LOVING HASHEM AND THE TORAH - THE THREE WEEKS

Chazal tell us with regard to any generation in which the Beis HaMikdosh was not rebuilt, it is viewed as if it was destroyed in that very generation . Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l explained that this means that had the Beis HaMikdosh been extant in that generation, then it also would have been destroyed as a result of the people's actions. Accordingly, it is clear that the actions that caused the initial destructions are still very much relevant to the present generation.

The Gemara in Nedarim offers one explanation as to why the first Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. It tells us that after the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdosh and the galus (exile) that followed, the Chachamim and Neviim did not know what was the cause of such a terrible punishment, until Hashem himself told them that it was because “they left My Torah. ” Rav explains that this does not mean that they were not learning Torah, rather that they did not make Birchas HaTorah before they would start learning . The commentaries find a number of difficulties with this Gemara . Why were the people punished so severely for the relatively minor sin of not saying Birchas HaTorah? Moreover, this Gemara seems to contradict the Gemara in Yoma, which states that the first Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of murder, idol worship, and immorality .

The Maharal addresses these problems . He writes that it is impossible to understand the Gemara literally, that they were not saying Birchas HaTorah. Rather the Gemara means that they did not say the bracha with the proper intentions. He explains that when a person says Birchas HaTorah, he should focus on his great love and gratitude towards Hashem for giving him the tremendous gift of the Torah. The chachamim of the generation did say the bracha and moreover, did not merely say it out of rote, however they did not focus sufficiently on their love of Hashem when saying it. He continues to explain how this subtle failing was the root cause of the terrible sins that led to the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh. If a person focuses sufficiently on Hashem in the process of his learning then he merits to have tremendous siyata dishmaya that makes it much easier for him to avoid sin, and even if he does falter, it enables him to do teshuva without great difficulty. Rav Hutner zt”l writes that this is what Chazal mean when they say that ‘the light of Torah returns a person to good’. However, if he does not connect to Hashem through his learning then he loses that special siyata dishmaya and if he falters he is far more likely to become trapped in a downward spiral of sin .

Based on this explanation we can resolve the contradiction between the Gemaras in Nedarim and Yoma. The Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in Yoma. However, the failure to say Birchas HaTorah with the proper attitude was the root cause that enabled the deterioration of the Jewish people to the point where they were sinning so greatly. Because they did not connect to Hashem properly they lost siyata dishmaya and consequently fell prey to the powerful temptations of the yetser hara. The Maharal offers a fascinating and somewhat surprising explanation of the reasons why a person may fail to show the proper love of Hashem in his Birchas HaTorah. He argues that it is impossible to love two entities at the same time, and consequently focusing on love of one thing will reduce the focus of the love for something else. Based on this, he writes that there are two possible ‘loves’ that one can express when saying Birchas HaTorah, love of Hashem or love of the Torah, and that it is not possible to feel love for both at the same time! When a person says this bracha he is more likely to express his love for the Torah more than his love for Hashem! He warns that, “one must be very careful that he make the blessing on the Torah with all his heart and soul. ”

This explanation of the Maharal may seem to contradict the approach of Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l in Nefesh HaChaim. He emphasized that when one learns Torah they should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem, rather they should delve as deeply as possible into the Torah that they are learning. He argued that this approach is the optimal way through which a person can become close to G-d. The Maharal’s distinction between love of Hashem and love of Torah seems to clash with the Nefesh HaChaim’s emphasis on Torah as opposed to thoughts of Hashem. However, on deeper analysis it seems that there is no disagreement; the Maharal did not say that a person should focus on his love of G-d during his learning. Rather before he begins to learn and says Birchas HaTorah, then he should be careful not to lose focus of G-d. The Nefesh HaChaim himself makes a very similar point with regard to one’s attitude before learning. He writes, “whenever one prepared himself to learn, it is proper for him to spend, at least, a small amount of time, contemplating a pure fear of G-d with a pure heart .” He even argues that at times one should take a small break during his learning in order to rekindle his yiras Hashem .

Thus, it seems that there is agreement amongst these two Gedolim that before a person learns, he must be very careful not to lose sight of whose Torah he is learning. Whist, with regard to the actual time of learning, there is no reason to say that the Maharal will not agree with the Nefesh HaChaim’s approach that one should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem.

The Three weeks is a time to reflect on the various causes of the Churban; a key area of avoda is to maintain a constant awareness of Hashem during one's fulfillment of Mitzvos and learning Torah. By doing so, the Maharal teaches us that each of us will have great siyata dishmaya in avoiding the others sins that caused the churban. May we all merit to see the rebuilding of the Beis HaMiikdosh speedily in our days.

GIVING REBUKE - DEVARIM

Parshas Devarim consists largely of Moshe Rabbeinu’s tochacha to the Jewish people. The Parsha begins with Moshe mentioning a number of place names that do not appear anywhere else in the Torah . Chazal tell us that these names were in fact allusions to places where the Jews had sinned; Moshe did not explicitly state that the Jews had sinned here, rather he chose to hint to their transgressions. Rashi explains that he did so “because of the honor of Israel ” - even though the Jewish people needed to be rebuked, to explicitly mention their sins would have been too much of a pgam on their kavod. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l derives a vital lesson about tochacha from Rashi’s explanation he writes, “we learn from here how incumbent it is upon the rebuker to worry about and be fearful for, the honor of the person being rebuked. ”

This teaches us that the key factor that determines whether a rebuke will have a positive or negative effect is one’s motivation for rebuking. Moshe maintained his love and concern for the Jewish people in the midst of speaking to them very harshly. Indeed, it seems clear that this love was the very reason that he was rebuking them - it was purely an act of kindness. In doing so he was able to maintain a sensitivity to their honor whilst simultaneously criticizing them.

The Gemara tells us that it is exceedingly difficult to rebuke someone in an effective way . Nonetheless, this does not mean that we are exempt from the mitzvo, and there are times when one can do a great kindness by clarifying the correct hanhago to someone who is likely to listen. We learn from Moshe that the rebuker must care about the other person, and empathize with him, trying to understand where he is coming from and how is the best way to influence him for the good. Conversely, rebuke can be extremely damaging when it emanates from anger and a lack of concern for the spiritual well being of the other person. In such instances the rebuker will make no effort to try to understand why the other person is acting in such a way and may therefore have unreasonable expectations of him.

The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, demonstrates his point: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbis but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to daven here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbis, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach zt“l. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim. ” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do it and how much good can be achieved with caring words. How did the girl who spoke harshly to Devora come to commit such a serious sin when she surely meant to defend shemiras hamitzvos? The answer is that she made no effort to understand Devora’s background and level. Consequently, her rebuke did not only fail to change Devora for the good but it very nearly alienated this girl from chareidi Jewry and prevented her from becoming more observant.

In contrast, tochacha that is motivated out of concern for one’s fellow will lead us to measure our words carefully before correcting someone else’s behavior. Rav Yehonasan Eibeschitz zt”l says that the greatest way of fulfilling the mitzvo of ‘love thy neighbor’ is by caring about the spiritual well being of one‘s fellow Jew - this attitude manifests itself in the right form of tochacha . This lesson is very pertinent to Tisha B’Av; Chazal tell us that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinas chinam (baseless hatred). Rav Eibetschitz continues that the sinas chinam was the fact that the people refrained from rebuking each other. As a consequence, the numerous groups of apikorsim were allowed to grow and adversely influence the Jewish people. According to this explanation, hatred is not limited to active adversity, it also includes apathy . Such apathy indicated a severe lacking in the bein adam lechaveiro of the people at the time of the Second Beis HaMedrash.

Chazal tell us that any generation in which the Beis HaMikdash is not rebuilt, is considered as if they destroyed it. This means that the present generation is still effected by sinas chinam, defined by Rav Eibetschitz as not caring enough about one’s fellow to want to help him improve his Avodas Hashem. Whilst we have seen that rebuke can be very damaging when done in the wrong way, nonetheless, if it emanates from a true feeling of ahava then it can surely be used to greatly help our fellow Jew.

THE THREE WEEKS - REDEFINING SINAS CHINAM

As we begin the period of the three weeks that culminates in Tisha B'Av, we strive to find ways of improving ourselves, so we can ensure that this will be the last year without the Beis HaMikdash. The famous gemara in Gittin about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza teaches us a great deal about the cause of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and what we need to rectify in order to bring about its rebuilding.

The gemara tells us that Yerushalayim was destroyed as a result of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. An unnamed man was a sworn enemy of Bar Kamtza but friendly with Kamtza. He sent his servant to invite Kamtza to a banquet, but the servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came to the affair, the furious host demanded that he leave. Embarrassed, he offered to pay for his own meal in order to be allowed to stay. After that offer was refused, he volunteered to pay half the cost of the whole banquet, but instead he was thrown out. There were a number of rabbis in attendance, who remained silent throughout this unpleasant incident. Indignant at their passivity, Kamtza proceeded to slander the Jewish people to the Roman authorities, which began the course of events that ended with the destruction.

The Iyun Yaakov, ztz”l, asks why Kamtza is apportioned some of the blame for these events, since he did nothing throughout the whole story. The Ben Ish Chai, ztz”l, answers by suggesting that Kamtza was actually present at the banquet and witnessed how Bar Kamtza was treated. He could have prevented what happened by explaining the misunderstanding with the invitations. There is a principle that if someone can protest a wrongdoing but does not, it is considered as if he himself committed it. The Ben Ish Chai continues that this answer is even more compelling according to the Maharsha, who writes that Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza. Accordingly, Kamtza was surely aware of the feud between his son and friend, yet he did nothing to make peace between them. Because of his passivity, Kamtza is held partly responsible for the destruction.

Furthermore, the rabbis also seem to be held partially responsible for the course of events, because they did nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza’s humiliation. Thus, there seems to be a common theme running through this story: Inaction and apathy allowed such terrible consequences to take place. Had any of the people involved strived to prevent the injustices that took place, the Beis HaMikdash may not have been destroyed. Their indifference to the surrounding tragedies resulted in their passivity.

This lesson, that apathy destroyed the second Beis HaMikdash, seems somewhat contradictory to the Gemara in Yoma, which states that sinas chinam (baseless hatred) was the ultimate cause of the destruction. However, on deeper analysis it seems that sinas chinam is not limited to active hatred; it can also include apathy. We see this from the first time the root of the word sinah (hatred) appears in the Torah: In parashas Vayetzei, after Yaakov Avinu marries Rachel and Leah, the Torah tells us, “Hashem saw that Leah was senuah (literally, “hated”).” The commentaries have great difficulty in understanding that Yaakov really hated Leah. Accordingly, the Ramban explains that when one has two wives, the one he loves less is called senuah—he does not hate her, but he loves her less than his favorite. Therefore, says the Ramban, Yaakov did not hate Leah; rather, his love for her was lacking. And therefore we can understand that the word sinah does not necessarily imply an active hatred; rather, it can indicate a lack of sufficient care and love. Thus, the sinas chinam described in Yoma need not have been a virulent hatred; it could also have included apathy and lack of concern for one’s fellow.

In a similar vein, Rav Yehonasan Eibschutz, ztz”l, writes that the sinas chinam described in the Gemara refers not to active hatred, but to disinterest in preventing others from slipping into heretical views. He notes that many heretical sects had grown in that period, because people were not willing to rebuke them. He exclaims, “Do you have a greater hater than this: one who sees his friend drowning in a river [of sin] and does not protest?!” Based on this redefinition of sinah, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the gemara in Yoma. The sinas chinam referred to in Yoma involves not only active hatred; it also includes apathy toward the pain of one’s fellow, and a refusal to help him grow spiritually.

The fact that the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt means that these flaws are still very prevalent today, and they apply to many areas of our lives, whether it be in the realm of sharing another’s pain, trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves, or reaching out to the many people who are distant from Torah. This is a time of serious soul searching to assess our performance in these areas and strive to improve in some way.

May this be the last Tishah b’Av or mourning that we endure.

THE VALUE OF THE TABERNACLE - PEKUDEI

“These are the reckonings of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony, which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding. The labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar, son of Aaron the Kohen. Betzalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Yehudah, did everything that HaShem commanded Moshe.”

The Parsha begins with a brief description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the people who were involved in its construction and service. The Seforno writes that the Torah is teaching us a significant point with this introduction. The Mishkan and its accessories were never destroyed, captured or desecrated. In contrast, both the Temples were subject to desecration and destruction. The Seforno explains that the first two verses in the Parsha are giving four reasons behind the elevated nature of the Mishkan. The first is in the words; “‘the Tabernacle of Testimony”. This, the Seforno explains refers to the two Tablets that Moshe received on Mount Sinai. These are indicative of the incredible spirituality that dwelt in the Tabernacle. The verse continues; “which was reckoned at Moshe’s bidding.” Since Moshe arranged the building of the Mishkan, it benefitted from his personal majesty. The third aspect contributing to the holiness of the Mishkan was that, “the labor of the Levites was under the authority of Issamar”. Issamar was also a man of great stature. And finally, the second verse informs us that Betzalel, also a great man, with great lineage, built the Mishkan.

The Seforno then contrasts this with the people involved in the building of the Temples. The first Temple was arranged by the righteous Shlomo HaMelech, however, the workers were non-Jews from Tsur. Since the Temple was not built by righteous people, it was subject to corrosion and therefore needed to be maintained, unlike the Tabernacle. Moreover, because of its lower level of holiness it did ultimately fall into the hands of our enemies and was destroyed. The second Temple was of an even lower level of holiness; the Tablets were not there, and it was arranged by Koresh (Cyrus), the Persian King. Accordingly, it too fell foul of our enemies and was destroyed.

Three verses later, the Torah tells us the total value of all the jewelry that was given for the building of the Tabernacle. The Seforno on this verse, continuing in his theme from the earlier verses, notes that the total material value of the Tabernacle was far less than that of both Temples, both of which were incredibly beautiful and expensive buildings. And yet, unlike the Temples, the humble Tabernacle continually had the Divine Presence within it. The Seforno concludes that this teaches us that the holiness of a building is not defined by its material value and beauty, rather by the spiritual level of the people who were involved it its construction. In a similar vein, the explanation of the Seforno teaches us that the Torah outlook attributes true value towards physical objects or buildings in a very different way to that of the secular outlook. In the secular world, the external beauty or material value of the item define its ‘value’. In contrast, the Torah pays little heed to the external qualities rather the internal spirituality that was invested into the item determines its true value. Thus, the Tabernacle may have been far less physically impressive than the two Temples but its true value was far greater because of the intentions of the people who made it.

This concept is demonstrated by an interesting incident with regard to the Tabernacle that is described in Parshas Terumah and Vayakhel. Hashem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the people to bring the raw materials necessary in order to build the Mishkan. "This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper; and turquoise, purple and scarlet wool; linen and goat hair; red-dyed ram skins; tachash skins, acacia wood; oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense; shoham stones and stones for the settings, for the Ephod and Breastplate ." The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh zt"l points out that the order of the materials mentioned is difficult to understand; the shoham stones and the 'stones of the settings' are the most valuable of all the items in the list, therefore logically they should have been mentioned first. He offers an answer based on the Gemara that informs us how the people attained the shoham stones. The Gemara says that a great miracle occurred and shoham stones came down along with the manna. The Nesi’im (Princes) then donated these precious stones to the Mishkan.. One may think that the supernatural manner in which the stones came down would only add to their inherent material value. However, the Ohr HaChaim writes the exact opposite; since the stones came without any effort or financial loss, they are placed at the end of the list of items donated to the Mishkan. When the people gave all the other items, they were parting with their property and willingly undergoing financial loss for the sake of doing HaShem’s will. This places those items, including such mundane material as goat hair, on a higher level than the precious shoham stones who came through a miracle. This starkly demonstrates the Torah’s value system with regard to the physical world. External factors are completely subjugated to the internal – the intentions that went into the item determine its true value.

This concept has applications in Jewish law. The authorities discuss the status of an esrog that has been bruised by over-use. The Chasam Sofer zt”l rules that if the bruises came about because many people fulfilled the Mitzvo of shaking the four species with this esrog, then it is kosher. He writes further that the fact that the bruises came about through Mitzvos actually enhances its status, and constitutes a kind of hiddur (beautification) in and of itself. This Chasam Sofer teaches us a very telling lesson. When a person would see a beautiful, clean esrog that had never been used, and compares it to a bruised esrog that had been shaken by hundreds of people, he would consider the clean esrog to be of greater value. However, the Torah focuses far more on the internal value behind the esrog, than on its external beauty. In a similar vein, a man’s hat once became very dirty on Shabbos. He asked the Chazon Ish zt”l if he could clean it on Shabbos. The Chazon Ish answered that it was forbidden. The man argued that it is not Kavod Shabbos (the honor of Shabbos) to go around with a dirty hat. The Chazon Ish answered that since the hat is left dirty in honor of the sanctity of Shabbos, in this case, keeping it dirty constitutes honoring the Shabbos itself. Again, one may think that a dirty hat cheapens Shabbos due to its unkempt appearance, however, in truth the intentions that lay behind the dirt can turn this into a way of greatly honoring Shabbos!

We have seen how the Torah’s criterion for defining the true ‘value’ of the physical world is very different from that of the secular world. The effort, kavannah (intentions) and spiritual input into that item are the true determinants of its objective value, as opposed to its superficial appearance or monetary value. There is a very natural tendency for a person brought up in the Western world or with Western influences to focus on the externalities of the physical world, including the size of a house, the appearance of a car, etc. The sources above teach us that it is incumbent on each person to adjust his value system in line with the Torah outlook. .

GOING BEYOND THE LETTER OF THE LAW - THE THREE WEEKS

The Gemara tells us that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because people were makpid on each other and treated them according to the strict letter of the law[1]. This seems very difficult to understand - it would have seemed that the whole concept of going beyond the letter of the law is something of a stringency and that failing to follow it would not deserve such a strict punishment. Why were the Jewish people treated so harshly for being medakdek on each other?

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to identify the Torah source for going beyond the letter of the law. In Parshas Va'eschanan, the Torah states: “And you will do that which is right and good in the eyes of Hashem so that He will do good to you and you will come and inherit the land which Hashem promised to give to your forefathers[2].” This teaches us of the necessity to avoid being medakdek (exacting) in matters of law and to be mevater (forgiving) what is rightfully ours in certain situations. One example of this is; when a person finds a lost object that halachically he is allowed to keep, but he knows the identity of the original owner - Chazal tell us that even though it is technically permitted to keep the object, he should nonetheless give it back[3]. Another example is when a piece of property is for sale - the prospective buyers should give precedence to the person who lives next to that property because he stands to gain the most by buying this particular property[4]. In truth, however, there are numerous instances when one should go beyond the letter of the law - the Ramban writes that the Torah did not want to explicitly state them all, rather we should learn from this passuk that we must constantly strive to treat people in an understanding fashion and avoid always treating them according to the strict letter of the law[5].

It seems that failure to treat people ‘beyond the letter of the law’ reflects a deep flaw in a person’s attitude to Avodas Hashem. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains, (based on the Ramban on this passuk) that ‘v’asisa hayashar vehatov’ is the bein adam lechaveiro equivalent of ‘kedoshim tehyu’: The Ramban in Parshas Kedoshim explains that a person can keep all of the mitzvos and yet be a menuval b’reshus HaTorah.’ - this means that he is careful not to transgress any mitzvos but at the same time he has no interest in elevating himself in areas of reshus such as eating and sleeping. The underlying reason behind his lifestyle is that he believes that the Torah is true and therefore must be observed, but he does not subscribe to the true Torah outlook - he has no interest in elevating himself spiritually, rather his goals are very much ’this-worldly’, involving such aims as fulfilling his physical desires and attaining wealth. Because of his recognition of the truth of Torah, he will never deliberately commit aveiros, nevertheless he will show no interest in elevating himself in areas that he is not technically obligated to do so[6].

Similarly, in the realm of bein adam lechaveiro, a person may recognize the necessity of following the laws of the Torah, however he has no desire to integrate into himself the hashkafos behind them. Thus he will always adhere to the strict letter of the law but whenever he has the opportunity to make a financial gain in a technically permissible fashion he will not hesitate to do so. The Torah tells this person that he is making a serious hashkafic error by instructing him to “do what is right and good”, to act ‘beyond the letter of the law’, to treat people in a merciful fashion, and not be medakdek in every case. The Torah is instructing us that we should develop a genuine sense of ahavas Yisroel and thereby treat our fellow Jew in the same way that we would want them to treat us - to be forgiving and compassionate. Thus, for example, when someone has lost a valuable object, a Jew should not hesitate to return it even if he is not obligated to do so. Or, when a person is owed a large amount of money by a pauper, he should act with a degree of flexibility and compassion.

This helps understand why there was such a strict punishment when the Jews treated each other in a strict fashion - they missed the lesson of ‘hayashar b’hatov’, that it is not right to treat one’s fellow Jew in a harsh and unforgiving manner this does not adhere to the spirit of bein adam lechaverio that theTorah espouses.

The commentaries find another difficulty with the Gemara saying that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because the people were strict with each other. Other Gemaras give different reasons for the destructions, such as murder, idol worship, immorality and baseless hatred[7]. Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin answered this question when he was witness to the following incident. Someone had slandered his fellow and now came on Erev Yom Kippur to ask for forgiveness. The victim refused to forgive him, pointing to the halacho that one does not have to forgive slander. Rav Yitzchak asked him about the aforementioned contradiction in Gemaras. He explained that the Batei HaMikdash was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in the other Gemaras. However, he pointed out that Chazal tell us that when people treat each other beyond the letter of the law and are not makpid on every point, Hashem acts measure for measure and is forgiving for even the most serious sins. However, when Hashem saw that the people were treating each other in a strict fashion, He acted accordingly and chose not to be forgiving for their other sins. So too, Rav Yitzchak said to the unforgiving person, if you treat your fellow in such a medakdek way then you should expect that Hashem will treat you in the same way. The man heard the lesson and forgave the slanderer[8].
May we all be zocheh to treat each other how we would like to be tr
[1] Bava Metsia, 30b.
[2] Va’eschanan, 6:18.
[3] Bava Metsia, 30b.
[4] Bava Metsia, 108a. This is known as, ‘Din d’bar metsra.’
[5] Ramban, Va’eschanan, ibid.
[6] See my piece on Parsas Vayeira about how Lot epitomized this dichotomy.
[7] It is not clear which Beis HaMikdash the Gemara in Bava Metsia is referring to.
[8] Many other commentaries explain this Gemara in a similar vein to Rav Yitzchak, including the Maharal, Ben Yehoyada, and Chofetz Chaim.

THE THREE WEEKS

Chazal tell us with regard to any generation in which the Beis HaMikdosh was not rebuilt, it is viewed as if it was destroyed in that very generation[1]. Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l explained that this means that had the Beis HaMikdosh been extant in that generation, then it also would have been destroyed as a result of the people's actions. Accordingly, it is clear that the actions that caused the initial destructions are still very much relevant to the present generation.

The Gemara in Nedarim offers one explanation as to why the first Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. It tells us that after the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdosh and the galus (exile) that followed, the Chachamim and Neviim did not know what was the cause of such a terrible punishment, until Hashem himself told them that it was because “they left My Torah.[2]” Rav explains that this does not mean that they were not learning Torah, rather that they did not make Birchas HaTorah before they would start learning[3]. The commentaries find a number of difficulties with this Gemara[4]. Why were the people punished so severely for the relatively minor sin of not saying Birchas HaTorah? Moreover, this Gemara seems to contradict the Gemara in Yoma, which states that the first Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of murder, idol worship, and immorality[5].

The Maharal addresses these problems[6]. He writes that it is impossible to understand the Gemara literally, that they were not saying Birchas HaTorah. Rather the Gemara means that they did not say the bracha with the proper intentions. He explains that when a person says Birchas HaTorah, he should focus on his great love and gratitude towards Hashem for giving him the tremendous gift of the Torah. The chachamim of the generation did say the bracha and moreover, did not merely say it out of rote, however they did not focus sufficiently on their love of Hashem when saying it. He continues to explain how this subtle failing was the root cause of the terrible sins that led to the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh. If a person focuses sufficiently on Hashem in the process of his learning then he merits to have tremendous siyata dishmaya that makes it much easier for him to avoid sin, and even if he does falter, it enables him to do teshuva without great difficulty. Rav Hutner zt”l writes that this is what Chazal mean when they say that ‘the light of Torah returns a person to good’. However, if he does not connect to Hashem through his learning then he loses that special siyata dishmaya and if he falters he is far more likely to become trapped in a downward spiral of sin[7].

Based on this explanation we can resolve the contradiction between the Gemaras in Nedarim and Yoma. The Beis HaMikdosh was destroyed because of the terrible sins enumerated in Yoma. However, the failure to say Birchas HaTorah with the proper attitude was the root cause that enabled the deterioration of the Jewish people to the point where they were sinning so greatly. Because they did not connect to Hashem properly they lost siyata dishmaya and consequently fell prey to the powerful temptations of the yetser hara. The Maharal offers a fascinating and somewhat surprising explanation of the reasons why a person may fail to show the proper love of Hashem in his Birchas HaTorah. He argues that it is impossible to love two entities at the same time, and consequently focusing on love of one thing will reduce the focus of the love for something else. Based on this, he writes that there are two possible ‘loves’ that one can express when saying Birchas HaTorah, love of Hashem or love of the Torah, and that it is not possible to feel love for both at the same time! When a person says this bracha he is more likely to express his love for the Torah more than his love for Hashem! He warns that, “one must be very careful that he make the blessing on the Torah with all his heart and soul.[8]”

This explanation of the Maharal may seem to contradict the approach of Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l in Nefesh HaChaim. He emphasized that when one learns Torah they should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem, rather they should delve as deeply as possible into the Torah that they are learning. He argued that this approach is the optimal way through which a person can become close to G-d. The Maharal’s distinction between love of Hashem and love of Torah seems to clash with the Nefesh HaChaim’s emphasis on Torah as opposed to thoughts of Hashem. However, on deeper analysis it seems that there is no disagreement; the Maharal did not say that a person should focus on his love of G-d during his learning. Rather before he begins to learn and says Birchas HaTorah, then he should be careful not to lose focus of G-d. The Nefesh HaChaim himself makes a very similar point with regard to one’s attitude before learning. He writes, “whenever one prepared himself to learn, it is proper for him to spend, at least, a small amount of time, contemplating a pure fear of G-d with a pure heart[9].” He even argues that at times one should take a small break during his learning in order to rekindle his yiras Hashem[10].

Thus, it seems that there is agreement amongst these two Gedolim that before a person learns, he must be very careful not to lose sight of whose Torah he is learning. Whist, with regard to the actual time of learning, there is no reason to say that the Maharal will not agree with the Nefesh HaChaim’s approach that one should not be thinking lofty thoughts about Hashem.

The Three weeks is a time to reflect on the various causes of the Churban; a key area of avoda is to maintain a constant awareness of Hashem during one's fulfillment of Mitzvos and learning Torah. By doing so, the Maharal teaches us that each of us will have great siyata dishmaya in avoiding the others sins that caused the churban. May we all merit to see the rebuilding of the Beis HaMiikdosh speedily in our days.
[1] Yerushalmi, Yoma, Ch.1, Halacho 1.
[2] Yeremiyahu, 9:12.
[3] Nedarim, 81a.
[4] See Orach Chaim, Simun 47, with the commentaries of Bach and Taz, and Maharal, Hakdama to Tiferes Yisroel.
[5] Yoma, 9b.
[6] Hakadama to Tiferes Yisroel.
[7] Pachad Yitzchak, Shavuos, Maaamer 7, quoted by Rav Yehoshua Hartman Shlita, Hakdama to Tiferes Yisroel, Os 55.
[8] Netiv HaTorah, Perek 7.
[9] Nefesh HaChaim, Shaar 4, Perek 6.
[10] Ibid, Perek 7.