovits Chanukah Video Shiur

http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/Chanuka5774_MiraclesInOurTime.php

SHELACH – SPYING AFTER OUR HEARTS

“And they will be tzitzis for you, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem, and perform them; and you shall not spy (loh sasuroo) after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.” Parshas Shelach ends with the third paragraph of the Shema. That paragraph discusses the Mitzvo of Tzitzit and continues with another fundamental Mitzvo – not to follow our hearts and eyes. The Sifri elaborates on the meaning of these words. It explains that following one’s heart refers to meenus (herecy), whereas following one’s eyes refers to immorality. The simple understanding of the Sifri with regards to following one’s heart, is that this is the source for the prohibition against espousing beliefs that are antithetical to Torah. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita, points out that there is a great difficulty with this understanding. Without the Mitzvo of ‘loh sassuroo’, there are a number of Mitzvos in the Torah that prohibit heretical beliefs: In the first of the Ten Commandments, the Torah commands us to believe that HaShem is the only G-d, who is all-powerful, created and sustains the whole universe, and has no beginning or end. The next Mitzvo exhorts us not to follow any other gods, which means that we cannot attribute any independent power to any force in the world. In the Mitzvo of ‘Shema’, the Torah further commands us to believe in the oneness of HaShem. The attitudes that the Torah forbids in these Mitzvos are the main beliefs that represent herecy. Accordingly, it would seem that the Torah has already sufficiently instructed us to avoid heretical beliefs. What is the Mitzvo of loh sassuroo coming to add? Rav Berkovits answers that the other Mitzvos are instructing us to have basic philosophical ideas on an intellectual level; for example, a person must believe intellectually that there is one G-d who created the world. However, an intellectual realization is not always sufficient to ensure that a person will adhere to the fundamental tenets of Jewish thought. A person may intellectually recognize these truths, however, his emotions or his physical desires (taivas) may cause him to act in conflict with his beliefs. In this vein, Chazal tell us that a person only sins when a ruach shtus (spirit of irrationality) enters into him. This means that his actions contradict what he rationally knows to be true. The Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ commands us to avoid this pitfall. By telling us not to go after our hearts, the Torah is instructing us not to allow our emotions to cause us to act against what we intellectually know to be true. This is not to say that the Torah views emotions in a negative light. This is certainly not the case and there is great room for expression of emotions in Torah. However, when emotions are not channeled through intellect, the consequences can be disastrous. The Torah is the vessel through which we are supposed to mold our intellect and filter our emotions through a prism of the Torah outlook. The incident of the spies provides us with examples of the correct and incorrect approaches with regard to following one’s heart. Here too, the root word, ‘lasur’, (to spy) is utilized by the Torah. HaShem instructed Moshe to send people to spy out the land. Moshe instructed the spies about which features to look for in the land. Included amongst his instructions he told them to observe the produce of the land, in order to see whether it was fruitful or not. He further instructed them to take note if there was a righteous man in the land, whose merit could protect the people there. With these directives, Moshe was alluding to the spies that they should observe the land with a certain disposition, one that was based on Torah hashkafa. He was telling them to view everything that they saw with spiritual eyes, so that large fruit would be viewed in a positive light, and that the significance of tzaddikim there was an important factor. Sadly, the majority of the spies did not heed Moshe’s instructions. They did indeed see large fruit, however they chose to interpret it in a negative fashion, and conveyed the message that this demonstrated that the land was strange in that it produced oversized fruits. They were guilty of a further misinterpretation when they saw a large number of funerals taking place in the land. They used this to show that the land destroyed its inhabitants, when, in truth HaShem caused large numbers of deaths so that the people would be busy with funerals and not notice the spies. What was the cause of their skewed attitude? They fell prey to the pitfall of following their emotions. They lacked trust in HaShem, and therefore felt fear at the prospect of having to enter Eretz Yisroel. Because of this flawed attitude they viewed everything they saw through a distorted vision. The only spies who overcame this test were Kalev and Yehoshua. They viewed everything they saw in a positive fashion because they were strong in their trust in HaShem – this prevented them from allowing any fear they may have had, to overcome what they knew to be true. We have seen how the Torah connects the lesson of the spies to the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’. The ten spies who sinned provide us with the example of how going after one’s heart leads to sin and ultimately herecy. The Torah imparts a further lesson as to how to avoid the pitfall of interpreting what we see in a detrimental fashion. In the very same verse in which the Torah tells us, ‘loh sasuroo’, it discusses the Mitzvo of tzitzis. “And they will be for you tzitzis, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem and perform them; and you shall not spy after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.” The verse tells us that tzitzis will somehow remind us of the Mitzvos and this in turn will enable us to avoid following our heart and eyes. What is the connection between tzitzis and ‘loh sasuroo’? Rashi points out that Tzitzis remind us of the 613 Mitzvos because the gematria of ‘tzitzis’ is 600; in addition, there are eight strings and five knots – the total of these three figures is 613. In this way, by looking at tzitzis a person is supposed to go through this sequence of thought that will bring him to connect the tzitzis with the 613 Mitzvos. The obvious problem with this is that most people will see tzitzis and fail to make the connection that the Torah seems to expect they should make. It would have seemed to be more effective to command that tzitzis say a big ‘613’ on them, so that everyone will automatically be reminded of the 613 Mitzvos when they see it! The answer is that the Torah is teaching us that one must strive to be the kind of person who sees the world in such a way that a mundane item of clothing such as tzitzis will lead him to a sequence of thought that will remind him of the 613 Mitzvos. When a person brings himself to this level, then, as a consequence he will be able to observe the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ because he will not see the world in a skewed manner based on his emotions, rather he will see it with spiritual eyes. We have seen that a constant theme of the Parsha is that the way a person thinks, will play a decisive role in how he interprets what he sees. It is no easy task to become the kind of person who sees everything with spiritual eyes, however the first stage is to strive to make one’s intellect and emotions in line with the Torah’s directives. The more saturated a person is with the Torah’s teachings, the more he will be able to emulate Kalev and Yehoshua. May we all merit to guide our emotions to bring us closer to Torah.

DEFINING A NATION - PESACH

On Pesach we celebrate Yetsias Mitzrayim and express our endless gratitude to Hashem for extracting us from the terrible slavery that we endured there. However, there is a great difficulty with the whole essence of this festival. Imagine Reuven is walking down the street and suddenly someone appears in front of him holding a steel bar and strikes his leg very hard, causing it to break. Whilst Reuven is sprawled out on the floor in agony, his assailant approaches him and calmly informs him that there is no need to worry because he is a surgeon and will happily perform the operation to help heal Reuven’s broken leg. He performs the surgery and Reuven’s leg does indeed heal. How should Reuven feel about this person - should he feel tremendous gratitude that he healed him? Of course not! - He would much rather have preferred if he had never been hit, and consequently would not have needed surgery. Similarly on Pesach we thank Hashem for taking us out of Mitzrayim but the question must be asked: ‘who put us there initially?!’ It was Hashem Himself - so why are we thanking Him so profusely for a chesed that need not have been required at all?!

It must be that the actual process of being taken out of Mitzrayim was essential to the future of the Jewish people and that the slavery was necessary in order to facilitate it. How is this so? The sefarim discuss how the beginning of something is the defining factor in how that thing will develop. For example, the intial DNA of a fertilised egg contains all the genetic information that will eventually sprout into a human being. The way in which it is formed will have a great effect on how it develops.

Yetsias Mitzrayim was the birth of a nation, the beginning of the process that led us to receive the Torah and enter Eretz Yisroel. Accordingly, the way in which Klal Yisroel was formed had a huge impact on its subsequent development. It determined that the spiritual laws governing Klal Yisroel were completely different from those of the other nations. Historically most nations are formed when a large group of people settles an area of land or overcomes another group and seizes control of their land, which then becomes the home of this nation. The birth of Klal Yisroel was very different in many respects: Firstly, we did nothing to facilitate the Exodus - the Ten Plagues which caused the Mitzrim to send us out were purely Divine acts, with no input from us. Secondly, whilst most nations are born in their own land, we were born in a foreign country - a unique historical event. But the most important difference is the manner in which our creation took place. Whilst other nations are formed according to the normal laws of nature, we were formed in a totally miraculous fashion - the Ten Plagues were completely beyond derech hateva as was the Splitting of the Sea. This is of immense significance - it defined the way in which the ‘laws of nature’ would effect Klal Yisroel. The other nations and their inhabitants live according to derech hateva - there are historical trends that define the development of the nations. In contrast the history of Klal Yisroel developed according to a different set of laws, laws that are above derech hateva. This was defined by our formation - Yetsias Mitzrayim.

We asked why we are so thankful to Hashem for freeing us from the slavery. The answer is that we are grateful that He put us in the slavery and then took us out. It was only because we were so weak and helpless that our formation could be completely in the hands of Hashem - it was impossible to attribute any aspect of Yetsias Mitzrayim to our power. Had we been free men who lived in Mitzrayim and not slaves, and then left it for Eretz Yisroel, it would have been very easy for us to attribute some or all of our success to our own hands - there would have been the yetser hara of ‘my power and my strength enabled me to achieve this success’. Instead the slavery facilitated the miraculous events that characterized Yetsias Mitzrayim which were clearly completely from the Yad Hashem and involved no input from any human being . This explains the halacha that we must discuss the ’genai’ of the story of Yetsias Mitzrayim before the ‘shvach’. The genai was intrinsic to the course of events that led to our formation in such a miraculous fashion, without it, the ‘shvach’, that is the miracles which became the model for our existence, could never have happened.

We have thus far discussed how the formation of Klal Yisroel dictated that our actual existence be defined by a completely different set of ‘laws of nature’ than those of the other nations. How has this manifest itself? The Aish Hatorah Discovery Seminar teaches a class known as ’the Seven Wonders of Jewish History’. This class shows how there are several unique factors that set apart Jewish history from that of the rest of the world. These include: The eternal and chosen status of the Jewish people; their predicted survival despite their exile and worldwide dispersion; their predicted survival in the face of persistent, vehement anti-Semitism. A nation that is forced to leave its own homeland on more than onc occasion, whilst facing tremendous persecution, is by the regular ‘laws of history’, destined either to be destroyed or assimilated into other nations. That the Jewish people have not faced this fate is clearly an indication of a unique pattern of history.

This concept of Klal Yisroel living above Derech hateva also shows itself in how observant Jews conduct their daily lives. We often do not act according to the dictates of regular ‘common sense’. For example, many businesses are the most busy on Shabbos and therefore logic dictates that one work on Shabbos. However, observant Jews know that the laws of the Torah override this practical attitude. We realize that our financial well-being is not determined by how much we work, and that any work on Shabbos would not reap any benefit.

It is clear that the observant Jew follows a unique lifestyle based on the dictates of the Torah, nevertheless it seems that there are still areas where this lesson provides a great challenge in life. What is the overall attitude with which one approaches life? Does he focus primarily on materialistic success as his source of happiness, or does he realize that spiritual considerations override this. For example, in a purely logical way of approaching life, it would be far more sensible to work more hours than to spend a few hours each day learning Torah. However, according to an outlook that transcends the normal laws of nature, one would realize that learning Torah is ultimately far more important than making that extra bit of money that is not necessary for survival. This is just one example of a general attitude that encompasses the major decision each Jew needs to think over every Pesach - that is, do I live my life according to the regular laws of nature like the goyim or do I realize that a Jew’s ambitions are completely different, defined by an understanding of the unique nature of Klal Yisroel. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzhak Berkovits Shlita explains that this is also the main lesson that we should have in mind during the Seder: The Haggadah tells us that we are obligated to see ourselves as if we left Mitzrayim ourselves - this does not just mean that we should re-live the actual story of the Exodus. Whilst this is praiseworthy, it is not the ultimate goal. The ikar is that we should see ourselves as being part of the Nation that left Mitzrayim in a miraculous fashion, a Nation that was formed to be the Am Hashem. And consequently we must realize that this places upon us a responsibility - that we must live our lives according to the laws that guide an Am Hashem; our life goals must be primarily guided by spiritual considerations. And if we live life with such an attitude then Hashem reflects that in how He guides us - with no limits of the ‘laws of nature’, rather He will enable us to fulfil our spiritual goals in a way that transcends nature. We should all have a Chag kasher v’sameach.

ACHIEVING SHLEIMUS - VAYECHI

Sefer Bereishis culminates with the eternal brachos that Yaakov Avinu bestowed on his sons. Each son received a unique bracho which catered exactly to his talents and needs. At the end of the brachos the Torah states that Yaakov blessed them again. What was this new bracho? Rashi explains that with this final bracho Yaakov included every son in each other’s bracho so that, for example Yehuda was blessed with the strength of a lion, but with this final bracho, all the brothers also received this mida of gevura . Rashi’s pshat, however, raises a new problem - if every brother was blessed with what every other brother received in his own personal blessing, then what was the significance of blessing them individually at all?!
The Maharal answers that Yaakov’s final bracho did not make them equal in every area - each one was strongest in the area that he was blessed in - this final bracho gave all of them an aspect of each other’s brachos. Yehuda, for example, was blessed with a higher level of gevura than his brothers however this final bracho gave each of other brothers a certain element of that mida of gevura .

Why did each brother need a certain degree of each bracho? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that a person can specialize in a certain area, however, he must also have some propensity in the other areas. This concept applies in numerous areas, including one’s role in life, midos, and limud haTorah: With regard to one’s role in life there are many roles that each of us must play in our lives - we must be fathers or mothers, husbands or wives, friends, children, teachers, colleagues and so on. A person may wish to pay particular attention on one area such as chinuch - this is a great thing - however he must not overly focus on that area to the exclusion of everything else. It is vital that a person spend time devoting himself to being a good father, however if this is all he does all day then his other roles in life will invariably suffer. We must know how to make a balance between working, spending time with our wives and children, learning Torah, doing chesed and all the other functions that an observant Jew must fulfill. A good indication that one is over-emphasizing one area is that the other areas are suffering, so for example, a person may be spending plenty of time with his family but if he is not able to be kovaya itim in Torah then something is amiss.

This necessity for shleimus also applies in the sphere of midos. For example, most of us have a natural tendency towards chesed or din and we tend to focus the majority of our time and energy on that mida. For example, a natural baal chesed is more likely to emphasize helping others over working on self-discipline. It is natural and correct for a person to focus on his strengths however it seems that a great deal of one’s reward for growth comes in areas that do not come naturally to him. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsy Zt”l notes that the Avos faced their greatest tests in areas that were the opposite of their natural midos. Avraham Avinu, the consummate baal chesed, faced the incredible nisayon in the Akeida, where he had to be covesh his great sense of rachamim and be prepared to kill his son. Yaakov Avinu’s greatest challenges required him to trick reshaim using the mida of sheker, the antithesis of his mida of emes .

The necessity of developing a balance in one’s life is very apparent in the area of limud haTorah. Firstly, the Mishna in Avos says, “If there is no Torah, then there can be no derech eretz, and if there is no derech eretz, then there can be no Torah. ” The Rambam comments that both aspects mashlim the other - one cannot overly focus on learning Torah without any emphasis on tikun hamidos and likewise, one cannot develop one’s midos without learning Torah. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l was once asked why he encouraged his talmidim to spend so much time on mussar, consequently sacrificing a higher level of greatness in Torah. He answered by discussing a question in hilchos brachos - if a person has in front of him a shalem piece of food and a larger piece of the same food which is not shalem then it is a question of Gadol versus Shalem - which should a person bless on? The halacho is that one must bless on the shalem even thought it is smaller than the gadol. So too, a person who learns Torah but also works on their midos (a ‘Shalem‘) is on a higher level than someone who is more learned but has a less refined character (a ‘Gadol‘).

This concept also applies within learning Torah with regard to how much emphasis and time we spend in the different areas of Torah learning. It is normal that a person has a preference for one specific type of learning and wants to spend the majority of his time on that area, such as Gemara. However, if he does not devote any time to halacho, for example, then he will not be able to observe the mitzvos properly. Similarly, my Rebbe notes that a person may learn Chumash when he is a young child and never again give it any significant time beyond speeding through Shtayim Mikra v’echad targum. The consequence of this is that a ben Torah who learns Gemara in great depth may have little more than a child’s understanding of the maasim in Chumash! Rav Kamenetsy was once in a forum encouraging avreichim to spend some time teaching unaffiliated Jews. To one avreich who was concerned about the bitul Torah involved in teaching, he answered, “And if you have to learn a little Chumash and Nachi it won’t be such a terrible thing. ”

We learn many lessons from the specific blessings that Yaakov Avinu bestowed on his sons. They also teach us that whilst a person may specialize in a particular sphere, he nevertheless has an obligation to be shalem in all the areas. This is a demanding task, but Yaakov blessed all of Klal Yisroel with the potential to achieve it. May we all reach true shleimus.

UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

KINDNESS VERSUS INDEPENDENCE - VAYEIRA

One of the most famous episodes in the Torah Portion is that of the destruction of Sodom. The city of Sodom is unrivalled in its reputation for being totally evil. Whilst this is certainly true, it seems simplistic to say that the people of Sodom were simply sadistic people who derived pleasure from harming others. Rather, it seems that their behavior stemmed from an ideology that motivated them to act in the way that they did. In order to advance their beliefs, they instituted a whole body of law to enforce adherence to their cruel way of living. What was the nature of their ideology?

Rav Yitzchak Berkovits explains that the people of Sodom believed that doing chessed (kindness) for another person, constituted an act of base cruelty. By providing someone else with what he needs without him having to earn it, one is encouraging him to be dependent on other people for his livelihood. Since he would always depend on others, he would never be able become an independent and productive member of society. Accordingly, they instituted a whole set of laws and punishments that prevented chessed from destroying society. Furthermore, it seems that their punishments were not arbitrary ways of harming anyone who dared help others. Rather, they represented a warped sense of measure for measure punishments for the damage they perceived that the giver ‘inflicted’ on the ‘victim’ of his chessed.
For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when a girl tried to give food to a poor person, they punished her by covering her with honey so that bees would eat the honey and sting her to death. It seems that they were conveying the message that by her doing chessed she was not helping the poor person, rather she was actually destroying him by causing him to be weak and dependent on others. Measure for measure, they punished her causing her to do ‘chessed’ with the bees by putting honey on her – the result of this ‘kindness’ was that she was destroyed. Since she had ‘destroyed’ through kindness, her punishment was to be destroyed herself by kindness.

The gemara continues with another punishment that one received for performing chessed. Anyone who would invite a stranger to a wedding would be punished by having all his clothes removed. What is the connection between the ‘crime’ and the punishment in this instance? The people of Sodom felt that doing chessed to someone constituted stripping them of their dignity by making them into a taker. Measure for measure they would strip him of his dignity by removing his clothes. It seems that God punished Sodom measure for measure for their cruel attitude towards chessed. Rashi tells us that, at first, gentle rain fell on Sodom, and only later it turned into sulfur and fire. The simple explanation for this is that God was giving them one last chance to repent. However, perhaps on a deeper level, they were punished by an act of kindness which turned into an act of destruction. That was exactly consonant with their reasoning for punishing others – that chessed is destructive. Measure for measure, they were destroyed by something that began as chessed and ended as destruction.

The nation of Sodom was so wicked that it would seem difficult to derive any lessons that could apply to our daily lives – it is obvious that their laws were extremely cruel and their attitude was wrong. However, one aspect of their belief has found support in the world in recent decades. The concept that helping people is damaging in that it prevents them from becoming independent. This attitude arose in response to the idea of ‘welfare’ whereby people without employment would receive significant financial support. As a result, many such people lost the incentive to look for work, and chose to remain dependent upon others. How does the Torah view this aspect of Sodom’s outlook?

It does seem that various aspects of Torah law and Torah thought also seem to emphasize the benefits of independence. The most well known example of this is found in Proverbs: “The one who hates gifts will live”. This means that the ideal way to live is to not rely on gifts or charity from other people. In this vein, the gemara says that a person who does not have enough money to spend anything extra to enhance Shabbos, should, nonetheless refrain from asking others for money, rather, he should treat his Shabbos like a regular week day. Given the great importance given to Kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat) and Oneg Shabbat (enjoying Shabbat) in Jewish law, it is striking to note that it is more important to avoid relying on others than to accept charity and enhance one’s Shabbos. Based on these concepts and laws, how does the Torah view the aforementioned attitude that chessed weakens people?

The answer is that these Torah sources focus on how each individual should face his own personal situation. He should do his utmost to be self-sufficient and not rely on others for his livelihood. However, this attitude is limited to how one views himself – the way in which he should view others is very different. When it comes to the needs of his fellow he should put aside all judgment as to why they are in their needy situation, rather he should focus on how he can help them. Despite this emphasis on helping people who cannot help themselves, it is very important to note that since independence is a value in Judaism, the optimum way of helping a person when possible is by giving them the ability to become independent themselves, so that in the long-term they will not be reliant on others. Indeed, the Rambam writes that providing someone with the ability to find work so that he will be independent is the highest form of charity. However, there are many unfortunate situations in which people are unable to provide for themselves, and in such instances, we are commanded to do our utmost to help them. The mistake made by the people of Sodom was that they expected everyone should be able to succeed if they would only make the effort. This is plainly not the case, since many people are willing to try to become independent but external circumstances make it impossible. The people of Sodom teach us the wrong attitude towards chessed.

ESCAPE OR REBUILD? - NOACH

“And Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. ” When the flood and ended and Noach returned to the earth, he faced the daunting task of starting the world anew. He began by planting a vineyard which had terrible consequences. Chazal strongly criticize Noach’s decision to first plant a vineyard; whilst wine can cause man great simcha and can help him to feel closer to Hashem, that he should have begun planting something that was more immediately necessary for the rebuilding of the world .

The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth.

This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it led to damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness.

About sixty years ago, many people faced a similar nisayon to that of Noach. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rose immediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for ShatneZ. He faced more than one churban - one, the Holocuast, was physical in nature - and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva.

Baruch Hashem in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Mabul or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel s met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and says ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’.

On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own person churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer terrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner.

Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.

YIRAS HASHEM - EIKEV

“You shall fear Hashem, Your G-d.” The mitzvo to fear G-d is one of the most fundamental mitzvos in the Torah and is one of the ‘shesh mitzvos temidius’, the six constant mitzvos that one must fulfill at any moment . This mitzvo would seem to contradict another of the ‘mitzvos temidius’, Ahavas Hashem. The mitzvo of Ahavas Hashem teaches us that G-d is all giving and loving. If that is the case then how can we be expected to fear Him; people generally fear things or beings who do not have their best interests at heart. The commentaries explain that the fear required in the mitzvo of yiras Hashem cannot be equated to fear of something that is trying to cause us harm, rather, at it’s most basic level, it consists of fear of the consequences of our actions. Yiras Hashem teaches us that Hashem is not a vatran , He has placed a system in the world whereby if a person commits a spiritually negative action then, as a consequence he will be spiritually damaged.

Chazal take this point further by explaining what exactly we should and should not be afraid of: The Gemara in Brachos notes a seeming contradiction about fear between passukim in Tanach . Shlomo HaMelech writes in Mishlei; “fortunate is the man who is constantly afraid. ” In contrast, Yeshaya HaNavi says; “those from Zion who are afraid are sinners. ” The Gemara explains that the passuk in Mishlei is referring to ‘divrei Torah’. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that ‘divrei Torah’ can be understood to refer to spiritual matters. We only have control over our free will in spiritual pursuits - thus, The Gemara is telling us that it is correct to fear one’s own failure in the spiritual realm because we have control over it and have the ability to falter. However, in all other areas we know that Hashem is in total control and since He is all-giving and all-powerful, it is foolish and wrong to be afraid that ‘bad things’ will happen to us - when Hashem is in control nothing genuinely ‘bad’ can happen, it may seem that way at the time, but we know that ultimately there is nothing to be afraid of when Hashem is directing matters . The only thing we need to be afraid of is ourselves and the damage we can do to ourselves.

Another Gemara shows further how important it is to fear the consequences of our actions: The Gemara in Gittin recounts the famous story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and how the sinas chinam in that story caused the chain of events that ended with the tragic destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. As an introduction to this tragic episode the Gemara quotes the aforementioned passuk in Mishlei that extols the virtues of fear . How is the inyan of fear connected to the events of the Kamtza and Bar Kamtza episode? Tosefos explain that the people who sinned in the story should have been more fearful of the consequences of their actions such as allowing Bar Kamtza to be embarrassed in public without interceding. Had they been more vigilant about the results of their actions they would have realized that they should act differently. We see from here the significance of fearing ourselves - it was their lack of such fear that enabled the tragic mistakes to unfold.

These Gemaras teach us that whenever we have free will in a situation we must be fearful to not stumble but when there is nothing that can be done then it is wrong to have fear, and we should place our trust in Hashem. The Brisker Rav zt”l was famous for his fear of not performing mitzvos properly but at the same time, he remained remarkably calm when there was nothing he could do. Rav Shlomo Lorincz Shlita tells over that during the siege of the Yerushalayim in Israel’s War of Independence the Brisker Rav would stay very calm even whilst the city was being bombarded with shells. Yet, when the shelling ceased, he would immediately become very agitated with concern for those far away. Asked to explain the contrast in his behavior, he responded that when the shells were falling nearby, he was in a position of an ones and thus freed from any obligation to assist others. Since he had not responsibility, he had no tension. But when his neighborhood was not being shelled, he could not stop thinking about what he might be able to do for those in danger, and the matter gave him no rest . The Brisker Rav was in tune with the appropriate times to be fearful and to be calm, when there was nothing he could do then he was very calm, but whilst a responsibility lay upon him he would not relax.

This lesson is very pertinent as we approach Elul. Throughout the year a person may develop a sense of security about his spiritual standing, feeling that Hashem will ’overlook’ his transgressions and failings. However with Yom HaDin approaching, we are reminded that Hashem is not a vatran and that there are serious consequences to our actions. The Mitzvo of Yiras Hashem teaches us that we cannot sit back and have a false trust in G-d that everything will be alright. We have the great gift of free will but that is accompanied by the fact that we cannot rely on G-d to force us to make the correct decisions. Our control over our actions is cause of great fear - it means that we can ignore the opportunities that Hashem gives us, misuse our talents and generally fail to fulfill our potential in life - that is worthy of fear.

SPYING AFTER OUR HEARTS - SHELACH

And they will be tzitzis for you, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem, and perform them; and you shall not spy (loh sasuroo) after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.”
Parshas Shelach ends with the third paragraph of the Shema. That paragraph discusses the Mitzvo of Tzitzit and continues with another fundamental Mitzvo – not to follow our hearts and eyes. The Sifri elaborates on the meaning of these words. It explains that following one’s heart refers to meenus (herecy), whereas following one’s eyes refers to immorality. The simple understanding of the Sifri with regards to following one’s heart, is that this is the source for the prohibition against espousing beliefs that are antithetical to Torah.

My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita, points out that there is a great difficulty with this understanding. Without the Mitzvo of ‘loh sassuroo’, there are a number of Mitzvos in the Torah that prohibit heretical beliefs: In the first of the Ten Commandments, The Torah commands us to believe that HaShem is the only G-d, who is all-powerful, created and sustains the whole universe, and has no beginning or end. The next Mitzvo exhorts us not to follow any other gods, which means that we cannot attribute any independent power to any force in the world. In the Mitzvo of ‘Shema’, the Torah further commands us to believe in the oneness of HaShem. The attitudes that the Torah forbids in these Mitzvos are the main beliefs that represent herecy. Accordingly, it would seem that the Torah has already sufficiently instructed us to avoid heretical beliefs. What is the Mitzvo of loh sassuroo coming to add?

Rav Berkovits answers that the other Mitzvos are instructing us to have basic philosophical ideas on an intellectual level; for example, a person must believe intellectually that there is one G-d who created the world. However, an intellectual realization is not always sufficient to ensure that a person will adhere to the fundamental tenets of Jewish thought. A person may intellectually recognize these truths, however, his emotions or his physical desires (taivas) may cause him to act in conflict with his beliefs. In this vein, Chazal tell us that a person only sins when a ruach shtus (spirit of irrationality) enters into him. This means that his actions contradict what he rationally knows to be true. The Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ commands us to avoid this pitfall. By telling us not to go after our hearts, the Torah is instructing us not to allow our emotions to cause us to act against what we intellectually know to be true.

This is not to say that the Torah views emotions in a negative light. This is certainly not the case and there is great room for expression of emotions in Torah. However, when emotions are not channeled through intellect, the consequences can be disastrous. The Torah is the vessel through which we are supposed to mold our intellect and filter our emotions through a prism of the Torah outlook.
The incident of the spies provides us with examples of the correct and incorrect approaches with regard to following one’s heart. Here too, the root word, ‘lasur’, (to spy) is utilized by the Torah. HaShem instructed Moshe to send people to spy out the land. Moshe instructed the spies about which features to look for in the land. Included amongst his instructions he told them to observe the produce of the land, in order to see whether it was fruitful or not. He further instructed them to take note if there was a righteous man in the land, whose merit could protect the people there. With these directives, Moshe was alluding to the spies that they should observe the land with a certain disposition, one that was based on Torah hashkafa. He was telling them to view everything that they saw with spiritual eyes, so that large fruit would be viewed in a positive light, and that the significance of tzaddikim there was an important factor.

Sadly, the majority of the spies did not heed Moshe’s instructions. They did indeed see large fruit, however they chose to interpret it in a negative fashion, and conveyed the message that this demonstrated that the land was strange in that it produced oversized fruits. They were guilty of a further misinterpretation when they saw a large number of funerals taking place in the land. They used this to show that the land destroyed its inhabitants, when, in truth HaShem caused large numbers of deaths so that the people would be busy with funerals and not notice the spies. What was the cause of their skewed attitude? They fell prey to the pitfall of following their emotions. They lacked trust in HaShem, and therefore felt fear at the prospect of having to enter Eretz Yisroel. Because of this flawed attitude they viewed everything they saw through a distorted vision. The only spies who overcame this test were Kalev and Yehoshua. They viewed everything they saw in a positive fashion because they were strong in their trust in HaShem – this prevented them from allowing any fear they may have had, to overcome what they knew to be true.

We have seen how the Torah connects the lesson of the spies to the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’. The ten spies who sinned provide us with the example of how going after one’s heart leads to sin and ultimately herecy. The Torah imparts a further lesson as to how to avoid the pitfall of interpreting what we see in a detrimental fashion. In the very same verse in which the Torah tells us, ‘loh sasuroo’, it discusses the Mitzvo of tzitzis. “And they will be for you tzitzis, and you shall see it and you shall remember all the commandments of HaShem and perform them; and you shall not spy after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray.” The verse tells us that tzitzis will somehow remind us of the Mitzvos and this in turn will enable us to avoid following our heart and eyes. What is the connection between tzitzis and ‘loh sasuroo’? Rashi points out that Tzitzis remind us of the 613 Mitzvos because the gematria of ‘tzitzis’ is 600; in addition, there are eight strings and five knots – the total of these three figures is 613. In this way, by looking at tzitzis a person is supposed to go through this sequence of thought that will bring him to connect the tzitzis with the 613 Mitzvos. The obvious problem with this is that most people will see tzitzis and fail to make the connection that the Torah seems to expect they should make. It would have seemed to be more effective to command that tzitzis say a big ‘613’ on them, so that everyone will automatically be reminded of the 613 Mitzvos when they see it! The answer is that the Torah is teaching us that one must strive to be the kind of person who sees the world in such a way that a mundane item of clothing such as tzitzis will lead him to a sequence of thought that will remind him of the 613 Mitzvos. When a person brings himself to this level, then, as a consequence he will be able to observe the Mitzvo of ‘loh sasuroo’ because he will not see the world in a skewed manner based on his emotions, rather he will see it with spiritual eyes.

We have seen that a constant theme of the Parsha is that the way a person thinks, will play a decisive role in how he interprets what he sees. It is no easy task to become the kind of person who sees everything with spiritual eyes, however the first stage is to strive to make one’s intellect and emotions in line with the Torah’s directives. The more saturated a person is with the Torah’s teachings, the more he will be able to emulate Kalev and Yehoshua. May we all merit to guide our emotions to bring us closer to Torah.

MOSHE’S “SONS” - BAMIDBAR

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.