BRIS MILA - THE INDIVIDUAL'S COVENANT WITH HASHEM - LECH LECHA

The Parsha ends with the command for Avraham to perform bris mila. The Sefer Hachinuch notes a unique aspect of this mitzvo. There are a significant number of negative mitzvos for which transgression incurs the onesh (punishment) of kares. However, there are only two positive mitzvos for which the punishment is kares for one who fails to observe them; bris Mila and Korban Pesach (known as the Pascal lamb), the offering that is given in Temple times on the festival of Pesach. What is the significance of these two mitzvos that makes them unique in this aspect? In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to explain why negative mitzvos are more associated with kares than positive mitzvos. In a relationship between two people such as marriage, there are certain actions that can damage the relationship but not cause it to be completely destroyed. However, there are things that are so serious that they could indeed end the relationship. Similarly, committing a sin causes a breach in the relationship between a person and HaShem. The significance of the breach is determined by the seriousness of the sin. There are some sins which damage the relationship to such a degree that they cause irrevocable harm. These often incur the onesh of kares. In contrast, neglecting to perform a positive mitzvo can damage a relationship in that it prevents possible ways of increasing one's closeness to HaShem. However, it is very difficult to envisage how a lack of positive actions can irrevocably damage one's relationship with HaShem. This explains why failure to carry out most positive mitzvos does not incur kares. What makes bris mila and korban Pesach different? In order to begin a marriage a person must undertake a commitment to join in unity with his wife. Without such a commitment there is no genuine relationship - one can do all kinds of nice deeds but, in the Torah's eyes, they are not married until they perform the wedding ceremony prescribed by the Torah. In a similar way, a person needs to make a commitment to HaShem to undertake his relationship with HaShem. Without such a commitment he cannot begin to have a true relationship. Bris mila and korban Pesach are both types of covenants with HaShem, whereby a Jew commits to keeping the Torah. This connection is demonstrated by a verse in Yechezkel. The Prophet reminds the Jewish people of the time that they were helpless slaves in Egypt, and how HaShem brought them out. He does this through an analogy of a stranded baby being saved. The verse states "And I passed over you and I saw you covered in blood, and I said to you, "by your blood you shall live, by your blood you shall live." The Rabbis explain that these two mentions of blood, refer to the blood of bris mila and korban Pesach. Through the merit of these two mitzvos, the Jews were redeemed from slavery and brought to Sinai to receive the Torah. It seems that it is no coincidence that it was these two mitzvos that HaShem commanded the people to perform. They represented the people's willingness to commit to becoming the Am HaShem . Another connection between these two mitzvos is that there are two occasions when Eliyahu HaNavi visits the Jewish people; at a bris mila and on Seder night, the night when we remember the korban Pesach. This is because Eliyahu, exasperated at the Jewish people's continued sinning, declared that there was no hope for them. In response, HaShem ordered him to visit every bris mila which would show that, no matter how much the people may sin they still keep the covenant between them and HaShem. Similarly, Eliyahu comes at Seder night, to see the Jewish people celebrate their birth as a nation. The question remains, why is it necessary for there to be two mitzvos that involve the basic commitment to doing HaShem's will, why wouldn't it be sufficient for one mitzvo to fulfill this role? The answer is that the two mitzvos represent different aspects of a commitment. Bris mila was first commanded to a single individual, Avraham Avinu, to form his the covenant with HaShem. Thus, bris mila represents a person's commitment to his individual relationship with HaShem and all that entails. The korban Pesach represents our commitment to HaShem as part of the Jewish people. The laws of the korban Pesach emphasize the importance of fulfilling the mitzvo in groups, stressing the national aspect of the mitzvo. Accordingly, it is necessary to have two forms of covenants; one between the individual and HaShem, and one between a person as a member of the Jewish people, and HaShem. This understanding can help us explain an unusual law pertaining to the korban Pesach. It is forbidden for an uncircumcised Jew to participate in the korban Pesach. Why is this the case - the fact that a person does not keep one mitzvo, in no way exempts him from keeping the other mitzvos! The answer is that a person cannot genuinely commit to HaShem as part of a nation when has had made no such commitment on an individual basis. This teaches us an essential lesson. Many people identify strongly as Jews, and as part of the Jewish people. They commit to the state of Israel, and would willingly give up time and effort, and perhaps even risk their lives, for the Jewish people. They stand up to defend Israel when it comes under verbal attack from the numerous anti-Semitic forces in the world. However, on an individual basis, there is far less commitment. One may identify as being part of the Jewish nation, but he must also strive to commit to his individual relationship with HaShem. The exact way in which to apply this lesson varies according to each person, however, in a general sense, it seems that everyone should see in what way he can increase his personal commitment to his relationship with HaShem. It could involve speaking to HaShem , learning more of His Torah, striving to keep more aspects of Shabbos or kosher food, and so on. The main point is to try something. It is vital to remember that HaShem wants a relationship with each and every individual, in his own right. May we all merit to strengthen our covenant with Hashem.

FLEEING FROM DISPUTES - LECH LECHA

LECH LECHA – FLEEING FROM DISPUTES By Yehonasan Gefen After Avraham and his entourage returned from their ordeal in Egypt, a dispute developed between Avraham’s sheperds and those of his nephew, Lot. Chazal tell us that Lot’s shepherds were allowing their flocks to graze on other people’s lands whilst Avraham’s shepherds would rebuke them for their thievery. At this point, Avraham decided to make a drastic suggestion to Lot. “And Avraham said to Lot, ‘please let there be no strife between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are men who are brothers… Please separate from me: If to the left, then I will go to the right, and if to the right, then I will go to the left.” The commentaries discuss why Avraham decided to split up with Lot only at this point in time and not earlier; this issue is exacerbated by a comment of Rash immediately after Lot does indeed separate from Avraham. The Torah says that HaShem spoke to Avraham, “after Lot had parted from him.” That seems to be superfluous – Rashi explains that whilst Lot was dwelling with Avraham, Avraham could not experience Prophecy because Lot’s negative influence kept the Divine Presence away. It was only after Lot left, that HaShem spoke to Avraham again. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l derives two illuminating points from this passage. Firstly, it is clear that Avraham was spiritually hindered by his continued companionship with his nephew to such an extent that it prevented him from experiencing the ultimate experience of Prophecy. Yet Avraham continued to remain with Lot in his efforts to influence him in a positive manner. Rav Shmuelevitz derives from here how important it is to positively influence others even if there is some loss to oneself. However, he then points out that there was one thing that even Avraham could not tolerate – that was machlokes, and in order to diffuse the machlokes he felt it necessary to separate from his nephew. We learn from here how destructive machlokes is and how one must go to any ends to diffuse it in order to prevent disputes and the inevitable arguments, bitterness, hatred and lashon hara that results from them. Avraham felt it necessary to separate from Lot but the Medrash points out that he spoke in a very conciliatory way to Lot and assured him that their close bond remained – indeed later when Lot was kidnapped by the four Kings, Avraham risked his life to save him. Indeed, separating in this instance was the way to maintain the peace with Lot, not simply a way of avoiding communication with him. Sadly, machlokes remains a common plague in society, and even effects families, to the extent that the Chofetz Chaim Foundation dedicated hours of talks on disputes between families. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita told over numerous stories of how families were destroyed over issues that simply were not worthy of causing such pain. One of the main factors that prevent disputes from ending is the unwillingness of either protagonist to either make the first move in order to make peace, and on occasion, to even accept the efforts of the other protagonist when they do try to make peace. Such behavior ultimately only causes pain to the stubborn person themselves – the Chofetz Chaim zt”l tells the story of a machlokes which threatened to destroy one of the protagonist’s lives and result in his family being imprisoned. When his desperate wife implored him to give up this destructive machlokes, he replied that he was prepared for himself, his wife and his children to go to prison, as long as he would ‘win’ the machlokes! In most cases, there is no risk of a physical prison, but anyone involved in a machlokes between family or friends can testify that they are in a kind of emotional prison – unable to free themselves from constant negativity and hatred and constatntly anxious about the possibility of bumping into the other person. Surely it is better to be the bigger person and make peace even if one feels the other person was more at fault. And in truth, if a person is honest with themselves they will realize that they do bare some blame for the escalation of the machlokes. The great Rabbi, the Malbim made this point with regard a machlokes that he found himself embroiled in. His beleaguered students asked him how such a terrible dispute could take place, given the Torah’s words with regard to the machlokes between Korach and Moshe: The Torah tells us: “There will never be like Korach and his assembly.” The students understood that this means that there will never be such a bitter machlokes again in history. Accordingly, they could not understand how the Malbim could be embroiled in such a machlokes. He explained to them that the Torah’s words that there will never again be such a machlokes have a different meaning. The Torah is telling us that the machlokes of Korach against Moshe was the only one in history in which one side was totally in the wrong and one side was completely in the right. Korach and his associates were totally wrong in their arguments and were fully guilty for the development of the machlokes. Moshe, in contrast, acted in a completely correct and justified manner. When the Torah says that there will never be such a machlokes again, it is telling us that there will never be another machlokes in which one side is totally justified and the other is completely guilty. The Malbim, in his humility, was thus acknowledging that he had to assume some guilt for the machlokes he was involved in . The Malbim’s explanation teaches us that anyone involved in a machlokes is wrong to believe that he is totally in the right, because the Torah testifies that this cannot be the case. During the course of a person’s life, it is inevitable that he will come into some form of conflict with other people. When this happens, the person has a vital choice to make: He can validate his own behavior and stubbornly refuse to admit any failing; or he can swallow his pride, be the ‘bigger’ person, and initiate reconciliation. Of course there may be issues that need to be resolved through reasonable dialogue but once a person genuinely commits to making peace he will surely succeed. By taking the peacemaking approach, the person emulates Avraham Avinu who did what was necessary to make peace. However, when a person refuses to budge in such incidents, he only succeeds in prolonging and increasing the bitterness. May we all merit to emulate Avraham Avinu in making peace.

נח – בריחה מהמציאות או בניה מחודשת? / יהונתן גפן

"ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם וישת מן היין וישכר ויתגל בתוך אהלו" לאחר המבול, כאשר חזר נח לאדמתו, היה עליו להתמודד עם משימה קשה ביותר – שיקום העולם ובנייתו מחדש. מעשהו הראשון בתחום זה היה נטיעת כרם – מעשה אשר הסתכם בתוצאות חמורות. חז"ל רואים בהחלטתו של נח להתחיל בנטיעת כרם כהחלטה שגויה; אמנם בכוחו של יין לגרום לאדם לשמחה גדולה, ואף לסיע לו להרגיש קרוב יותר לבוראו, אולם היה עליו להתחיל בנטיעות אחרות, נחוצות ודחופות יותר לבנייתו ויישובו של העולם מחדש. הקושי בהבנת מקרה חמור זה, נעוץ בעובדה שנוח היה צדיק גדול, ואי אפשר ללמוד מעשה זה בהבנה שטחית. מפרשים רבים מנסים להסביר מה היה המניע של נח בנטיעת הכרם . הילקוט שמעוני אומר שכאשר נח שתה מהיין הוא חש שמחה עצומה . על בסיס דברים אלה, מסביר ר' מאיר רובמן זצ"ל, בספרו זכרון מאיר, שכאשר חזר נח אל הקרקע, הוא עמד מול הרס וחורבן שאין כדוגמתו. כל העולם בו הוא היה חי נהרס לחלוטין, וכל יצור חי שהיה – איננו. באופן טבעי תחושתו הייתה תחושת חורבן קשה, המראות הנוראים גרמו לו לרפיון ידיים וחוסר אונים. הוא ידע שתחושות כאלה אינן תורמות בכהוא זה להשפעת רוחניות על העולם הנבנה מחדש, באשר אין השכינה שרויה – אלא מתוך שמחה של קיום רצון ה'. לכן, הוא החליט להשתמש ביין, אשר בכוחו להשפיע שמחה בלב האדם, ובכך לגרום להשראת השכינה בעולם. הסבר זה מעמיד שאלה חדשה: אם אכן כוונתו הייתה טהורה - כיצד נבע מכך כזה קלקול? ר' שמחה וסרמן זצ"ל מסביר שהיו גם כוונות אחרות, טהורות פחות, אשר השפיעו על החלטתו של נח במה להתחיל בבנייתו את העולם. בעומדו מול ההרס העצום, חש נוח צורך לברוח מהמציאות הקשה אליה נקלע, לכן הוא נטע כרם, אשר יינו מאפשר בריחה מהכאב והקושי העצום אותו חש . בחירה זו נחשבת כישלון לאדם בשיעור קומתו של נח, ולכן היא הובילה לתוצאות מזיקות ביותר. חז"ל מעבירים ביקורת על נח, ואומרים כי כאשר אדם עומד מול עולם חרב והרוס – תפקידו הוא להתמקד ראשית בבנייה ושיקום, ולא בבריחה מהמציאות. הר' וסרמן מציין שחז"ל לא מציגים את מעשהו של נח כחטא חמור, אלא אומרים שהוא עסק ב"חול" (מלשון "ויחל"), ובכך חיסר בענייני קדושה. לפני שישים שנה בערך, עמדו רבים בפני ניסיון קשה ביותר. השואה זרעה הרס וחורבן, מליונים נהרגו, קהילות נעקרו, משפחות שלמות נכחדו, ואנשים נותרו ללא מכר ומודע. למול מצב נורא ואיום זה, ללא ספק הייתה קיימת נטיה בלב הניצולים לבריחה מהמציאות. אולם, היו גם היו כאלה אשר דווקא בנקודה זו מצאו בעצמם את הכוחות והיוזמה לבנייה מחודשת ושיקומו של העולם היהודי. אנשים גדולים, דוגמת הרב מפוניבז' זצ"ל והאדמו"ר מקלויזנבורג זצ"ל, איבדו את כל משפחתם בשואה, ועם כל זאת קמו הם, מתוך ההפכה והתגייסו למשימה האדירה של בנייה מחדש. ר' יששכר פרנד שליט"א מספר על ר' יוסף רוזנברג זצ"ל, אשר אף הוא הצליח ועמד בגבורה בפני הפיתוי לברוח מהמציאות וחלף זאת – פנה לבנייה מחודשת. הוא מצא את עצמו אז בארצות הברית, לאחר השואה. הוא הבחין כי ישנה מצוה אחת המוזנחת מאד – שעטנז. במו ידיו הוא הקים מעבדה לבניית שעטנז, ובמשך כמה עשורים הוא בדק משעטנז עשרות אלפי בגדים. לגביו היו שני חורבנות: חורבן אחד – השואה – חורבן פיזי, והשני – חורבן רוחני – אובדנה של מצוה אחת. ברוך ה' בדורנו איננו מתמודדים מול חורבן ברמה זו של המבול, או השואה. אולם, בכל זאת גם בדורנו אנו נאלצים לעמוד מול חורבנות במישורים שונים. ראשית, כולנו יודעים כי כלל ישראל בימים אלה הינו במצב של חורבן רוחני שלא היה כדוגמתו בכל ההיסטוריה של העם, אינספור נישואי תערובת נערכים מידי יום. ישנן הערכות כי בשישים השנים האחרונות אבדו ליהדות יותר יהודים מאשר אבדו בששת שנות השואה! חורבן זה הינו פחות גלוי לעין, ופחות מזעזע את האנושות ואת כלל ישראל מאשר השואה, אולם תוצאותיו – מי ישורנו. כל יהודי שומר תורה ומצוות אף אם אינו רוצה בכך, נאלץ בהזדמנות זו או אחרת להתרחק מעט מהאזור בו הוא גר, ולהגיע למקומות בהם נראים יהודים חילוניים. אז הוא מוכרח לעמוד פנים מול פנים מול המציאות הקשה כמות שהיא. ישנן אפשרויות רבות ומגוונות כיצד יכול כל אדם לעזור ולסייע ליהודים אלה לשוב אל בוראם, אולם החשוב ביותר הוא להחליט בכל לב לא להתעלם ממציאות קשה זו ולומר "שלום עליך נפשי". ובמישור הפרטי יותר, כל אחד מאיתנו מכיר אנשים המתמודדים בעצמם עם חורבנם הפרטי. ישנם אנשים שאינם יכולים להביא פרנסה למשפחתם, אנשים שסובלים מבעיות רפואיות מסובכות, בחורים ובחורות צעירים שאינם מצליחים למצוא את השידוך הראוי להם, גרושים וגרושות, אלמנים ואלמנות, החשים בדידות וחוסר אונים יום יום, שעה שעה. ולצערנו הרשימה יכולה להתארך ולהתארך. כאשר אנו פוגשים באנשים הנתונים במצבים אלה, אנו שוב עומדים מול השאלה – להתעלם, לברוח, או לבנות? הרב פריינד טוען, כי אין זה מספיק כלל ועיקר רק לרחם עליהם ולומר – 'נעבאך, מסכנים'. אנו מוכרחים לשאוף לעזור להם בכל דרך אפשרית. לדוגמא, אם נודע לנו שאדם איבד את מקור פרנסתו, ניתן להשתמש בקשרינו, ולנסות ולראות האם אפשר למצוא לאדם זה תעסוקה חלופית. או אם אנו מכירים אחד שעדיין לא מצא את השידוך שלו, אנו יכולים להשקיע מעט מזמננו וכוחנו ולחשוב האם אנו מכירים מישהו שיוכל להתאים. במשך החיים, רוב בני האדם נאלצים לעמוד בפני טרגדיות ואסונות קשים מכל סוג שהוא. מאורעות קשים אלה מעמידים כל אחד ואחד בפני משימת חיים ואתגר משמעותי, כמובן ישנה נטייה טבעית לרצות לברוח מהמציאות הקשה ו'לעצום עיניים' מול הכאב. אולם, הגדלות הינה להשקיע בזמנים אלה כל מאמץ על מנת לשקם, לבנות מחדש, להמשיך הלאה, ולהתקדם עוד ועוד. באחד משיעוריו המעוררים לפני יום כיפור, הציע הרב פריינד לתלמידים לשאול את עצמם ארבע שאלות יסודיות בקשר למצבם הרוחני. אחת מהן היתה השאלה אותה שאל רב החובל את יונה. כאשר התרגשה הסערה הגדולה ואיימה להטביע את האנייה על כל נוסעיה, מצא רב החובל את יונה בחדרו – ישן, והוא קרא אליו "למה תישן? קום, קרא לאלוקיך " רב החובל טען – כיצד יכול אתה לישון בכזה מצב? תעשה משהו! כך בדיוק, אומר הרב פריינד, עלינו לשאול את עצמנו, כיצד אנו מסוגלים לישון בזמן שמתרגשות עלינו צרות ומאורעות קשים כל כך? הלואי ונזכה להשקיע ולבנות עוד ועוד ולא חלילה להתעלם ולברוח מהמציאות גם כאשר היא כואבת ומעמידה את האדם בפני אתגרים ומשימות קשות.

SHEM AND EVER – THE MASTERS OF INSULATION - NOACH

At the end of Parshas Bereishis, the Torah writes that Noach found favor in the eyes of HaShem. In the beginning of the next Parsha, the Torah tells us of the offspring of Noach. The Medrash notes the juxtaposition between Noach’s finding favor with HaShem and the mention of his children. It explains that Noach’s special favor was in the merit of his sons. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l notes that this Medrash is difficult to understand; in all its discussion of Noach’s special treatment by HaShem, the Torah makes no emphasis of this being due to his sons’ greatness, rather Noach, through his own merit, was deserving of being saved from the Flood and of being the progenitor of mankind. Accordingly, why does the Medrash attribute Noach’s special favor to his sons? Rav Kamenetsky answers this by quoting another Medrash. That Medrash discusses Noach’s ability to protect himself and his family from the evil people that surrounded him. It gives an analogy of a flask of perfume that is sealed tight, which is placed in a cemetery yet despite its unpleasant surroundings it maintains its pleasant aroma. Rav Kamenetsky explains that Noach’s greatest accomplishment was his ability to protect himself and his family from the evil influences that encircled them on all sides in the same way that a sealed flask of perfume can maintain its pleasantness despite the great powers of impurity surrounding it. Therefore, when the Medrash says that Noach was saved in his sons’ merit it means that he was saved because he brought up his children in such a way that they were protected from the negative influences surrounding them. This idea is further brought out by a drush interpretation of a Gemara in Brachos. The Gemara states that even if a person has said the krias Shema in shul, he must say it again before he goes to sleep. The Shema epitomizes the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven (ol Malchus Shamayim). This Gemara alludes to the fact that even if a person accepted the yoke of Heaven in shul with the community he must do it again when he is at home without the spiritual support of the community. The Gemara is teaching us that it is insufficient for a person to maintain his spiritual level when he is surrounded by likeminded people who can help him. He must be strong enough to maintain this level even when he is alone, with no external support. Noach epitomized this exalted level, whereby he was able to maintain his righteousness even though he had no assistance from those around him. Noach’s son Shem, and his great-grandson, Ever, emulated Noach in this area, and taught it over to the individuals who came to study in their Yeshivas. With this understanding, a number of difficulties can be resolved. Firstly, when Yaakov Avinu leaves Eretz Yisroel to go to Lavan, he goes to the Yeshiva of Ever (Shem had already passed away by that time ) and learns there for fourteen years. Yaakov was sixty three years old at the time, and had spent his whole life learning from his great father, Yitzchak Avinu. Why was the Torah that he learnt from Yitzchak insufficient to prepare him for his time with Lavan? The answer is that up to this time in his life, Yaakov had grown up surrounded by tzaddikim and now that he was facing the challenge of living with people like Lavan he needed to learn other sugyas (topics), those related to dealing with tricksters, liars and enemies. The Torah of Yitzchak Avinu was not geared to such nisyonos (tests) because he too was protected from negative influences by his parents. Indeed, when Yishmael threatened to negatively influence him, Sarah threw him out of the home. In contrast Shem and Ever had grown up surrounded by evil; Shem, in the time of the Mabul (great flood), and Ever, in the time of the Tower of Bavel. Accordingly, the Torah of Shem and Ever addressed the kinds of challenges that Yaakov knew he would face during his time with Lavan. The teachings of Shem and Ever are also mentioned with regard to the Torah that Yaakov taught his son, Yosef. Rashi, based on the Medrash, says that one of the ways in which Yaakov seemed to give preferential treatment to Yosef was that, “everything he [Yaakov] learnt from Shem and Ever, he passed on to him [Yosef].” Why does the Medrash stress in particular that the Torah that Yaakov learnt from Shem and Ever; what about the Torah he learnt from Yitzchak? The answer is that Yaakov subconsciously knew that Yosef, of all the sons, was destined to live in exile away from G-d fearing people, and surrounded by negative influences. Therefore, he taught Yosef in particular amongst all the sons the Torah of Shem and Ever because he was in the greatest need of that Torah. The others brothers misread Yaakov’s intentions and believed that he was teaching Yosef more Torah than them, because only he would continue the line of transmission. However, in truth, Yaakov was only equipping Yosef with the tools that he needed to survive his own galus (exile). Indeed, when Yaakov is finally reunited with Yosef he exclaims, “Rav, od Yosef chai” – “it is great, Yosef is still alive”. The Medrash elaborates on what Yaakov meant by this – he was extolling Yosef’s great strength in withstanding many challenges and tests in Mitzrayim, and yet remaining steadfast in his righteousness. The reason Yosef was so successful in this area was because of the Torah of Shem and Ever that Yaakov taught him in his youth. We have seen Rav Kamenetky’s theme which teaches us that Noach’s great strength was his ability to protect himself and his family from external influences and how Shem and Ever passed on his teachings through the Torah that they taught in their Yeshivas. The only remaining question is what does it mean that they taught a different type of Torah? In what way was it different? There are two areas of Torah in which it seems that Shem and Ever taught a different type of Torah; halacha (Jewish law) and hashkafa (Jewish thought). In terms of halacha Rav Kamenetsky notes that The Chofetz Chaim wrote a separate work on the Jewish laws specifically geared for Jews who were serving in non-Jewish armies. Such people obviously faced many unusual and difficult challenges and needed guidance as to when they could apply various leniencies and to what extent. In a similar vein, nowadays, people can be exposed to environments that pose new questions; people who work in non-Jewish environments, or people who have secular families, face complicated questions that are not necessarily addressed in the standard halacha works. Obviously such delicate questions cannot be answered alone, rather one must ask a Rav who is familiar with these unusual situations. With regard to hashkafa, there are clearly different challenges that face people in varying situations. A person who finds himself surrounded by others who espouse very distinct lifestyles will need to study works of mussar and hashkafa that focus on staying strong in such circumstances. He may need a more constant strengthening in basics of Jewish thought in order to maintain the correct outlook when those around him may pressure him to act differently. We have seen the importance of the Torah of Shem and Ever to the development of our forefathers, and how it can apply to our lives.

SELF-WORSHIP - NOACH

One of the most nefarious characters who appears in the Torah and Rabbinic literature is Nimrod, the sworn enemy of Abraham and the man who led the ill-fated attempt to build the Tower of Babel that features towards the end of this week’s Torah Portion. On a superficial level it would seem that Nimrod’s evil was so great that there is nothing that a normal human being can learn from him. However, on deeper analysis we can develop a more sophisticated understanding of where this powerful man went astray, and thereby apply it to our own lives. As ever, the Rabbis provide us with the clues to deepening our understanding: The Gemara in Chullin contrasts the righteous Jewish leaders with the most powerful non-Jewish rulers in the history of mankind. “The Holy One, Blessed is He, said to Israel, ‘I desire you because even at the time that I give you greatness, you humble yourselves; I gave greatness to Abraham, and he said before me, ‘I am dust and ashes’; to Moses and Aaron, they said, ‘what are we’? to David, he said, ‘I am a worm and not a man’ But the idol worshippers are not like this. I gave greatness to Nimrod, he said, ‘let us build a city…” The Gemara refers to the Dor Haflaga (the generation of dispersal) when Nimrod ruled the world, and instead of thanking God for his power, he led the endeavor to build the Tower of Babel. The purpose of this building was to ‘fight’ with God for the control of the world. The Gemara in Chagiga further stresses Nimrod’s attitude towards God. It says that the name, Nimrod, derives from the word, mered, which means rebellion. This is to teach us that Nimrod sought to cause the world to rebel against God. The Gemara then connects Nimrod with another mighty leader, Nebuchadnezzar, describing the latter as Nimrod’s descendant. The Maharsha explains that they were not necessarily related genetically but that both had the same attitude in that they tried to ‘compete’ with the Almighty. One final Midrash states simply that Nimrod set himself up as a deity and designated a place for his worship. All these sources have a common theme. They teach that Nimrod was granted exceedingly great power from God but instead of humbling himself he allowed himself to become arrogant and thereby reject the concept of One God that Abraham taught the world. The logical extension of arrogance is self-deification – that is considering oneself to be on the level of a ‘god’. The term ‘god’ refers to a force that has great powers and is the source for one’s happiness (and according to some belief systems it can be the source for one’s misery as well). Self-deification was a logical extension of the regular form of paganism that was prevalent for millennia. The idol worshippers, led by Nimrod, viewed the world in a straightforward fashion – they saw that there were numerous sources of power, such as the sun, the rain, the Nile etc therefore they ‘worshipped’ each source in the hope that the source would provide them what they needed. The rare people who attained great power such as Nimrod took this approach to its logical conclusion and believed that they themselves were the source of good for the world. Therefore it is understandable that they promoted worship of themselves. It is also obvious why Nimrod was so antagonistic to Abraham’s Monotheism. This belief promoted the idea that there is only One Source to all the powers in the world, including the sun, moon, and Nimrod himself! Nimrod could not accept this threat to his ego and therefore fought to destroy Abraham and his God. It seems that all of Nimrod’s actions were geared to the end of destroying Abraham and his Monotheism. The Rabbis tell us that the one of the Kings of the four nations who began the first war was none other than Nimrod himself, although the Torah gives him another name, Amrafel. The Gemara tells us that this refers to the words, ‘amar pol’ (he said, ‘fall’) that Nimrod said to Abraham when he threw him into the fiery furnace. Why did the Torah choose to make this allusion at this point in particular – the war that Nimrod initiated seems to have nothing at all to do with Abraham and his beliefs! It seems that an essential aspect of Nimrod and his cohorts’ efforts at world conquest was the destruction of Monotheism. Therefore, they deliberately captured Lot and took him captive so that Abraham would try to rescue him and they could then destroy him. Therefore, at the root of this war was Nimrod’s antipathy towards Abraham, hence the Torah’s allusion to the incident of the fiery furnace teaches us that this same intent was behind all of Nimrod’s actions. We have seen how Nimrod saw himself as the source of power and made many futile attempts to fight God and Abraham. He refused to recognize that all the power that he attained was from God himself and that he should humble himself as did the great Jewish leaders. Instead he became arrogant and ultimately failed in his efforts at defeating Abraham’s Monotheism. How does his attitude relate to a believing Jew? We know that there is no longer a yetser hara (negative inclination) for idol worship as there was in earlier times. However, there is still very strong temptation to attribute our success and happiness to sources other than God. That is a form of idol worship in and of itself, for it views other ‘powers’ as independent sources of well-being. Included amongst such idos are money, power, honor and powerful people (such as a person’s boss). Yet it seems that the most pernicious form of idol worship is worship of oneself – that means attributing one’s success to his own abilities and powers, rather than to God. This attitude is described by the Torah as, “my strength and the might of my hand attained all this wealth”. This is a greatly diluted form of what happened to Nimrod – God gave him power and he attributed it to himself. So too when a person succeeds in something there is a great danger that he will become arrogant and forget the source of his success. It is essential that we strive to emulate Abraham, Moses, Aaron and David, who reacted in the correct way; indeed the more they achieved the humbler they became. This is because every new success gave them a deeper recognition of God’s greatness in given them so much. May we learn to emulate our great leaders and realize that only God is the source of goodness.

ESCAPE OR REBUILD? - NOACH

“And Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. ” When the flood had ended and Noach returned to the earth, he faced the daunting task of starting the world anew. He began by planting a vineyard which had terrible consequences. Chazal strongly criticize Noach’s decision to first plant a vineyard. Wine can cause man great simcha and can help him to feel closer to Hashem, however Noach should have begun planting something that was more immediately necessary for the rebuilding of the world . The difficulty about this incident is that Noach was a very great tzaddik, and it is impossible to approach his mistake here in a superficial way. The commentaries strive to explain Noach’s reasoning in planting the vineyard . The Yalkut Shimoni explains that when Noach drank from the wine he felt great simcha . Based on this, Rav Meir Rubman zt”l in his sefer, Zichron Meir, explains that when Noach returned to dry land he was met by incredible destruction, the whole world that he had lived in was completely destroyed and every living creature dead. He naturally felt devastated and disheartened by this shocking scene. He knew that such feelings were not conducive to bringing spirituality to this new world, because the shechina can only be present amidst the simcha of doing Hashem’s will . Knowing that wine has the ability to gladden a person he decided to plant a vineyard, and use the wine that he would drink as a means to bring the shechina down to earth. This explanation, however, poses a new difficulty - if his intentions were noble then how could such a kilkul arise out of his actions? Rav Simcha Wasserman zt”l explains that there were other, less noble intentions, effecting Noach’s decision of how to begin the new world. Facing such incredible pain, Noach felt the need to distract himself from the terrible situation he now faced, and as a consequence he chose to plant a vineyard, whose wine offered a way to escape the terrible pain he felt . This choice was considered a failing for someone of Noach’s great stature and accordingly, it had damaging results. Chazal criticize him and say that, when facing a destroyed world he should have first focused on rebuilding, rather than escaping. Rav Wasserman points out that Chazal do not say that Noach did not commit a terrible sin here, rather he did something that was ‘chol’, (from the lashon of ‘vayachel’ used to describe Noach’s mistake) lacking in holiness and greatness. About sixty years ago, many people faced an incredibly great nisayon. The Holocaust destroyed millions of lives, and whole communities were uprooted; many people lost all their families. Facing this catastrophe, there was surely a very strong inclination to ‘escape’ on some level. However, certain individuals rimmediately undertook to rebuild the Jewish people. Great people such as the Ponevezher Rav zt”l and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l lost their families in the Holocaust and yet somehow embarked upon the immense challenge of rebuilding. Rav Yissachar Frand Shlita offers another, moving example of someone who avoided the temptation to escape in the post-Holocaust world. Rav Joseph Rosenberg zt”l. He found himself in USA after the war, and noticed that there was one particular mitzva which had been completely neglected - Shatnez. He single-handedly created Shatnez checking laboratories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnez. He faced more than one churban. One, the Holocuast, was physical in nature, and one was a spiritual churban - the loss of one mitzva. Baruch Hashem, in this generation we do not have to contend with destruction comparable to that of the Flood or the Holocaust. However, we also face churban on a number of levels. In a national sense, we know that Klal Yisroel is met with the greatest spiritual churban in its history, with countless Jews intermarrying every day. It has been estimated that more people have been lost to Judaism in the past 60 years than were lost in the Holocaust! This churban is less apparent and shocking than the Holocaust but the damage it is causing is immense. Every observant Jew is forced to face this churban whenever he leaves his community and is surrounded by secular people. There are many different avenues that a person can take to help secular Jews but most important is the decision not to escape the problem and say ‘shalom aliyich nafsi’. On a more personal level, we all know people who are faced with their own individual churbans. There are people who cannot provide a parnasa for their families, people who suffer fromterrible health problems, young men and women who cannot find shidduchim, divorced or widowed people who feel alone and helpless, the list is endless. When we encounter any of these people we also have the choice of escape or build. Rav Frand argues that it is not enough to merely feel bad for them, and to say, ‘nebuch’. We must strive to help in any way that we can. For example, if someone loses his job, then we can try to use our contacts to see if we can help him find new employment. Or If someone cannot find a shidduch then we can spend a small amount of time thinking if we know any suitable prospective partner. Of course, through the course of our lives most of us are faced with tragedies or catastrophes of some sort. These traumatic events are very challenging and there is the natural temptation to want to escape the pain of the situation. However, a sign of greatness is to make a concerted effort to rebuild and move ahead with our lives. In one emotive shiur before Yom Kippur, Rav Frand suggests that people ask themselves four fundamental questions about their spiritual level. One of them is the question that the ‘rav hachovel’ (the head sailor) asked Yonah - there was a terrible storm threatening to destroy the whole ship and amidst this turmoil the sailors found Yonah asleep. The rav hachovel asked Yonah, “Why are you sleeping, rise up and call to your G-d.. ” The rav hachovel was telling Yonah, how can you sleep through such a situation as this, do something! So too, Rav Frand exhorts us to ask ourselves, why are we sleeping through the tumultuous events that surround us. May we all be zocheh to strive to rebuild and not escape when we face challenge and pain.

בראשית – ערש התפתחותה של התרבות האנושית יהונתן גפן

לאחר חטאו החמור של קין, בהריגת הבל אחיו, גזר עליו הקב"ה להיות נע ונד על פני כל הארץ. ולעולם לא לנוח במשכן קבע. כאשר הקב"ה מעניש בן אדם, ידוע שאין זהו עונש מקרי, או שרירותי, אלא עונש זה נועד להוות "תיקון" לחטאו של אותו אדם. על ידי קבלה נכונה של העונש, והתנהגות על פיהו, יכול האדם להגיע לתיקון העיוות הפנימי שהיה בו; עונש חיי הגלות נועד לתיקון חטאו של קיין. אולם, נראה כי קיין לא פעל בצורה נכונה למען תיקון חטאו כפי שהיה רצון ה', אלא ניסה למנוע זאת. מיד לאחר שקיבל את עונשו מתארת התורה את מעשיו של קיין: "ויהי בונה עיר" הרמב"ם אומר שלשון התורה רומזת על כך שלא בנה עיר פעם אחת, אלא היה עסוק תדיר בבניית ערים, וכל עיר ועיר שבנה התמוטטה מיד לאחר בנייתה, בשל קללתו שיחיה בחיי גלות תמידית. אולם, במקום ללמוד מכך, ולקבל את מצבו כנע ונד – המשיך קיין לנסות לבנות ערים לכל אורך חייו. מה שהובילה התנהגותו של קיין, היא נטייה בקרב צאצאיו למנוע אף הם תיקונים אשר הקב"ה גזר על האנושות לתיקון את חטאו של אדם הראשון. הקב"ה אמר לאדם הראשון לאחר החטא כי התיקון לחטאו יהיה לעבוד את האדמה בזעת אפיים, על מנת להשיג את מחייתו . אולם, צאצאיו של קין העדיפו להימנע מעבודת האדמה ולפנות לכיוונים אחרים על מנת להתפרנס: "ותלד עדה את יבל הוא היה אבי יושב אהל ומקנה" – הוא היה ראשון רועי הצאן. שמו של אחיו היה יובל; "הוא היה אבי כל תופש כינור ועוגב". וכן צילה – אשר ילדה את תובל קיין: "לוטש כל חורש נחשת וברזל" רש"י מסביר שפסוקים אלה שנראים לכאורה "סתמיים" טומנים בחובם משמעות חשובה ביותר: עובדות אלה מסמלות את התפתחותה של דעה ונטייה יסודית אשר ניטעה בתרבות העולם המתפתחת. יבל בחר להיות רועה צאן, נגד רצון ה' שבני האדם יעבדו את האדמה. ייתכן אף שעובדת היותו "יושב אהל" בפסוק, מיצגת התפתחות של עולם העסקים – שאף הוא אינו נכלל בציוויו של ה' לאנושות לתיקון החטא. יובל היה הראשון שפיתח את אומנות המוזיקה; עובדה המסמלת את נסיונו של האדם להימנע מהקושי של עבודת האדמה ולהסיח דעתו על ידי הנאות ובידור. ותובל קיין – היה הראשון שפיתח נשק המאפשר לאדם לשרוד באמצעות הכנעתם של אחרים למרותו – דרך נוספת בה אדם יכול להימנע מקללת עבודת האדמה. כך ניתן לראות כיצד התפתחה תרבות האנושות על בסיס השאיפה להימנע מהדרך בה רצה הקב"ה שינהג בה האדם לתיקון חטאו של אדם הראשון, ולבכר סגנון חיים קל ופשוט יותר – אשר אינו מתקן את החטא. כתוצאה מכך, התפתחה האנושות בצורה מעוותת של התעלמות מרצון ה', אשר הגיעה לשיאה והגדישה את הסאה בדורות שלאחר מכן, כאשר הגיעו למצב של אובדן מוחלט של המוסר, וחורבן העולם בימי המבול. היה אדם אחד, אשר ניסה להלך בכיוון אליו כיוון הקב"ה – לעבוד את האדמה: "ויחי למך... ויולד בן ויקרא שמו נח לאמר זה ינחמנו ממעשנו ומעצבון ידינו מן האדמה אשר אררה ה'" – רש"י אומר שנוח המציא כלי אדמה אשר הועילו רבות לאנושות וגרמו לעבודת האדמה להצליח ביותר. נוח היה האדם הראשון אשר לא ניסה להימנע מקללת אדם הראשון, אלא נהג במדויק על פיה. עובדה זו מסבירה מדוע היה הוא היחיד אותו לא הרג ה' במבול, שלא כשאר העולם, חייו היו מוקדשים לעשיית רצון ה', ולכן הוא לא נעשה חלק מהידרדרות המוסר אשר השחיתה את האנושות. שני לימודים חשובים אנו יכולים ללמוד מסקירה מהירה זו של ערש ההסטוריה של העולם. ראשית, ראינו כיצד התאפיינה התפתחותה של תרבות העולם בשאיפה להימנע מרצונו של ה'. ניסיון זה הוא ניסיון גדול גם בחברה של ימינו; עולמנו מתברך בהתקדמות והתפתחות טכנולוגית מהירה ורצופה – היכולה לשמש לצרכים ולתועלות רוחניות חשובות ביותר לטובת האנושות כולה – אם משתמשים בהם בצורה נכונה. אולם, על פי רוב אין המצב כזה. והמדובר הוא אף בקרב יהודים שומרי תורה ומצוות. מכשיר הפלאפון, לשם דוגמא, הינו מוצר היכול לשמש לתועלת רבה, אולם, לעיתים קרובות מידי נבלעת התועלת בינות לנזקים הרבים הנגרמים מהשימוש במכשירים אלה. לדוגמא, בין השאר, הזהירו גדולי ישראל, על ביטול התורה העצום הנגרם כאשר מחזיקים מכשיר זה דלוק גם בשעת הלימוד. ויתירה מכך, גרמו הפלאפונים לסגנון חדש של התנהגות בלתי ראויה ובלתי מכובדת כלפי אלוקים ואדם. כולנו מכירים את אותו צלצול פלאפון בזמן התפילה, חופה, שיחות והרצאות. הרב פריינד שליט"א אף מספר על מקרה בו אדם שכח לכבות את מכשירו בעת לויה, וגרוע מכך, הוא אף ענה לשיחה ודיבר בזמן הלויה! אין זאת אומרת שעלינו להימנע משימוש באפשרויות היעילות אותם מציעה הטכנולוגיה החדישה, אולם אנו חייבים לעמוד על המשמר ולבדוק היטב היטב אם אכן אנו משתמשים בכך על מנת להתקדם ולמלא את רצון ה' ולא חלילה להיפך. לימוד נוסף אותו ניתן ללמוד, הוא שלעיתים קרובות מאוד הקב"ה מביא אותנו למצבים אשר מהם ועל ידם רצונו שנעלה ונתעלה, אולם אנו נוטים לפספס הזדמנויות אלה. בעל ה"תורת אברהם" כותב שהקב"ה מדבר איתנו דרך הייסורים - הכוונה היא לאו דווקא לטרגדיות כואבות ביותר, אלא גם לקשיים והתמודדויות קטנות בהם כל אחד נפגש במשך חייו. דוגמא טובה לכך היא הנישואין; כיצד ידע האדם על איזו נקודה להתמקד בחיי הנישואין? באיזה שטח עליו לעלות ולהתקדם? אם ישים לבו לאותם שטחים בהם מתגלים החיכוכים הרבים, ויראה כיצד תורם חסרונו השטח להיווצרות בעיות אלה. ברור שהקב"ה שולח אליו ייסורים אלה במטרה לשדר לו שעליו לעבוד על עצמו ולהשתפר במידותיו באותו נושא דווקא. אולם, גם אדם אשר רוצה להשקיע בחיי הנישואין, עלול להעדיף להתמקד בנושאים אחרים בהם קל לו יותר להתמודד; לדוגמא, אדם שקיימת בו נטייה חזקה לעבודת ה' במצוות שבין אדם למקום, נמשך יותר להתמקדות על נושא התפילה מאשר לתקן את הנהגתו בבין אדם לחברו. ללא ספק, חשוב ביותר לעבוד על נושא התפילה, אולם גם עבודה זו עלולה לנבוע מעצת היצר, הרוצה להסיח דעתו מהתמקדות בנושא החשוב ביותר של עלייתו וגדילתו. פרשת בראשית הינה הרבה הרבה מעבר לתיאור היסטורי של ערש התפתחות העולם. היא מהווה תיאור מדויק כיצד הודיע הקב"ה לאנושות על הדרך בה עליהם לתקן את אשר עיוותו, וכיצד רוב רובם סירבו להלך בדרך אותה התווה להם בוראם. עלינו ללמוד מטעותם, לכרות אוזן למסריו של הקב"ה אלינו בימי חיינו, ולהלך רק בדרך אשר היא רצון ה' שבה נלך.