In Parshas Vayechi, Yaakov Avinu elevates his two grandsons, Ephraim and Menashe, to the status of Shevatim (tribes). In the course of the process he bestowed on them a blessing that has become the standard blessing by which we bless our sons to this very day. “So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you shall Israel bless, saying; ‘May G-d make you like Ephraim and like Menashe.” The commentaries ask, why did Yaakov instruct the Jewish people to bless our sons to be like Ephraim and Menashe more than anyone else. This question is strengthened by the fact that we bless our daughters to be like the Imahos (Matriarchs). That being the case, it would seem most logical to bless our sons to be like the Avos (Patriarchs).
One of the answers given is that Ephraim and Menashe achieved more than their potential; up to this point, only the sons of Yaakov Avinu merited to be considered among the twelve Tribes. Ephraim and Menashe were not sons of Yaakov, and therefore were not destined to be one of the Tribes. However, because of their greatness , Yaakov elevated them to the status of Shevatim. In this way, they achieved the incredible accomplishment of reaching beyond their potential. Accordingly, we bless our children to emulate Ephraim and Menashe, in that we aspire for them to reach beyond their potential.
The Targum Yonasan writes that Yaakov was saying that one should bless their son to be like Ephraim and Menashe, at the bris mila in particular. It seems that this interpretation fits with the idea that we want our son to emulate Ephraim and Menashe in the area of becoming great. We see this in the prayer that we say at the bris; ‘may this kattan become a gadol’. This doesn’t mean that we want this small boy to grow up into a large man. Rather, ‘gadlus’ in this context refers to spiritual greatness. We bless our child to become truly great, as did Ephraim and Menashe.
This idea teaches a person that he should aspire to surpass his own potential, but it also educates a parent as to his aspirations for his children. He should not suffice in bringing up his child to be an ‘ordinary’ Jew, rather he should aim to facilitate that his child become ‘great’. Moreover, it is insufficient that a parent merely ‘want’ that his child become great, rather he should try to actively facilitate his child’s path to greatness in how he raises him. Rav Yaakov Kamentsky zt”l expresses this idea based on a lesson in Parshas Shemos. When Moshe Rabbeinu as a baby was picked out of the water by Basya, the daughter of Pharaoh, she tried to have the Egyptian women nurse him, but he refused to drink their milk. Rashi explains that this was because, in the future, Moshe “would speak with the shechina”.
Rashi’s explanation has an application in Jewish law. The Rema states that one should not feed a baby with milk from a non-Jewish woman, if possible. The Vilna Gaon comments that the source of the Rema is the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu would not drink from the milk of the Egyptian women. Rav Kamenetsky asks how we can apply Moshe’s case to that of every child. In the case of Moshe, the reason why he wouldn’t drink from their milk was because he would, in the future speak with the Divine Presence, however, that reason is inapplicable to everyone else. He answers, that we learn from here that we must bring up our children as if they could possibly reach the level where they will speak to the Divine Presence. Accordingly, we must raise them in such a way that is congruent with them becoming great people.
Rav Kamenetsky applies this explanation to how careful we should be to bring up our children in the most holy and pure fashion, free from negative influences. This is a most pertinent lesson in today’s environment. A parent may feel that there is little harm in exposing his child to all types of modern technology that infiltrates into every part of daily living. However, such exposure can very easily involve his child being exposed to influences and visions that are not conducive to a person achieving spiritual greatness. Thus, even if they don’t spiritually destroy a child (which they often do), then they will surely hinder him from achieving his true potential, and certainly from overtaking his potential as did Ephraim and Menashe.
We learn from Yaakov’s blessing to his grandsons, that every parent should aspire for his children to reach and even surpass their potential. This aspiration should manifest itself in actions as well as attitude. May we all merit to surpass our own potential and bring up children to exceed all our expectations.
Showing posts with label Yaakov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yaakov. Show all posts
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Sunday, December 18, 2011
SERVING MAN OR G-D - MIKEITZ
The parsha begins with Yosef’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams and his subsequent rise to power in Mitzrayim. On close analysis of the dialogue between Pharaoh and Yosef we can discern fundamental differences in their hashkafas hachaim. Pharaoh was an idol worshipper and in particular he, like all Mitzrim, worshipped the River Nile, their most vital source of sustenance. In describing his dream, Pharaoh says that he was “standing over the River. ” The simple understanding of this passuk is that it is telling us Pharaoh’s physical location with regard to the Nile. However, the Medrash says that it also teaches us about his attitude to his god - the passuk stresses that he was standing over the Nile in a position of superiority, this does not seem to be a respectful way in which to relate to ones god. It symbolizes that Pharaoh’s worship of the Nile was not for the benefit of the Nile, it was for his own gain - he needed the Nile so he appeased it with worship, but ultimately the Nile was serving him, not the other way around. The Mitzrim’s attitude towards their god is even more starkly demonstrated by the behavior of the Pharaoh that lived in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. He used to go out to the river in the early morning in order to fulfill his bodily functions in it , hardly a great show of respect for one’s god! Chazal go even further and say that he believed that he actually created the Nile ! These sources indicate that the Mitzrims’ avoda of their gods stemmed from a desire to get what they needed from them - the Nile was ultimately there to serve them.
Pharaoh’s attitude stands in stark contrast to Yosef Hatzadik. He demonstrates tremendous subservience to Hashem in his response to Pharaoh’s request to interpret the dreams. His first words to Pharaoh are, “this is beyond me, it is Hashem who will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare. ” Every year we read this passuk and give it little thought, but with some reflection we can begin to fathom how incredible Yosef’s words are; he has been imprisoned in a hell-hole for 12 years and is finally given a golden opportunity to attain freedom. If only he can appease Pharaoh he can have a new start in life. He knew that Pharaoh did not believe in the Jewish G-d, he believed that he himself was a god and that his arrogance was unmatched: What would a person say in such circumstances? Yosef would have been justified in thinking that now was not the right time to attribute everything to G-d and that he would surely be justified in selling himself and his talents as much as possible. Yet Yosef did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable display of subservience and bittul atsmo, which stands in stark contrast to the arrogance of Pharaoh with regard to his god. Yosef’s mida of subservience to G-d was inherited from Avraham Avinu. Whilst Pharaoh stood over his god, Hashem says to Avraham, “Go before me. ” The emphasis here is that Avraham placed himself under G-d, not standing over Him. This symbolizes that Avraham was not serving G-d because of a selfish desire to attain what he wanted, rather he nullified his own desires and only wanted to fulfill Ratson Hashem. Consequently, he followed Hashem’s instructions even when he did not understand them, to the extent that when he was commanded to kill his son, he did not hesitate to do so.
This dichotomy of hashkafos is also a strong feature of the clash between the world views of Klal Yisroel and the Greek Empire. The Greeks worshipped many gods but idol-worship was not the central focus of Greek ideology. They most emphasized the concept of the perfection of mankind - they believed in a man-centered universe in which the purpose of the gods was to serve the desires of man. Many Greeks, including Aristotle, propounded the belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe, a reflection of the superiority of mankind. They emphasized the beauty of the human body and the domination of human reason over any other form of wisdom. This philosophy stood at clear loggerheads with Torah - they saw Judaism as the antithesis of their cherished beliefs, because it above all stressed man’s subservience to G-d and his imperfection. This understanding helps us appreciate why they forbade the Jewish people from observing Bris Mila and learning Torah: Bris mila is a reflection of the belief that man’s physicality is not perfect and needs to be harnessed; The Greeks believed that man was created whole and cannot be improved - to cut away part of his body was in their eyes a highly destructive act. Talmud Torah involves man trying to train his mind to understand how G-d looks at the world and to learn to look at the world in the same way. The Greeks in contrast believed that man’s reason alone was the ultimate source of wisdom and that he should not subjugate it to anything else.
The battle of Chanukah was the clash between two ideologies - one placed G-d in the centre and the other put man there. Baruch Hashem we won that war but the same war is being fought again in this generation. The Western world is greatly influenced by the ‘Enlightenment’: In the 17th and 18th centuries there was a very strong reaction against the domination of Christianity; one of the main aspects of this revolution was a rejection of the concepts such as faith and belief which the Christians had distorted. The reaction was a rediscovery and glorification of Greek values, chief amongst them, the primacy of man and his ability to understand everything. The legacy of the Enlightenment today is the prevalent arrogance of man; this includes his belief in his ability to independently solve all the world’s problems; to heal all illnesses, cause world peace and so on. It also includes his rejection of anything that he does not understand or cannot see, including any metaphysical being. Consequently, Western man is pulled by a great wave of social pressure to reject anything ‘religious’ as outdated and primitive.
Even observant Jews are surrounded by the Western world and it’s power can effect us as well. Chanukah is a time when we need to ask ourselves some hard questions to discern where the Greek outlook has crept into our thoughts: When events around us do not seem to make sense we say, ’gum zu letova’ but deep down do we have doubts - feelings that this really does not make sense? When we learn about Torah concepts or halachos that do not make obvious sense do we accept that we cannot understand everything or do we on some level question the validity of such laws? Do we ever feel that we do not really need G-d to succeed in life? When Gedolim say and do things that we do not understand how do we react? All such questions focus on the same issue: Do we totally reject the Greek outlook, the arrogance of man and his wisdom and do we accept the subservience of man to G-d? Avraham Avinu went before G-d, Yosef Hatzadik attributed all his talents to G-d. Chanukah teaches us that this is the only way for a Jew to live and prosper.
Pharaoh’s attitude stands in stark contrast to Yosef Hatzadik. He demonstrates tremendous subservience to Hashem in his response to Pharaoh’s request to interpret the dreams. His first words to Pharaoh are, “this is beyond me, it is Hashem who will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare. ” Every year we read this passuk and give it little thought, but with some reflection we can begin to fathom how incredible Yosef’s words are; he has been imprisoned in a hell-hole for 12 years and is finally given a golden opportunity to attain freedom. If only he can appease Pharaoh he can have a new start in life. He knew that Pharaoh did not believe in the Jewish G-d, he believed that he himself was a god and that his arrogance was unmatched: What would a person say in such circumstances? Yosef would have been justified in thinking that now was not the right time to attribute everything to G-d and that he would surely be justified in selling himself and his talents as much as possible. Yet Yosef did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable display of subservience and bittul atsmo, which stands in stark contrast to the arrogance of Pharaoh with regard to his god. Yosef’s mida of subservience to G-d was inherited from Avraham Avinu. Whilst Pharaoh stood over his god, Hashem says to Avraham, “Go before me. ” The emphasis here is that Avraham placed himself under G-d, not standing over Him. This symbolizes that Avraham was not serving G-d because of a selfish desire to attain what he wanted, rather he nullified his own desires and only wanted to fulfill Ratson Hashem. Consequently, he followed Hashem’s instructions even when he did not understand them, to the extent that when he was commanded to kill his son, he did not hesitate to do so.
This dichotomy of hashkafos is also a strong feature of the clash between the world views of Klal Yisroel and the Greek Empire. The Greeks worshipped many gods but idol-worship was not the central focus of Greek ideology. They most emphasized the concept of the perfection of mankind - they believed in a man-centered universe in which the purpose of the gods was to serve the desires of man. Many Greeks, including Aristotle, propounded the belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe, a reflection of the superiority of mankind. They emphasized the beauty of the human body and the domination of human reason over any other form of wisdom. This philosophy stood at clear loggerheads with Torah - they saw Judaism as the antithesis of their cherished beliefs, because it above all stressed man’s subservience to G-d and his imperfection. This understanding helps us appreciate why they forbade the Jewish people from observing Bris Mila and learning Torah: Bris mila is a reflection of the belief that man’s physicality is not perfect and needs to be harnessed; The Greeks believed that man was created whole and cannot be improved - to cut away part of his body was in their eyes a highly destructive act. Talmud Torah involves man trying to train his mind to understand how G-d looks at the world and to learn to look at the world in the same way. The Greeks in contrast believed that man’s reason alone was the ultimate source of wisdom and that he should not subjugate it to anything else.
The battle of Chanukah was the clash between two ideologies - one placed G-d in the centre and the other put man there. Baruch Hashem we won that war but the same war is being fought again in this generation. The Western world is greatly influenced by the ‘Enlightenment’: In the 17th and 18th centuries there was a very strong reaction against the domination of Christianity; one of the main aspects of this revolution was a rejection of the concepts such as faith and belief which the Christians had distorted. The reaction was a rediscovery and glorification of Greek values, chief amongst them, the primacy of man and his ability to understand everything. The legacy of the Enlightenment today is the prevalent arrogance of man; this includes his belief in his ability to independently solve all the world’s problems; to heal all illnesses, cause world peace and so on. It also includes his rejection of anything that he does not understand or cannot see, including any metaphysical being. Consequently, Western man is pulled by a great wave of social pressure to reject anything ‘religious’ as outdated and primitive.
Even observant Jews are surrounded by the Western world and it’s power can effect us as well. Chanukah is a time when we need to ask ourselves some hard questions to discern where the Greek outlook has crept into our thoughts: When events around us do not seem to make sense we say, ’gum zu letova’ but deep down do we have doubts - feelings that this really does not make sense? When we learn about Torah concepts or halachos that do not make obvious sense do we accept that we cannot understand everything or do we on some level question the validity of such laws? Do we ever feel that we do not really need G-d to succeed in life? When Gedolim say and do things that we do not understand how do we react? All such questions focus on the same issue: Do we totally reject the Greek outlook, the arrogance of man and his wisdom and do we accept the subservience of man to G-d? Avraham Avinu went before G-d, Yosef Hatzadik attributed all his talents to G-d. Chanukah teaches us that this is the only way for a Jew to live and prosper.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
EDUCATION THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT - VAYISHLACH
The Parsha ends with an account of the genealogy of Esav. In the midst of this we are told of the birth of Amalek, the progenitor of the nation that would constantly strive to destroy Klal Yisroel. “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz and Eliphaz gave birth to Amalek.. ” The Gemara in Sanhedrin informs us of the background to this terrible occurrence. “Timna was a Princess, but she wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov [to convert] but they would not accept her . She then became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said that it was better to be a maidservant to this nation rather than be a powerful woman in another nation. [As a result] Amalek, who would cause Yisroel great pain, was born from her. What is the reason [that this incident produced Amalek]? Because they [the Avos] should not have distanced her. ” Rashi explains that the Gemara means that they should have allowed her to convert .
It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature . Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him . It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.
Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’ ” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away .
We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked. ” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.
We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’ . By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.
We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.
It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature . Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him . It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.
Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’ ” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away .
We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked. ” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.
We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’ . By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.
We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.
THE THREAT OF ESAV - VAYISHLACH
The beginning of the Parsha is dominated by Yaakov’s famous encounter with Esav. On a simple level, the threat that Esav posed was a physical one – that he would destroy Yaakov’s family with his four hundred soldiers. However, the commentaries point out that there was a second, even more pernicious, threat that Esav posed.
The Beis HaLevi discusses this at length. He begins with a novel explanation of Yaakov’s prayer to HaShem before the encounter. “Please save me from the hand of my brother, the hand of Esav.” Why did Yaakov use a repetitive language to describe Esav. He should have said, “save me from Esav”, or “save me from my brother”, what was the significance of both terms? The Beis HaLevi explains that Yaakov was fearful of two different dangers posed by Esav; one was that Esav would act with enmity towards Yaakov and thereby threaten his physical survival. The other danger was that Esav would now act with brotherliness towards Yaakov. Why would he be fearful of Esav’s friendliness? Yaakov did not want Esav to negatively influence Yaakov’s family by the two having friendly relations. Thus, Yaakov had a two-pronged fear – of the physical risk of meeting an antagonistic Esav, and the spiritual danger of encountering Esav as his ‘”brother”. In this vein, the Beis HaLevi explains another repetitive verse in the Parsha; “Yaakov was afraid and distressed…” What do the two similar expressions of fear refer to? The Beis HaLevi writes that Yaakov was afraid of the possibility that Esav may kill him, and was distressed about the risk that Esav would become close to him.
The Malbim continues this theme in his account of Yaakov’s battle with Esav’s Malach (Angel). He writes that Yaakov’s battle with the Malach (angel) was not primarily a physical one, rather it was fought on a spiritual plane that would have repercussions for the future of all of Yaakov’s descendants. In this battle, Yaakov was striving to free himself completely of physicality, and the taivas (desires) connected with it, so that he could totally connect with HaShem. The Malach was trying to prevent him from doing this, by causing him to be bound up in his physicality. He failed in this task, due to the fact that Yaakov had elevated himself to such a high spiritual level. However, the Malach was able to inflict some damage by striking Yaakov’s gid hanasheh . This, the Malbim explains, is because the gid hanasheh is the point of connection to physicality, and even Yaakov was unable to strip himself of that connection. This damage of the gid was the cause of the spiritual weakness in future generations of Jews who would leave Judaism.
We have seen that Esav’s threat to Yaakov was as much, if not more, on the spiritual level than the physical. However, thus far it would seem that Esav’s threat was that he would completely remove Yaakov and his descendants from any connection to G-d and the Torah. The Beis HaLevi brings a Medrash that shows that Esav’s threat was, in fact much more subtle: When the brothers finally met up, Esav’s heart softened towards Yaakov, and he offered for the two of them to travel together. The Medrash elaborates on Esav’s offer: “Esav said to him [Yaakov] that he should make a partnership with him [Esav] of the two worlds – Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba.” The Beis HaLevi explains that Esav was suggesting that they join together by both of them compromising somewhat on their lifestyles. Esav was prepared to accept upon himself the foundations of Torah, and in return Yaakov should give up a little bit of his pure focus on spirituality, and be more involved in this worldly activities for their own sake. Thus, Esav did not necessarily desire to totally uproot Yaakov from Torah, rather, just to dilute his pure devotion to Avodas HaShem.
We see in Yaakov’s earlier words to Esav that he also recognized the more subtle, spiritual threat posed by Esav. He famously tells Esav, “I lived with Lavan, the evil one, and I kept the 613 Mitzvos, and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l points out that the last part of Yaakov’s message, that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways, seems superfluous. Once Yaakov has said that he kept the Mitzvos, it should be unnecessary to say that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways – if he kept the Mitzvos, surely he didn’t learn from Lavan’s evil ways?! The answer is that it is possible to keep the Mitzvos, and yet be influenced by someone like Lavan; a person can ‘keep’ all the Mitzvos and yet have values that are not based on the Torah, rather on those of the outside world. Accordingly, Yaakov was telling Esav that Lavan was completely unable to dilute Yaakov’s Avodas HaShem. So too, Yaakov alluded to Esav that he would also be unable to influence Yaakov.
We learn from Yaakov’s momentous encounter with Esav that the spiritual threat posed by Esav was not limited to destroying Yaakov physically, or to fully diverting him and his descendants away from the Torah. Rather, Esav offered to merely dilute Yaakov’s pure Avodas HaShem with external values. Yaakov’s firm refusal of this offer teaches us that just as one must strive to observe all the Mitzvos, so too he must strive to espouse values that are totally concurrent with Torah do not derive from external influences. This lesson is extremely pertinent today, when the myriad influences of the Western world threaten to greatly affect the outlook and observance of Jews everywhere. For one person, it may mean that whilst he strongly identifies as a Jew, his observance is greatly compromised by the need s to be involved in the secular world, such as the necessity of working on Shabbos or eating in non-kosher establishments. For another, he may consider himself something of a ‘Shabbos Jew’ – someone who keeps Shabbos and some other Mitzvos, but when he is in the workplace, or striving to make money, Torah values take a poor second place to the desire to succeed in his business. For another, the influences may be even more subtle, and he may strive to keep all the Mitzvos, but his true desires are more in line with those of the Western world than those of the Torah. Whatever level we are on, may we all merit to emulate Yaakov Avinu by not learning from Esav’s evil ways.
The Beis HaLevi discusses this at length. He begins with a novel explanation of Yaakov’s prayer to HaShem before the encounter. “Please save me from the hand of my brother, the hand of Esav.” Why did Yaakov use a repetitive language to describe Esav. He should have said, “save me from Esav”, or “save me from my brother”, what was the significance of both terms? The Beis HaLevi explains that Yaakov was fearful of two different dangers posed by Esav; one was that Esav would act with enmity towards Yaakov and thereby threaten his physical survival. The other danger was that Esav would now act with brotherliness towards Yaakov. Why would he be fearful of Esav’s friendliness? Yaakov did not want Esav to negatively influence Yaakov’s family by the two having friendly relations. Thus, Yaakov had a two-pronged fear – of the physical risk of meeting an antagonistic Esav, and the spiritual danger of encountering Esav as his ‘”brother”. In this vein, the Beis HaLevi explains another repetitive verse in the Parsha; “Yaakov was afraid and distressed…” What do the two similar expressions of fear refer to? The Beis HaLevi writes that Yaakov was afraid of the possibility that Esav may kill him, and was distressed about the risk that Esav would become close to him.
The Malbim continues this theme in his account of Yaakov’s battle with Esav’s Malach (Angel). He writes that Yaakov’s battle with the Malach (angel) was not primarily a physical one, rather it was fought on a spiritual plane that would have repercussions for the future of all of Yaakov’s descendants. In this battle, Yaakov was striving to free himself completely of physicality, and the taivas (desires) connected with it, so that he could totally connect with HaShem. The Malach was trying to prevent him from doing this, by causing him to be bound up in his physicality. He failed in this task, due to the fact that Yaakov had elevated himself to such a high spiritual level. However, the Malach was able to inflict some damage by striking Yaakov’s gid hanasheh . This, the Malbim explains, is because the gid hanasheh is the point of connection to physicality, and even Yaakov was unable to strip himself of that connection. This damage of the gid was the cause of the spiritual weakness in future generations of Jews who would leave Judaism.
We have seen that Esav’s threat to Yaakov was as much, if not more, on the spiritual level than the physical. However, thus far it would seem that Esav’s threat was that he would completely remove Yaakov and his descendants from any connection to G-d and the Torah. The Beis HaLevi brings a Medrash that shows that Esav’s threat was, in fact much more subtle: When the brothers finally met up, Esav’s heart softened towards Yaakov, and he offered for the two of them to travel together. The Medrash elaborates on Esav’s offer: “Esav said to him [Yaakov] that he should make a partnership with him [Esav] of the two worlds – Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba.” The Beis HaLevi explains that Esav was suggesting that they join together by both of them compromising somewhat on their lifestyles. Esav was prepared to accept upon himself the foundations of Torah, and in return Yaakov should give up a little bit of his pure focus on spirituality, and be more involved in this worldly activities for their own sake. Thus, Esav did not necessarily desire to totally uproot Yaakov from Torah, rather, just to dilute his pure devotion to Avodas HaShem.
We see in Yaakov’s earlier words to Esav that he also recognized the more subtle, spiritual threat posed by Esav. He famously tells Esav, “I lived with Lavan, the evil one, and I kept the 613 Mitzvos, and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l points out that the last part of Yaakov’s message, that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways, seems superfluous. Once Yaakov has said that he kept the Mitzvos, it should be unnecessary to say that he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways – if he kept the Mitzvos, surely he didn’t learn from Lavan’s evil ways?! The answer is that it is possible to keep the Mitzvos, and yet be influenced by someone like Lavan; a person can ‘keep’ all the Mitzvos and yet have values that are not based on the Torah, rather on those of the outside world. Accordingly, Yaakov was telling Esav that Lavan was completely unable to dilute Yaakov’s Avodas HaShem. So too, Yaakov alluded to Esav that he would also be unable to influence Yaakov.
We learn from Yaakov’s momentous encounter with Esav that the spiritual threat posed by Esav was not limited to destroying Yaakov physically, or to fully diverting him and his descendants away from the Torah. Rather, Esav offered to merely dilute Yaakov’s pure Avodas HaShem with external values. Yaakov’s firm refusal of this offer teaches us that just as one must strive to observe all the Mitzvos, so too he must strive to espouse values that are totally concurrent with Torah do not derive from external influences. This lesson is extremely pertinent today, when the myriad influences of the Western world threaten to greatly affect the outlook and observance of Jews everywhere. For one person, it may mean that whilst he strongly identifies as a Jew, his observance is greatly compromised by the need s to be involved in the secular world, such as the necessity of working on Shabbos or eating in non-kosher establishments. For another, he may consider himself something of a ‘Shabbos Jew’ – someone who keeps Shabbos and some other Mitzvos, but when he is in the workplace, or striving to make money, Torah values take a poor second place to the desire to succeed in his business. For another, the influences may be even more subtle, and he may strive to keep all the Mitzvos, but his true desires are more in line with those of the Western world than those of the Torah. Whatever level we are on, may we all merit to emulate Yaakov Avinu by not learning from Esav’s evil ways.
USING THE YETSER HARA FOR THE GOOD - VAYISHLACH
Upon his return to Eretz Yisroel, Yaakov Avinu sends a peace-making message to his hostile brother, Esav. He begins the message saying, “I lived with Lavan and have lingered here until now. ” Chazal elaborate on Yaakov’s words, “I lived with Lavan and nevertheless I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” The commentaries ask, everything else that Yaakov says to Esav is very conciliatory, but this message seems quite antagonistic - how does it fit in with everything else that Yaakov said? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l answers by interpreting the words of Chazal in a novel fashion; when Yaakov said that he kept the mitzvos but did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways he was criticizing himself. He argued that Esav had nothing to fear from him because, although he had kept mitzvos, he did not keep them with the same zrizus with which Lavan performed his evil acts. When he said that he did not learn from Lavan’s ways, he meant that he did not push himself in his maasim tovim to the same degree that Lavan did in his maasim raaim .
We learn from here that our performance of good deeds is judged in comparison to that of reshaim in committing their aveiros. There is a big kitrug on us if they go about their evil with more zest than we show in doing good. This concept can help explain another difficult Chazal. When Bilaam Harasha set off to curse the Jewish people the Torah tells us that he got up (vayakam) early in the morning. The Medrash Tanchuma says that on seeing this, Hashem exclaimed, “Rasha! Avraham their father already superseded you’ as it says [in the story of the Akeida], “Vayashkem baboker. ” The words ‘vayakam’ and ‘vayashkem’ both mean getting up from sleep, however ‘vayashkem’ implies getting up even earlier than ‘vayakam’, thus Hashem was telling Bilaam that Avraham arose earlier in the morning on the way to the Akeida than Bilaam did on the way to cursing the Jewish people. What is the significance of this Medrash? Rav Chanoch Harris Shlita explains that Bilaam was trying to portray the Jewish people in a negative light by showing that he would act with greater eagerness in his evil than they did in their Avodas Hashem. However, Hashem told him that the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, already demonstrated greater eagerness in doing ratson Hashem than Bilaam did in contradicting it. Consequently, Avraham’s descendants inherited his characteristic of zrizus and possessed enough merit to withstand’s Bilaam’s kitrug.
In the Shema, we say that we must love Hashem with all our hearts . The Gemara darshans from this passuk that we should love Hashem with both our yetsers - our yetser hatov and our yetser hara . One way of utilizing the power of the yetser hara is to observe our zrizus in following its temptations and try to apply that to our yetser hatov. The following true story is an excellent example of the power of the yetser hara. A number of American yeshiva bochrim studying in Eretz Yisroel missed the good food that they enjoyed in America. So they gave $50 each to one bochur and sent him back to America to buy a really good meal from one of the most expensive restaurants there and to come back immediately with the food ! Their love for good food caused them to go to remarkable lengths in order to fulfill their desires. By observing this we can perhaps tap into this drive and transfer it to the realm of ruchnius.
The same applies with regard to people who devote untold hours to try to satisfy their desire for money and honor. People will often endure sleepless nights in order to meet their deadlines - what about doing the same to meet the deadline of learning that we set for ourselves? We too can look into our own lives and find areas in which we feel more excitement and zeal than in Avodas Hashem, whether it be food, work, sport, or something else. We need to try to internalize what we already know - that shemiras hamitzvos provides far more satisfaction than anything else - then we can begin to ‘learn from the evil ways of Lavan and his ilk.’
We learn from here that our performance of good deeds is judged in comparison to that of reshaim in committing their aveiros. There is a big kitrug on us if they go about their evil with more zest than we show in doing good. This concept can help explain another difficult Chazal. When Bilaam Harasha set off to curse the Jewish people the Torah tells us that he got up (vayakam) early in the morning. The Medrash Tanchuma says that on seeing this, Hashem exclaimed, “Rasha! Avraham their father already superseded you’ as it says [in the story of the Akeida], “Vayashkem baboker. ” The words ‘vayakam’ and ‘vayashkem’ both mean getting up from sleep, however ‘vayashkem’ implies getting up even earlier than ‘vayakam’, thus Hashem was telling Bilaam that Avraham arose earlier in the morning on the way to the Akeida than Bilaam did on the way to cursing the Jewish people. What is the significance of this Medrash? Rav Chanoch Harris Shlita explains that Bilaam was trying to portray the Jewish people in a negative light by showing that he would act with greater eagerness in his evil than they did in their Avodas Hashem. However, Hashem told him that the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, already demonstrated greater eagerness in doing ratson Hashem than Bilaam did in contradicting it. Consequently, Avraham’s descendants inherited his characteristic of zrizus and possessed enough merit to withstand’s Bilaam’s kitrug.
In the Shema, we say that we must love Hashem with all our hearts . The Gemara darshans from this passuk that we should love Hashem with both our yetsers - our yetser hatov and our yetser hara . One way of utilizing the power of the yetser hara is to observe our zrizus in following its temptations and try to apply that to our yetser hatov. The following true story is an excellent example of the power of the yetser hara. A number of American yeshiva bochrim studying in Eretz Yisroel missed the good food that they enjoyed in America. So they gave $50 each to one bochur and sent him back to America to buy a really good meal from one of the most expensive restaurants there and to come back immediately with the food ! Their love for good food caused them to go to remarkable lengths in order to fulfill their desires. By observing this we can perhaps tap into this drive and transfer it to the realm of ruchnius.
The same applies with regard to people who devote untold hours to try to satisfy their desire for money and honor. People will often endure sleepless nights in order to meet their deadlines - what about doing the same to meet the deadline of learning that we set for ourselves? We too can look into our own lives and find areas in which we feel more excitement and zeal than in Avodas Hashem, whether it be food, work, sport, or something else. We need to try to internalize what we already know - that shemiras hamitzvos provides far more satisfaction than anything else - then we can begin to ‘learn from the evil ways of Lavan and his ilk.’
Monday, November 14, 2011
THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL - CHAYEI SARAH
After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction ! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.
We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.
The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!
We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.
Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.
What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.
The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.
We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.
The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!
We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.
Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.
What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.
The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
YOSEF’S PROOF - VAYIGASH
“They went up from Egypt and came to the land of Canaan to Yaakov their father. And they told him, saying, ‘Yosef is still alive’ and that he is ruler over all the land of Egypt; but his heart rejected it for he did not believe them.” However, when they related to him all the words that Yosef had spoken to them, and he saw the wagons that Yosef had sent to transport him, then the spirit of their father, Yaakov, was lifted.”
When the brothers returned from their momentous reunion with Yosef, they told Yaakov Avinu the astounding news that his beloved son was still alive. However he was not convinced by all their efforts to persuade him and he only accepted the news when they showed him the wagons that Yosef had sent. What was so special about the wagons? Rashi quotes the Medrash Tanchuma that explains that the wagons were a simun of the Mitzva of Egla Arufah which was the final thing that Yaakov and taught Yosef. This simun finally convinced Yaakov that his son was really alive. The Darchei Mussar asks that Yosef could surely have given any number or proofs that he was not an impostor. Why did he choose to give this particular simun? Furthermore, why did this evidence supersede everything that the brothers could say to prove that this was really Yosef?
The Darchei Mussar answers with a fascinating story involving the Vilna Gaon zt”l. There was a woman whose husband had been lost for many years and she was in the status of aguna. Suddenly, a man returned claiming that he was the missing husband. He gave many simunim that seemed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was indeed her husband, however, she remained uncertain of his true identity. Unsure what to do, the people involved came to the Vilan Gaon to ask him the course of action. He advised them to bring this man to the shul that the husband had attended, and test him by telling him to sit in his makom kavua. The man did not know where the makom kavua was and admitted that he was not this woman’s husband. Evidently, he had met the husband at some point and found out many private details about him as part of his plan. The Vilna Gaon explained that he realized that it was conceivable that this man had met the true husband and asked him questions about his life that enabled him to convincingly pose as the husband himself. However, if this man was really an impostor who was planning to commit such an evil act of deceit, then it was impossible that he would think to ask the true husband about a davar sheb’kedusha. It was inconceivable that such a rasha would have thoughts of kedusha because they were so distant from his headspace.
With this story, the Darchei Mussar explains why Yosef sent his father a simun of the last piece of Torah that they learnt together. If the Egyptian Viceroy were an impostor of Yosef he would never think to have asked Yosef a matter pertaining to ruchnius. Thus Yosef knew that only something relating to kedusha would convince his father that he was the same Yosef that left so many years earlier. The Darchei Mussar continues further that this simun also served as an excellent proof that Yosef had maintained his high spiritual standing because had he been negatively influenced in Mitzrayim he never would have thought to send a simun relating to Torah.
We learn from this explanation that the things that occupy a person’s thoughts and make up his speech give a very strong indication of his spiritual standing. A person who devotes much of his thinking and conversation to matters of ruchnius shows that his penimius is saturated with kedusha. For example, when the famed Rogatchover Gaon zt”l was about to undergo an operation, one observer noted that he suspected that when the surgeon would cut the Rogatchover’s skin, Torah would come pouring out! He was so full of Torah that it constituted his very essence.
In contrast, a person who devotes much of his conversation to intrinsically meaningless matters gives an indication that his penimius is not saturated with spirituality. A person may diligently learn Torah when he is in the Beis HaMedrash but he should also ask himself what he talks about in his ’spare time’? There is nothing necessarily wrong with discussing the news and business matters to a certain degree but they should surely not constitute the majority of one’s conversation. An important aspect of self-growth is to develop an appreciation of spiritual matters such as Torah and chesed to the extent that they dominate one's thinking and speech. A paradigm of such a level was the Chofetz Chaim zt“l. It is said that he was a very talkative person - what did he talk about? Torah and matters pertaining to the spiritual welfare of Klal Yisroel.
We learn from Yosef’s simunim that that which occupies a person’s minds is a great indication of where his holding - may we all merit to think and speak words of true spiritual depth.
Monday, November 30, 2009
USING THE YETSER HARA FOR THE GOOD - VAYISHLACH
Upon his return to Eretz Yisroel, Yaakov Avinu sends a peace-making message to his hostile brother, Esav. He begins the message saying, “I lived with Lavan and have lingered here until now.” Chazal elaborate on Yaakov’s words, “I lived with Lavan and nevertheless I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways.” The commentaries ask, everything else that Yaakov says to Esav is very conciliatory, but this message seems quite antagonistic - how does it fit in with everything else that Yaakov said? The Chofetz Chaim zt”l answers by interpreting the words of Chazal in a novel fashion; when Yaakov said that he kept the mitzvos but did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways he was criticizing himself. He argued that Esav had nothing to fear from him because, although he had kept mitzvos, he did not keep them with the same zrizus with which Lavan performed his evil acts. When he said that he did not learn from Lavan’s ways, he meant that he did not push himself in his maasim tovim to the same degree that Lavan did in his maasim raaim.
We learn from here that our performance of good deeds is judged in comparison to that of reshaim in committing their aveiros. There is a big kitrug on us if they go about their evil with more zest than we show in doing good. This concept can help explain another difficult Chazal. When Bilaam Harasha set off to curse the Jewish people the Torah tells us that he got up (vayakam) early in the morning. The Medrash Tanchuma says that on seeing this, Hashem exclaimed, “Rasha! Avraham their father already superseded you’ as it says [in the story of the Akeida], “Vayashkem baboker.” The words ‘vayakam’ and ‘vayashkem’ both mean getting up from sleep, however ‘vayashkem’ implies getting up even earlier than ‘vayakam’, thus Hashem was telling Bilaam that Avraham arose earlier in the morning on the way to the Akeida than Bilaam did on the way to cursing the Jewish people. What is the significance of this Medrash? Rav Chanoch Harris Shlita explains that Bilaam was trying to portray the Jewish people in a negative light by showing that he would act with greater eagerness in his evil than they did in their Avodas Hashem. However, Hashem told him that the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, already demonstrated greater eagerness in doing ratson Hashem than Bilaam did in contradicting it. Consequently, Avraham’s descendants inherited his characteristic of zrizus and possessed enough merit to withstand’s Bilaam’s kitrug.
In the Shema, we say that we must love Hashem with all our hearts. The Gemara darshans from this passuk that we should love Hashem with both our yetsers - our yetser hatov and our yetser hara. One way of utilizing the power of the yetser hara is to observe our zrizus in following its temptations and try to apply that to our yetser hatov. The following true story is an excellent example of the power of the yetser hara. A number of American yeshiva bochrim studying in Eretz Yisroel missed the good food that they enjoyed in America. So they gave $50 each to one bochur and sent him back to America to buy a really good meal from one of the most expensive restaurants there and to come back immediately with the food! Their love for good food caused them to go to remarkable lengths in order to fulfill their desires. By observing this we can perhaps tap into this drive and transfer it to the realm of ruchnius.
The same applies with regard to people who devote untold hours to try to satisfy their desire for money and honor. People will often endure sleepless nights in order to meet their deadlines - what about doing the same to meet the deadline of learning that we set for ourselves? We too can look into our own lives and find areas in which we feel more excitement and zeal than in Avodas Hashem, whether it be food, work, sport, or something else. We need to try to internalize what we already know - that shemiras hamitzvos provides far more satisfaction than anything else - then we can begin to ‘learn from the evil ways of Lavan and his ilk.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
