DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH

The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was totally insincere in his beliefs. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.

THE BATTLE OF CHANUKAH - CHANUKAH

On Chanukah we celebrate the momentous defeat of the Hashmonaim over the mighty Greek army and the subsequent miracle of the shemen that lasted eight days. The war with the Yavanim (Greeks) was far more than a standard military confrontation between two nations striving to attain power. This was the first ideological war in the history of mankind; it was a clash of two outlooks who could not peacefully co-exist. Initially, the Yavanim had no desire to harm the Jewish people, rather they hoped to influence them through their ‘enlightened’ ideology of Hellenism to leave Torah observance for what they perceived to be a superior way of life. However, once the majority of Jews resisted their attempts they became hostile and attempted to coerce the Jews to abandon the Torah. After the Hashmonaim successfully resisted the Greeks and forced them out of the land, Chazal decided to set up a permanent commemoration of this event through the festival of Chanukah. Thus every year we are reminded of the Judaic-Hellenistic conflict that took place so long ago. Why is it so important to remember such a distant event? In truth, it seems that the ideological battle of Chanukah remains highly significant to every Jew. Understanding this conflict on a deeper level can help us derive vital lessons that are relevant to our lives today.

In order to understand the relationship between Yavan and Klal Yisroel it is instructive to examine the Torah’s account of the forefathers of these great nations. In Parshas Noach the Torah tells us about the incident in which Noach’s son, Ham uncovered his drunken father’s nakedness. In response to this, Ham’s brothers, Shem and Yapheth covered their father and protected his dignity. Rashi quotes the Medrash that tells us that Shem initiated this meritorious deed and that Yapheth then joined him. Both were rewarded for their righteous actions but Shem received a far greater reward. His descendants, Klal Yisroel, were given the Mtizva of Tsitsit whilst those of Yapheth will be accorded a respectful burial. Shem’s descendants are rewarded with a new Mitzva, which offers an opportunity to grow in ruchnius whereas the reward of Yapheth will only benefit their bodies without their soul. Why did Shem’s extra zerizus in this incident earn him such a qualitatively superior reward to that of Yapheth? The commentaries explain that Shem was not merely more eager than Yapheth in covering their father, rather his kavanna in doing so was on a whole different level from that of Yapheth. Shem saw the uncovering of Noach in a spiritual sense and recognized that it was a Mitzva to save his father from such indignity. Yapheth, in contrast, looked at this incident with a more common sense approach that Noach was being physically degraded, and acted on this recognition to cover his father. He had a natural sense of indignation at the ugly nature of an uncovered human body. It was Shem’s higher motivation that spurred him to greater zerizus than Yapeth’s more logical approach. Accordingly, Shem received a great spiritual reward whereas Yapheth was merely awarded a dignified burial which only benefits his dead body.

Immediately after this incident Noach makes a seminal statement regarding the role of the two brothers in history. “Elokim will give beauty to Yapheth and he will dwell in the tents of Shem.” The commentaries explain that this means that Yapheth will be blessed with yofi, which refers to the most superficial kind of beauty, that which is only skin deep. in order for that beauty to be utilized in the correct way it must be placed in the ‘tents of Shem’ which means that it should be used to enhance spirituality. This is demonstrated by the Mishna in Megilla which learns out a very interesting halacho from this passuk. The Mishna tells us that a Sefer Torah can only be written in two languages, Hebrew and Greek. This is derived from how the Torah says that the beauty of Yapheth must dwell in the tents of Shem - the Gemara saw from this passuk that placing the yofi of Yavan within the Torah of Shem can produce a beautiful combination.

Why were Shem and Yapheth given these blessings in particular? It seems that Yapheth’s earlier actions in conjunction with Shem to cover their father earned him this blessing; he applied his logical indignation at a the ugliness of a person being physically exposed to join with his more spiritually motivated brother and as a result performed a great deed in saving his father’s embarrassment. From here Hashem blessed him that he would achieve great heights if he continued to direct his appreciation for the beauty of a covered body and logic towards achieving spirituality in conjunction with of Shem.

However, the blessing only applies when Yapheth strives to deepen his natural logic and appreciation of beauty with the depth of Shem, but if he rejects that depth then the result will be very different. Physical beauty without spiritual depth quickly degenerates into a base physicality in which superficiality rules. This was indeed the case with the Yavanim - they emphasized the natural beauty of man to the extent that they practiced gross acts of indecency and immorality.

Rav Chaim Friedlander zt”l describes another way in which Yavan failed to utilize Noach’s blessing that he place his wisdom in the tents of Shem. He explains that their chachma remained very superficial in that it had no influence on the inner greatness of its practitioners. He brings a story involving the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, in which he was caught committing an indecent act. His students asked him how he could perform an act that so blatantly contradicted his teachings. He answered, “at the time that I did what I did I was not Aristotle.” Rav Friedlander explains that Aristotle was saying that his teachings did not obligate him to apply them to his life. This is another example of how Yapheth without Shem constitutes a dangerously superficial way of life. In contrast the ‘Torah’ of Klal Yisroel obligates us to take a far deeper approach to wisdom and apply its external lessons to our penimius. A person who learns Torah and does not internalize it cannot be considered a true Torah scholar. The Maharal writes that these differences between Yavan and Yisroel led to the great antagonism between the two nations. Instead of appreciating the great depth that Torah had to offer them, the Yavanim reacted with great jealousy and made tremendous efforts to destroy this rival form of chachma.

Rav Zev Leff Shlita sees a fascinating allusion to Yavan’s failure to give depth to its physical beauty in the letters that make up it’s name. The yud, vav and final nun are all straight lines that have no thickness to them. This alludes to the superficiality that Yavan epitomizes.

We have seen that the battle of Chanukah was far more than a conflict between two warring nations. Rather it was a clash of two ideologies; the superficiality of Yavan against the spirituality of Yisroel. We were successful in that particular battle but it seems that the war continues to rage to this day. The Western world is greatly influenced by Greek thought, in particular the emphasis on physicality devoid of depth. One cannot walk in the street without being exposed to the Western obsession with base physicality.

This yetser hara of superficiality continues to pose a great threat to the spiritual integrity of Klal Yisroel. It is possible for a person to be completely Torah observant and yet be greatly influenced by superficial considerations in many aspects of his life. He may place greater importance to the clothing that people wear than the middos that they display. The type of yarmulke on one’s head or the length of one’s dress may merit a small amount of consideration, yet one must keep in perspective that it is the penimius of a person that is most important. A person can very easily wear the most ‘frum’ looking garb and as a result he will feel that he is succeeding in his Torah observance. Similarly, the size of a person’s home or beauty of his upholstery may take an oversized place in his hashkafos hachaim. In a similar vein, a person’s Avodas Hashem can be dominated by superficiality, for example, the way he appears to others when he davens being of more importance to what he is in his head. Furthermore, there is always the risk that the Torah that he learns can remain superficial, not influencing his internal middos.

Thus we see that the threat of Greek superficiality remains relevant to this very day. The story of Chanukah teaches us that we must remember that the Greek ideology of superficiality is a great threat to the integrity of Torah. May we all merit to achieve true depth in our Avodas Hashem.