SERVING MAN OR G-D - MIKEITZ AND CHANUKAH

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, this 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.

MOURNING

One of the most difficult experiences that a person must undergo is the pain of the death of a loved one. Without guidance, one finds it very hard to find the correct approach to death. On one extreme, some people tend to try to escape the unpleasant feelings associated with death. One baal teshuva remembered the tragic death of a friend in his teens, and how his friends didn't know how to react. What did they do? They went out and got drunk as a way of escaping the unpleasantness of the situation. On occasion these feelings of the need to escape are even expressed at a shiva, where the visitors speak about mundane matters instead of talking about the deceased. On the other extreme, some people do not know how to recover from the pain of losing a loved one. They mourn excessively to the point where their lives are permanently harmed in some way.

In order to understand the Torah approach to death it is instructive to analyze some of the mitzvos that relate to mourning. The Torah prohibits certain acts of mourning: In parshas Kedoshim, it writes "You should not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am Hashem." In parshas Re'eh it tells us, "You are children of G-d, do not cut yourselves, nor tear out hair between your eyes over a death." These mitzvos teach that it is wrong to make a cut in one's body as a sign of mourning. In contrast, there is a positive commandemnt to tear one's clothing on the occasion of the death of a close relative (this is known as kriah). The Shulchan Aruch states, "Someone whose relative has died, (if it is a relative that one is required to mourn over), must tear [their garment] for them." It is striking how very similar actions of tearing are regarded so differently in Jewish law, to the extent that cutting one's flesh is forbidden and yet, tearing one's clothing is obligatory?

In order to understand the difference between cutting one's body and cutting one's clothing, it is necessary to analyze the first event in the Torah in which clothing plays a role - that of the chet (sin) of Adam Harishon The Torah tells us that before the chet, Adam and Chava did not wear any clothes, yet they felt no shame. However, after they ate from the fruit, they then realized that they were naked and they wore clothes to cover their shame. What change took place as a result of the sin? We know that man is comprised of two, contrasting features; a body and a soul. It seems that it was always understood that it was inappropriate for one's essence to be exposed, and therefore there was the necessity of some kind of 'covering' or clothing. Before the sin, Adam primarily identified himself as a soul, and his body took on the role of a kind of 'clothing' for the soul. Accordingly, there was no need for garments to act as clothing for the body, because the body was a kind of clothing in and of itself. However, after the sin, man's primary identity shifted to being that of a body. Once he viewed his body as being the ikar, he felt embarrassed when it was uncovered. Accordingly he needed clothing to cover himself.

With this insight into the relationship between body and soul, we can now gain a deeper understanding of the significance of tearing one's clothing or cutting one's body. Since the chet of Adam Harishon, man lives his life primarily focusing on himself as a body. Thus, when a person dies, one could mistakenly think that his whole being is gone forever. However, this is a grave mistake - he has only lost his body, but his soul remains extant. Accordingly, we tear our clothing to remind us in our time of grief, that our loved one's essence has not disappeared. Only his body, which was the clothing for his soul, has been lost, however his soul is intact. This explains why it is forbidden to make a cut in one's flesh. To do so indicates a belief that this person ceases to exist in all forms.

Through the Torah's directions of how to react to death, we learn the correct attitude towards such a significant event. The mitzvo of kriah teaches us that it is appropriate and proper to express feelings of loss at the death of a loved one. Escaping is an unhelpful and even damaging way to react to any painful event. We acknowledge the pain of losing someone close to us, and also share in an pain that they may experience as they leave their body. However, we do not view death as the end of a person's existence. We recognize that our loved one has moved on to a higher plain of existence. Making cuts in one's body symbolizes a belief that the deceased ceases to exist in any form. Accordingly, it is a totally inappropriate action.
May we all merit to understand the Torah approach to life and death.
　
　
　
　

YOSEF’S DREAMS - VAYEISHEV

The Parsha begins with an account of the deterioration of the relationship between Yosef and his brothers. Yosef’s two dreams played a very significant part in the increasing resentment of the brothers towards him. Close analysis of the dreams can provide us with more insight into how they caused such a rift amongst the brothers. The Beis HaLevi zt”l notes that the Torah tells us after the first dream that the brothers hated Yosef, whereas after the second dream it does not state that they hated him, rather that they were jealous of him. What is the reason for this difference?

The Beis HaLevi answers this by examining the dreams more carefully. In the first dream Yosef said that he and his brothers were in the field and that their sheaves stood up and bowed down to his sheave; he did not say that the brothers themselves bowed down to him. In contrast in the second dream he compared them to stars and related that they bowed down to him. In this dream the stars represented the brothers and that they themselves bowed directly to Yosef.

The Beis HaLevi explains that the two dreams represented two separate areas in which the brothers would become subservient and inferior to Yosef. The sheaves in the first dream represented Yosef’s future superiority over the brothers in the realm of success in Olam Hazeh. The bowing of their sheaves to his indicated that they would be dependent upon him for their physical sustenance. However, success in the physical realm does not make a person intrinsically superior to others, rather it means that he has more possessions. Accordingly, a wealthy person is not on a higher level than a pauper. Based on this, the Beis HaLevi explains that in the first dream which represented gashmius, the brothers themselves did not show their subservience to Yosef, rather their physical possessions are shown to be inferior to those of their brother. In contrast the second dream refers to Yosef’s future spiritual superiority over the brothers. Spiritual accomplishments do define the intrinsic greatness of a person. Accordingly, in the second dream, which represented ruchnius, the brothers’ themselves bowed to Yosef, indicating his inherent spiritual superiority over them.

With this understanding the Beis HaLevi answers the initial question of why after the first dream the brothers hated Yosef whereas following the second, they were jealous of him. Hatred results when one resents another person’s actions, whereas jealousy arises when one feels inferior to his fellow. The brothers hated Yosef after the first dream because of its implication that they would need him for their sustenance and he would physically rule over them. However they were not jealous of him because the prospect of his greater wealth did not make them feel inferior to him. They saw physical attainment as something external to a person and therefore not worthy of jealousy. In contrast they were jealous of him after the second dream because that implied that he would be spiritually superior to them and this could indeed arouse their jealousy.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the Beis HaLevi’s explanation. Firstly, we learn that the material possessions of a person are of no consequence with regard to his true greatness. A wealthy person may be deserving of respect, but one should not envy his wealth because it does not represent a barometer of his real value. Only the spiritual level of a person determines the true greatness of a person and only that is worthy of envy.

The Western world greatly emphasizes the importance of the material possessions of a person. One’s wealth is considered a very significant indication of his ‘greatness’ according to the Western definition. This attitude is so pervasive that even a Torah observant person may find it difficult not to be influenced by the great chashivus that is ascribed to wealth. One possible way of maintaining a correct perspective to material possessions is to look at what defines a great person in the Torah world. Wealth is of no significance in determining who is a ‘Gadol b’Yisroel’, indeed many Gedolim were extremely poor. What is important according to the Torah definition is the intrinsic spiritual greatness that a person attains. Reminding oneself of the qualities of our Gedolim can help us keep an accurate perspective of the insignificance of wealth to one’s true greatness.

A second related lesson from the Beis HaLevi is that a person should be careful not judge his own standing according to his material possessions. This is no easy task given the importance that is attributed to wealth in the Western world. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita gives an interesting example of this phenomenon. He quotes a Gadol who pointed out that many people in the Western world are very secretive about anything relating to their financial situation. Why is this the case? He suggests that when something is very important to a person he does not want to reveal it because it is part of his essence; thus if a person’s financial standing is very important to him he is likely to not want to make known aspects of his financial status such as his salary and the value of his home.

Another indication that a person that is very attached to his physical belongings is that he looks at them as part of his very being. For example, a person’s home may be so precious to him that any damage to it is equivalent in his eyes to damage to his own body. Another negative consequence of such an attitude is that a person who is so meshubad to gashmius can become a slave to it to the extent that it dictates his life in a damaging way. This was sadly evident in the years before the Holocaust in Germany. As the situation of the Jewish people in Germany deteriorated many Jews became increasingly aware of the need to escape. However, the wealthier Jews found it very difficult to leave their beautiful homes and possessions. Consequently far more poor Jews left Germany than their wealthy counterparts. Their attachment to their physical possessions proved fatally dangerous.

We learn from the dreams of Yosef that the only true measure of greatness is spiritual accomplishment and not material gain. May we all merit to recognize and achieve genuine greatness.
　

HALLEL AND HODAAH - CHANUKAH

Every Chanukah we celebrate the remarkable victory of the Jewish people over the mighty Greek army, and the subsequent miracle of the single flask of oil that lasted eight days. We celebrate these events by lighting a Menorah for eight days and by saying the 'Al HaNissim' prayer and Hallel. The Sifsei Chaim notes that there is a lack of clarity as to exactly which aspect of the Chanakah story is the most significant - that of the military victory or that of the oil:

On the one hand, the Al HaNissim tefilla mainly makes mention of the defeat of the Greeks; it stresses the miraculous nature in which Hashem enabled the Hasmoneans to emerge victorious. "And You in your great mercy, stood by them in their time of distress, You defended their cause, You judged their grievances, You avenged their vengeance. You delivered the mighty into the hands of the weak, the many into the hands of the few, the defiled people into the hands of the undefiled, the wicked into the hands of the righteous, and the insolent [sinners] into the hands of the students of Your torah..." A brief reference is made of the fact that the Hashmoneans kindled the lights in the Beis HaMikdosh and no mention at all is made of the actual miracle of the oil lasting eight days!

In contrast, the gemara places a much greater emphasis on the miracle of the oil than the military victory. The gemara asks, "What is Chanukah?" It answers with a braisa that stresses the miracle of the oil and only makes a fleeting reference to the battle. "On the 25th of Kislev, there are eight days of Chanukah on which one may not eulogize or fast. For when the Greeks entered the sanctuary, they defiled all the oils in the sanctuary and when the Kingdom of the Hasmonean became stronger and overcame them, they searched and could only find one flask of oil that had the seal of the Kohen Gadol. It only had [enough oil] to last for one day, but a miracle took place and they lit from it for eight days. The following year, they fixed these days and made them festive days of praise and thanks."

How can we understand the seeming contradiction as to what was the most important miracle in the Chanukah story? In order to answer this, it is necessary to develop our understanding of miracles. It seems that there are two factors that define the significance of a miracle. One is the necessity of the miracle - the greater the urgency of the situation that led to the miracle, the more important the miracle. For example, the miracle of the splitting of the sea is an extremely important miracle in that it saved the Jewish people from a seemingly desperate situation. However, there is another aspect that helps define the significance of a miracle - that is the extent to which the miracle clearly broke the regular laws of nature. We understand that all of nature is, in effect, 'miraculous', in that it is guided by Hashem's hand. 'Nature' is merely Hashem's mechanism for keeping the world going. It takes no effort for Hashem to break these laws of nature, however in His wisdom, He rarely chooses to do so. This is because open miracles take away the free will of a person in that they make it far it more difficult for him to justify his behavior when it is contrary to Hashem's will. Accordingly, on the rare occasions that He does break the laws of nature, there is a powerful effect on the people who witness the miracle, as there is n way for them to ignore the clear act of Divine Providence. Thus, the degree to which a miracle breaks the laws of nature also plays a key role in defining its significance.

It seems that the miracles of the military victory were more important than the miracle of the oil in one of these factors, and the miracle of the oil was more important in the other. In terms of necessity, the miraculous victory over the Greeks was more vital than that of the oil. The Greek decrees against Torah observance were making it impossible for Torah Judaism to continue. Thus, it was essential that the small Jewish army overcome the mighty Greeks. However, the miracles that enabled this victory to take place were not 'open' miracles, in that they did not overturn the regular laws of nature. Accordingly, it would be possible for an onlooker to ascribe the victory to the superior military prowess of the Hasmoneans or to sheer 'good luck'.

In contrast, the miracle of the oil was not of the greatest necessity - without it, the Jewish people would still be free of the Greek yoke. However, the miracle was remarkable in that it represented a clear overturning of the laws of nature. Such a miracle had a particularly powerful effect on the onlookers, in that it made clear Hashem's involvement in an unmistakable fashion.
With this understanding we can now answer why the gemara focuses on the miracle of the oil, whilst the Al HaNissim tefilla emphasizes the victory over the Greeks . When the gemara asked, "What is Chanukah", Rashi explains that it was asking, "for what miracle did they fix Chanukah [as a permanent festival]." The Sifsei Chaim explains that, initially there were numerous events in which miracles took place, and that each one was made into a kind of Yom Tov where it was forbidden to eulogize and fast However, these events became so abundant that the Rabbis cancelled all these days of celebration with two exceptions - Purim and Chanukah. The Sifsei Chaim explains that the miracles that occurred on these days were the ones that most effected the people. In this vein, he writes that the most outstanding miracle on Chanukah was that of the oil, not of the military victory. Thus, when the gemara asked for which miracle did they fix Chanukah, it was asking which miracle was so outstanding that the Rabbis did not annul the festival of Chanukah in the way that they did almost all of the other festivals. Accordingly, the gemara answered by focusing on the miracle of the oils because that was the miracle that broke the laws of nature and therefore had the greatest effect on the people.

However, when we come to show gratitude to Hashem for the miracles of Chanukah, our main focus is on the most vital miracles, which were those that enabled the Jews to defeat the Greeks. The Al HaNissim tefilla is a prayer of thanks, therefore, the main emphasis is on the military victory, because that is the aspect of the Chanukah story that was of the utmost necessity.

The Sifsei Chaim suggests that the two concepts of Hallel and Hodaah correspond to the two different miracles. The Hallel commemorates the miracle of the oil, whilst the hodaah relates to the military victory. It is possible to add that Hallel, (ie.praise) is more apt for the oil because it showed the most outright demonstration of Hashem's involvement with the Jewish people. Whereas, hodaah is more appropriate with regard to the military victory because our greatest sense of appreciation is for the redemption from the Greek exile.

There are numerous lessons that can be learned from the Sifsei Chaim's differentiation between the two types of miracles. One key lesson he mentions is that through contemplating the open miracle of the oil we can come to a great recognition that all the other events of Chanukah, and, by extension, the other events that happen in our lives, were not chance events, but all were guided by Hashem. This increased recognition of Hashem's hand should bring us to a greater appreciation of Him. Moreover, the Alter of Kelm notes that it is not enough to feel gratitude to Hashem, rather one must also use this gratitude to bring him to a greater sense of obligation in his Avodas Hashem.
　
　
　
　
　

STEPPING OUT OF OUR OWN WORLD - VAYEISHEV

Towards the end of the parsha, Yosef Hatzadik finds himself in a hopeless situation, having been in prison for ten years with no prospect of freedom. At that point occurs the incident of the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh’s ministers which begins the process of his meteoric rise to the position of Viceroy over the whole of Mitzrayim. There is one easily overlooked passuk which signals the beginning of the drastic upturn in Yosef’s fortunes. After the two ministers dreamt their respective dreams, they were very distressed because they did not know their meaning. At that point, Yosef sees their unhappy countenances; he asks, “Why do you appear downcast today?” This seemingly inconsequential question leads to the interpretation of the dreams which eventually results in Yosef’s liberation and incredible rise to power. Had Yosef never asked them why they were upset then they would probably never have confided in him and the golden opportunity for freedom would be lost. Yosef’s small act of thoughtfulness may not seem particularly noteworthy, however in truth it is quite remarkable considering his situation at that time: He had been living in appalling conditions for 10 years with no realistic hope of freedom. He had every right to be totally engrossed in his own situation and not notice the facial expressions of those around him. Moreover he was assigned to serve the two ministers who were very important people in Mitzrayim - they surely treated him as an inferior and gave him absolutely no attention. Yet he overcame all these factors and showed concern at their distressed appearance.

There is a great temptation to go through life so absorbed in our own lives that we do not recognize the needs of others. One of the keys to being a genuine baal chesed is to overcome our own self-absorption and notice the world around us. Sometimes, this even requires that we be mevater on our own needs for the sake of others. The most glaring example of this is found earlier in the parsha when Tamar is being taken to be burnt at the stake. She had every opportunity to save her life by revealing that the items in her possession were those of Yehuda. However she gave greater emphasis to the embarrassment that Yehuda would endure if she did so and therefore remained quiet. The Gemara learns from here that a person must give up his life before embarrassing someone else. Rabbeinu Yonah and Tosefos pasken this way lehalacho! This teaches us that there are occasions where we are obligated to give greater precedence to the feelings of others than even our own.

Gedolim epitomized the ability to negate one’s own needs and focus on the needs of others. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was being taken in a car by a bachur from his yeshiva. As Reb Moshe entered the car the bachur closed the door onto his fingers, yet he remained completely silent as if nothing had happened. A bewildered onlooker asked him why he did not cry out, he answered that the bachur would feel incredible embarrassment about having caused him pain and therefore Reb Moshe controlled himself and kept quiet. This is a well-known story but it deserves thought; Reb Moshe exemplified the ability to ignore his own feelings in order to spare the pain of his fellow Jew.

It is not only in times of pain that we should focus on others. Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and his son Rav Shneur zt”l went to Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer (Rav Aharon’s father-in-law) to say goodbye shortly before leaving Eretz Yisroel for Rav Shneur’s chasunah. Rav Isser Zalman stopped in the middle of the stairs on the way down rather than escorting them all the way to the street. They asked him about it and he explained, “Many of the people who live around here have grandchildren who were murdered by the Nazis, yemach shemam. How could I go down to the street and embrace my grandchild, flaunting my joy publicly, when these people can’t do the same?!”

These superhuman demonstrations of selflessness can be an inspiration to us. There are numerous examples where we can overcome our own self-absorption and show an awareness of the needs of those around us. When we are walking down the street we tend to be involved in our own thoughts but it is worthwhile to be aware of the people around us - there may be someone who is carrying a heavy load and would appreciate a helping hand. There are many occasions when we may not be experiencing great joy or pain but we may still tend to focus on our own dalet amos alone. For example, after hagbaah on Shabbos Shacharis the baal hagbaah is left sitting on a chair holding the Sefer Torah with no Chumash to read the Haftara. People are understandably focused on following the Haftara themselves, but it shows great thoughtfulness to hand him a Chumash so he too can follow along. In Torah Vodaas there were occasions where there were not enough chairs in the room so the bachurim had to bring chairs for themselves from another room. Rav Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz zt”l used to say that a boy who brought just one chair for himself was merely a shlepper, but a boy who brought two, one for himself and one for a friend, was a baal chesed.

There are numerous examples of small acts of thoughtfulness that can light up people’s lives. And we learn from Yosef that we can never be certain of the consequences of one act of chesed. The Alter of Slobodka zt”l says that we can also never know how much reward we receive for a small act of chesed. He discusses when Yaakov Avinu removes the stone off the mouth of the well so that everyone could drink the water. This small act of kindness would not seem to rank highly amongst the numerous mitzvos that Yaakov performed throughout his life. However, it is in fact the source of great merit for the Jewish people. Every year we recite a special prayer for rain - Tefillas Geshem. In this tefilla we mention some of the great acts of the Avos such as Yaakov’s overcoming of Esav’s malach. Yet we also mention Yaakov’s removal of the stone: “He [Yaakov] dedicated his heart and tolled a stone from the mouth of a well of water - for his sake do not hold back water.” Every act of chesed done with purity of heart is of immeasurable value. May we all learn from our Avos and be true givers.

CHANUKAH - PERFECTLY IMPERFECT

Chanukah is one of the most well-observed Jewish festivals. Everyone enjoys lighting pretty menorahs and eating lots of doughnuts! But underlying the memorable victory of how the Hasmoneans defeated the powerful Greek army lies a fundamental ideological battle, one that still rages today. These two ideologies represent opposing attitudes regarding the purpose of life. There is a medrash about a Roman leader who asks Rabbi Akiva whose creation is greater, that of Hashem or that of man. Rabbi Akiva surprisingly answers that man’s creation is greater. Why? Because Hashem creates inedible produce, such as a kernel of wheat which serves no benefit, whereas man takes this kernel and, through much toil, makes it into bread. The medrash tells us that Rabbi Akiva anticipated that the Roman expected him to say that Hashem’s creation was greater. He also knew what the Roman’s next question would be: if Hashem’s creation is greater, then why is it that after Hashem creates a human being, man proceeds to perform bris mila, cutting away part of the human body, thus implying that man is improving upon Hashem’s creation. Rabbi Akiva forestalled the question by stating that man’s creation is indeed greater. How can we understand this ma’amar Chazal? Surely Hashem’s creation is infinitely greater than that of man!

There was a deeper disagreement underlying this discussion. The Roman represented the Greco-Roman philosophy that emphasized the perfection of man. The Greeks idolized the human body and intellect. In their eyes, man was naturally perfect, and the Romans essentially represented a continuation of that ideology. Consequently, the Jewish practice of bris mila was particularly abhorrent to them; it represented taking something that was perfect and damaging it. Rabbi Akiva represented the Torah belief that Hashem deliberately created the world in an imperfect fashion so that man could perfect it himself. Of course Hashem is infinitely greater than mankind. He creates a coarse kernel of wheat so that man will go through the process of turning it into something greater. This, too, is the symbolism of bris mila: the idea that man is not born perfect. Man has much work to do, in particular to harness and control all his powerful drives and use them for growth or improvement.

Given all this, it should be of little surprise that one of the three mitzvos that the Greeks forbade the Jews from observing was bris mila. They sought to uproot the idea that man is not made perfect, that life is about improving oneself, striving to remove his negative traits and develop his positive attributes. However, the Jews fought this prohibition with all their might and eventually overcame the Greeks. So, too, we have outlived the Romans and all the philosophies that espouse the natural perfection of mankind. However, the battle continues. Today, we are surrounded by a secular society that places little or no emphasis on the concept of self-improvement. Instead, it focuses far more on self-gratification. We, however, know that the true satisfaction can only be derived from growing, from becoming a kinder, more spiritual person, a more thoughtful spouse, a more attentive parent, and, most importantly, a better eved Hashem.
　

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.