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.

PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS

One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?

Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.

Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!

Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).

On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.

USING THE GOOD FOR THE GOOD - VAYEIRA

The Parsha begins with the story of Avraham Avinu’s incredible chesed with the three Malachim. This is immediately followed by an account of the Malachim’s descent into Sodom and its subsequent destruction. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l points out a very interesting factor in the juxtaposition of these two incidents; both have a great emphasis on hachnasas orchim (hosting guests) . The story of Avraham is the classic demonstration of the attitude a person should have towards hachnasas orchim and the optimum way of providing for guests. We see how Avraham ignores his own ill health and spares no effort in making his guests feel completely welcome. Immediately following this, the Torah takes us to the city of Sodom and demonstrates their complete antipathy for the very same mitzva of hachnasas orchim. We see how Lot’s life is threatened by the people of Sodom because he dare provide food and shelter for visiting strangers. What is the significance of the Torah’s emphasis of the stark contrast between Avraham and the people of Sodom?

Rav Kamenetsky suggests an answer based on the other aspect of the Sodom story. Hashem tells Avraham about his plans to destroy Sodom because of their complete disregard for their fellow man. Avraham reacts with unlimited concern for these evil people and speaks to Hashem in such a forceful tone that he must first request that Hashem not be angry with him for speaking with such frankness. Rav Kamenetsky explains that the Torah is showing us an aspect of Avraham’s incredible level of bein adam lechaveiro. He writes that normally when a person excels in one area or character trait, he is particularly makpid (strict) on other people’s behavior in that same area. Consequently, he tends to judge them very harshly for their perceived failings in that area. He gives the example of a person who is careful to eat bread for Seudas Shlishis. He tends to view those who only eat fruit for their Seudas Shlishis very judgmentally. The Torah juxtaposes its account of Avraham’s greatness in hachnasas orchim with Sodom’s abject standing in the very same area, and then shows how, nonetheless, Avraham pleaded that Hashem treat Sodom with mercy. This shows that Avraham did not fall subject to the yetser hara to be more strict when judging others in an area of one’s own strengths. Despite the great gulf in his chesed and that of Sodom he showed great concern for their well being.

We see from Rav Kamenetsky’s idea that it is not easy to look favorably on others’ weaknesses in one’s own area of strength. Why is this such a difficult undertaking? When a person excels in one area of midos he will find it very hard to understand how other people can be less zahir in the same field. For example, if a person is particularly punctual he finds it very hard to comprehend how people can consistently come late. It is very clear to him that being late shows lack of consideration for other people’s time. His avoda is to recognize that everybody has different strengths and that there may well be areas in which he is far weaker than others. Moreover, he should remember the Mishna in Avos that tells us; “do not to judge your fellow until you stand in his place.” This teaches us that each person’s character traits are based on his unique life circumstances and that we can never accurately judge other people because we do not know how we would behave if we were in their situation. By internalizing this teaching a person can come to a recognition that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses based on numerous factors and therefore it is wrong to become frustrated with others’ weaknesses in his own areas of strength.

We find another example of Avraham’s greatness with regard to interacting with people on a lower level than himself. At the beginning of the Parsha the Torah goes to great lengths in describing the lavish meal that Avraham provided to the visitors, describing the delicious delicacies that he served. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita points out that Avraham himself surely had little interest in indulging himself with such food. Nonetheless he did not impose his own level of prishus (separation from the physical world) on his guests and spared no effort in providing them with a lavish meal.

Rav Frand describes how one of our greatest recent Gedolim excelled in the area of not imposing their own high standards on other people; in the refrigerator in the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l there were a number of food condiments such as pleasant tasting sauces. It is clear that Rav Feinstein himself did not place great importance on adding such sauces to make his food taste more pleasant - he lived in a far higher plane of existence where such physical pleasures were meaningless. Nonetheless he did not expect other people to aspire to his own high levels.

There are a number of ways in which a person can impose his own standards on others in a negative way. For example, a person may be very neat and tidy, this is obviously a very good trait and enables a person to live with seder. However, it is likely that at some point in his life this tidy person will be in situation where he shares accommodation with other people, such as a spouse, children, or a roommate. It is often the case that these other people do not strive for or attain the same level of cleanliness in the home. In such a scenario, the tidy person may become frustrated with them and demand that they clean the house according to his own high standards. This is an example of imposing one’s own way of doing things on other people and seems to be an unfair way of dealing with people. Rather, an excessively tidy person should accept that other people cannot keep the home tidy to the same extent. If the tidy person finds he cannot function properly in such a situation then he should take it upon himself to maintain the cleanliness of the home to his high standards.

There is much discussion about the great kindness of Avraham Avinu. Rav Kamenetsky teaches us another aspect of his excellent bein adam lechaveiro - that he did not impose his own high standards on other people and did not treat them in a strict way. May we all be zocheh to utilize our good midos only for the good.

SHEM AND EVER – THE MASTERS OF INSULATION - PARSHAS NOACH

At the end of Parshas Bereishis, the Torah writes that Noach found favor in the eyes of HaShem. In the beginning of the next Parsha, the Torah tells us of the offspring of Noach. The Medrash notes the juxtaposition between Noach’s finding favor with HaShem and the mention of his children. It explains that Noach’s special favor was in the merit of his sons. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l notes that this Medrash is difficult to understand; in all its discussion of Noach’s special treatment by HaShem, the Torah makes no emphasis of this being due to his sons’ greatness, rather Noach, through his own merit, was deserving of being saved from the Flood and of being the progenitor of mankind. Accordingly, why does the Medrash attribute Noach’s special favor to his sons? Rav Kamenetsky answers this by quoting another Medrash. That Medrash discusses Noach’s ability to protect himself and his family from the evil people that surrounded him. It gives an analogy of a flask of perfume that is sealed tight, which is placed in a cemetery yet despite its unpleasant surroundings it maintains its pleasant aroma.

Rav Kamenetsky explains that Noach’s greatest accomplishment was his ability to protect himself and his family from the evil influences that encircled them on all sides in the same way that a sealed flask of perfume can maintain its pleasantness despite the great powers of impurity surrounding it. Therefore, when the Medrash says that Noach was saved in his sons’ merit it means that he was saved because he brought up his children in such a way that they were protected from the negative influences surrounding them.

This idea is further brought out by a drush interpretation of a Gemara in Brachos. The Gemara states that even if a person has said the krias Shema in shul, he must say it again before he goes to sleep. The Shema epitomizes the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven (ol Malchus Shamayim). This Gemara alludes to the fact that even if a person accepted the yoke of Heaven in shul with the community he must do it again when he is at home without the spiritual support of the community. The Gemara is teaching us that it is insufficient for a person to maintain his spiritual level when he is surrounded by likeminded people who can help him. He must be strong enough to maintain this level even when he is alone, with no external support. Noach epitomized this exalted level, whereby he was able to maintain his righteousness even though he had no assistance from those around him.
Noach’s son Shem, and his great-grandson, Ever, emulated Noach in this area, and taught it over to the individuals who came to study in their Yeshivas. With this understanding, a number of difficulties can be resolved. Firstly, when Yaakov Avinu leaves Eretz Yisroel to go to Lavan, he goes to the Yeshiva of Ever (Shem had already passed away by that time ) and learns there for fourteen years. Yaakov was sixty three years old at the time, and had spent his whole life learning from his great father, Yitzchak Avinu. Why was the Torah that he learnt from Yitzchak insufficient to prepare him for his time with Lavan? The answer is that up to this time in his life, Yaakov had grown up surrounded by tzaddikim and now that he was facing the challenge of living with people like Lavan he needed to learn other sugyas (topics), those related to dealing with tricksters, liars and enemies. The Torah of Yitzchak Avinu was not geared to such nisyonos (tests) because he too was protected from negative influences by his parents. Indeed, when Yishmael threatened to negatively influence him, Sarah threw him out of the home. In contrast Shem and Ever had grown up surrounded by evil; Shem, in the time of the Mabul (great flood), and Ever, in the time of the Tower of Bavel. Accordingly, the Torah of Shem and Ever addressed the kinds of challenges that Yaakov knew he would face during his time with Lavan.

The teachings of Shem and Ever are also mentioned with regard to the Torah that Yaakov taught his son, Yosef. Rashi, based on the Medrash, says that one of the ways in which Yaakov seemed to give preferential treatment to Yosef was that, “everything he [Yaakov] learnt from Shem and Ever, he passed on to him [Yosef].” Why does the Medrash stress in particular that the Torah that Yaakov learnt from Shem and Ever; what about the Torah he learnt from Yitzchak? The answer is that Yaakov subconsciously knew that Yosef, of all the sons, was destined to live in exile away from G-d fearing people, and surrounded by negative influences. Therefore, he taught Yosef in particular amongst all the sons the Torah of Shem and Ever because he was in the greatest need of that Torah. The others brothers misread Yaakov’s intentions and believed that he was teaching Yosef more Torah than them, because only he would continue the line of transmission. However, in truth, Yaakov was only equipping Yosef with the tools that he needed to survive his own galus (exile).

Indeed, when Yaakov is finally reunited with Yosef he exclaims, “Rav, od Yosef chai” – “it is great, Yosef is still alive”. The Medrash elaborates on what Yaakov meant by this – he was extolling Yosef’s great strength in withstanding many challenges and tests in Mitzrayim, and yet remaining steadfast in his righteousness. The reason Yosef was so successful in this area was because of the Torah of Shem and Ever that Yaakov taught him in his youth.

We have seen Rav Kamenetky’s theme which teaches us that Noach’s great strength was his ability to protect himself and his family from external influences and how Shem and Ever passed on his teachings through the Torah that they taught in their Yeshivas. The only remaining question is what does it mean that they taught a different type of Torah? In what way was it different? There are two areas of Torah in which it seems that Shem and Ever taught a different type of Torah; halacha (Jewish law) and hashkafa (Jewish thought). In terms of halacha Rav Kamenetsky notes that The Chofetz Chaim wrote a separate work on the Jewish laws specifically geared for Jews who were serving in non-Jewish armies. Such people obviously faced many unusual and difficult challenges and needed guidance as to when they could apply various leniencies and to what extent. In a similar vein, nowadays, people can be exposed to environments that pose new questions; people who work in non-Jewish environments, or people who have secular families, face complicated questions that are not necessarily addressed in the standard halacha works. Obviously such delicate questions cannot be answered alone, rather one must ask a Rav who is familiar with these unusual situations.

With regard to hashkafa, there are clearly different challenges that face people in varying situations. A person who finds himself surrounded by others who espouse very distinct lifestyles will need to study works of mussar and hashkafa that focus on staying strong in such circumstances. He may need a more constant strengthening in basics of Jewish thought in order to maintain the correct outlook when those around him may pressure him to act differently. We have seen the importance of the Torah of Shem and Ever to the development of our forefathers, and how it can apply to our lives.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CALMNESS AND BITACHON - DEVARIM

Parashas Devarim begins with Moshe Rabbeinu rebuking the Jewish people for the various sins that they committed in the desert. One of the first sins that he addresses is that of the spies. Moshe recalls the events that led to this tragic occurrence. “And you all approached me and said, ‘let us send men ahead of us who will spy out the land for us, and they will tell us the way which we should go in it, and which cities we should come to’.”

Given that all of Moshe’s words involve some kind of rebuke, the question arises, what exactly is the criticism found in these words? Rashi explains that the way in which they approached Moshe was inappropriate. “You all approached me in an irbuvia, the children pushing ahead of the elderly, and the elderly pushing ahead of the leaders.”

The simple understanding of this criticism is that Moshe was rebuking them for a lack in derech eretz (respect) and kavod HaTorah (respect for Torah). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l writes that it is difficult to say that this was the focus of Moshe’s reproof. It is clear from the account of the spies in Parashas Shelach, that the main failing of the spies was a lack of bitachon (trust in HaShem). This caused them to be fearful of the mighty people living in Eretz Yisroel, and to mourn their perceived inability to conquer the land. Accordingly, what is the connection between the fact that the people approached Moshe in an inappropriate manner, with the lack of bitachon that was the true cause of the sin?

Rav Kamenetsky explains that indeed, the lack of bitachon was the cause of the sin of the spies; the lack of derech eretz displayed was merely a symptom of that lacking. Had they had the appropriate level of trust, then they would have calmly approached Moshe, in the correct order. However, since they felt a great deal of anxiety about entering the land, they acted with behala (ie. in an agitated fashion), and broke the conventions of who should approach Moshe first. In this way, their lack of bitachon was the cause of their agitated behavior.

Rav Kamenetsky uses this idea to answer a pressing question in the story of the spies. In Parashas Shelach, the order of the spies is not in the same order as anywhere else in the Torah. Normally, they are written according to their age, but here they are not. The commentaries offer various suggestions as to the reasoning behind the order. Rav Kamenetsky suggests that there is no reasoning to the order of the spies in this instance; the spies, with the exception of Yehoshua and Calev, felt the same anxiety as the people, therefore they also approached their entry to Eretz Yisroel in a state of behala. Behala results in a lack of order, accordingly, it is appropriate that the spies are mentioned in no specific order as a reflection of their agitated attitude.

We have learnt from the principle of Rav Kamenetsky,that when a person acts in an agitated, or hurried fashion, there is a strong possibility that his behavior stems from a lack of trust in HaShem. A person who has such trust, will feel no sense of panic when he needs to do something, and will have no sense of impatience when events do not take place as quickly as he would like them to. Rather, he recognizes that HaShem is constantly guiding him, and any tests that he undergoes are HaShem’s way of giving him opportunities to grow. However, when a person does not have the security that bitachon provides, he feels no sense of calmness (menucha), and may feel eager to make events happen quicker than they should.

The first lesson that one can take from this idea is to be aware of situations when he may have a tendency to be impatient or agitated. When he is aware that he is in this state, he should make every effort to refrain from any action that he may later regret. Rather, he should try to step back and take a measured view of the situation at hand. Secondly, he should understand that his behavior may well stem from a lack of bitachon, and he should try to internalize that which intellectually he knows to be true – that HaShem is with Him and therefore, there is no need to get agitated.

May we all merit to develop the bitachon that will enable us to live with menucha.

PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS

One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?

Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.

Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!

Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).

On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.