CHAYEI SARAH - CHESED AND CHACHMA

Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ her will You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master. ” The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly . In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak . The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached. The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people . The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them . The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs! Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.

Parachat ‘Hayé Sarah – Faire du ‘hessed avec ‘hokhma

Avraham Avinou envoie son fidèle serviteur, Eliezer, chercher une conjointe convenable pour son fils vertueux, Its’hak Avinou. Lorsqu’Eliezer arrive à destination, il prie Hachem de lui envoyer un signe lui permettant de savoir qui pourrait correspondre et être la femme d’Its’hak. Il demande : « Que la jeune fille à qui je dirai : "Veuille pencher ta cruche afin que je boive" et qui répondra : "Bois, puis j’abreuverai aussi tes chameaux", soit celle que tu as destinée à ton serviteur, pour Its’hak et que le puisse reconnaître par elle que tu t’es montré favorable à mon maître ! » Les commentateurs expliquent qu’il ne fit pas simplement la demande d’un signe au hasard, mais il voulait s’assurer que la future matriarche ait une bonté suffisamment développée. Par la précision des mots de sa prière, ils déduisent qu’il ne suffisait pas qu’elle exauce uniquement sa requête et lui donne de l’eau ; il projetait de ne demander de l’eau que pour lui-même et attendait que, de sa propre initiative, elle lui propose d’abreuver également ses chameaux. Le Seforno note qu’il souhaitait qu’elle aille au-delà de sa demande explicite ; qu’elle perçoive que ses réels besoins étaient en réalité plus importants et qu’elle agisse en conséquence . Dans le même ordre d’idées, le Malbim souligne qu’il ne suffisait pas que Rivka soit gentille, Eliezer voulait qu’elle fasse preuve d’une ‘hokhma (sagesse) qui lui permettrait de répondre au mieux à ses besoins. Il expose plus loin la prière d’Eliezer en détail ; ce dernier espérait qu’elle penche la cruche vers lui et non pas qu’il la lui prenne des mains et qu’il boive. Il voulait qu’au lieu d’être contrariée de sa présumée fainéantise, elle essaie de le juger favorablement et qu’elle s’imagine qu’il avait une douleur quelconque aux mains. Ainsi, elle comprendrait que si déjà il n’eut pas la force de tenir la cruche pour lui-même, il était encore moins capable de puiser de l’eau pour ses chameaux. Donc, elle accomplirait la tâche ardue d’abreuver toute seule les dix chameaux ! Quand elle passa cette épreuve avec succès, Eliezer comprit qu’il avait trouvé la partenaire idéale pour Its’hak . Le Seforno et le Malbim montrent que Rivka ne devait pas seulement être gentille, mais elle devait faire preuve d’une sagesse qui lui permettrait d’identifier les réels besoins d’Eliezer sans qu’il ne lui fasse de demande explicite. Nous apprenons de cet épisode que pour faire du ‘hessed de façon optimale, une personne doit montrer des signes de sagesse. Apparemment, cela ne nécessite pas un QI particulièrement élevé, mais il faut être attentif aux gens qui nous entourent pour percevoir leurs besoins et les satisfaire plutôt que d’attendre que l’on nous en fasse la demande. Le Beth HaLévy puise une idée semblable d’un passouk à la fin de la Méguilat Esther. En faisant l’éloge de Mordékhaï qui était le dirigeant du peuple juif, la Méguila nous informe qu’il était « dorech tov lé’amo », c’est-à-dire qu’il recherchait le bien pour son peuple . Le Beth HaLévy demande quelle est la particularité de Mordékhaï ; en effet, tous les dirigeants en Thora veulent assurément le bien du peuple. Il explique que Mordékhaï n’attendait pas que les gens viennent à lui et lui demandent de l’aide. Il les devançait, venait vers eux, essayait d’identifier leurs manques et tentait de les aider . Le Beth Halévy lui-même illustrait cette qualité, la capacité de comprendre les besoins d’autrui avant même que l’on ne s’adresse à lui, grâce à son esprit éveillé. Un soir du séder, on lui demanda s’il était permis de boire du lait pour les « quatre verres ». En réponse, il envoya un messager chez la personne qui posa la question, avec une grande quantité de vin et de viande. Manifestement, il n’avait pas assez de vin pour les quatre verres. De plus, s’il prévoyait de boire du lait, c’est qu’il n’avait évidemment pas de viande à manger. Il agit en conséquence et subvint à leurs besoins non formulés ! Au quotidien, nous rencontrons des gens qui peuvent avoir besoin d’une certaine assistance. Mais, très souvent, ils sont trop gênés pour demander explicitement cette aide il faut donc essayer l’émuler l’attitude de Rivka et de résoudre leurs problèmes. On découvrit un jour qu’un homme vivait dans une pauvreté extrême. Comment le remarqua-t-on ? Un ami lui prêta 25 shekels quelques semaines plus tôt et demanda avec désinvolture à son ami s’il pouvait le rembourser. L’emprunteur pâlit du fait de son incapacité totale à rembourser un tel prêt. Cette réaction préoccupa son ami qui fit quelques recherches et découvrit que cet homme n’avait pas assez d’argent pour acheter les produits de base. Parfois, l’expression du visage d’une personne, ou un commentaire désinvolte peut indiquer un certain besoin. Nous avons la possibilité de prêter attention à ce genre d’allusions et ainsi d’augmenter grandement notre aptitude à faire du ‘hessed.

TOLDOS - YITZCHAK AVINU

The Torah devotes three parshios to Avraham Avinu and Yaakov Avinu. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Yitzchak Avinu. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Yitzchak and no other Av; the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Phlishtim. Yitchak is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rivka, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Plishtim sealed wells that Avraham had dug, and how Yitzchak re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Plishtim and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Yitzchak Avinu. The most striking aspect of Yitzchak’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Avraham’s time he headed for Mitzrayim; Yitzchak planned to do the same thing until Hashem told him not to leave Eretz Yisroel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them . Rabbeinu Bachya states that from Yitzchak’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Yitzchak did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon Shlita explains Yitzchak’s role among the Avos: Avraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Yitzchak’s avoda was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of mesora. Yitzchak’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine comes to the land, he immediately thinks of going to Mitzrayim because his father did so. And when he comes to Gerar he digs the same wells and gives them the same names that Avraham had given them . However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha . This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to be deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path toward Avodas Hashem. We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is clearly no contradiction here; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many different approaches to Judaism that emphasize different areas and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity . There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality . Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression . Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than even the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva ! The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jew to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, including development of character traits, limud haTorah and hashkafa: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths. Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel . Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else . And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinuch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora. How important is it that a person be encouraged to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim . And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of giving ourselves, our children and our students happier and more successful lives.

The Guiding Light - Jaiei Sará (Génesis 23:1-25:18)

Bondad con sabiduría (Kindness with wisdom) Por Rav Yehonasan Gefen Abraham envió a Eliezer, su fiel sirviente, para que encontrara una esposa adecuada para su hijo Itzjak. Cuando Eliezer llegó a su destino, le rezó a Dios para que le mandase una señal mediante la cual pudiese saber quién debía ser la esposa de Itzjak. Él rezó: “Que la joven a quien yo le diga: ‘Por favor inclina tu cántaro para que yo beba’, y me responda: ‘Bebe, y también abrevaré a tus camellos’, que ella sea la que has designado para tu siervo Itzjak, y sabré mediante ella que Tú has hecho bondad con mi señor” . Los comentaristas explican que Eliezer no pidió una señal aleatoria, sino que quiso asegurarse que la futura matriarca tuviera un sentido de bondad altamente desarrollado. Los comentaristas ven en la exactitud de su plegaria que no era suficiente que ella simplemente respondiera a su pedido de agua; él planeaba pedir agua sólo para sí mismo, y esperaba que la joven reaccionara en base a su propia iniciativa y ofreciera agua también para los camellos. El Sforno explica que Eliezer quería que ella ahondase en el pedido de agua para sí mismo, que percibiera que sus necesidades reales eran mucho mayores y que actuase consecuentemente . De un modo similar, el Malbim señala que no alcanzaba con que Rivka fuera bondadosa; Eliezer quería que demostrara una sabiduría que le permitiera satisfacer sus necesidades de la mejor forma. Analizando cuidadosamente el pedido de Eliezer, el Malbim nota que Eliezer le pidió que ella inclinara el cántaro hacia él, en lugar de ser él quien lo tomase y bebiese por sí mismo. Eliezer esperaba que en lugar de enojarse por su pereza, ella intentara juzgarlo para bien y pensara que quizás él tenía alguna clase de dolor en sus manos. Consecuentemente, ella advertiría que si él no tenía la fortaleza suficiente como para sostener el cántaro por sí mismo, mucho menos podría extraer agua para sus camellos. Entonces, ¡ella misma realizaría la ardua tarea de abrevar a los diez camellos! Cuando pasó estas pruebas con éxito, Eliezer se dio cuenta que había encontrado una pareja apropiada para Itzjak . El Sforno y el Malbim muestran que no era suficiente con que Rivka fuera amable; necesitaba demostrar que tenía la sabiduría necesaria para percibir las necesidades reales de Eliezer sin que él se las dijese directamente. De aquí podemos aprender que para poder realizar actos de bondad de forma óptima se necesita tener sabiduría. Esto no significa que hace falta tener un coeficiente intelectual extremadamente alto, sino que uno debe estar consciente de la gente que lo rodea de forma tal que pueda percibir sus necesidades y satisfacerlas en lugar de esperar a que los demás se aproximen a uno. El Beit Halevi deriva un punto similar del versículo final de Meguilat Ester. Al alabar a Mordejai como líder del pueblo judío, la Meguilá nos dice que "era un doresh tov leamó", es decir, que buscaba el bien para su pueblo . El Beit Halevi pregunta, basado en que seguramente todos los líderes quieren el bien para su pueblo, ¿cuál era la singularidad de Mordejai? Y explica que Mordejai no esperaba hasta que las personas fueran donde él para pedirle ayuda, sino que se adelantaba y se acercaba a las personas, trataba de advertir sus necesidades y veía cómo podía ayudarlas . El Beit HaLevi mismo —gracias a su aguda percepción— personificaba este rasgo de entender las necesidades de las personas antes de que fueran donde él. En una noche de Pesaj, una persona le preguntó si era posible usar leche para las Cuatro Copas. Su respuesta fue mandar un mensajero a la casa de quien le había hecho la pregunta con una generosa cantidad de vino y carne. Él se había dado cuenta que obviamente esa persona no tenía vino para beber las cuatro copas, pero no sólo eso, sino que dado que planeaban beber leche, evidentemente tampoco tenían carne. ¡Actuó consecuentemente y proveyó todas sus necesidades! En nuestras vidas, constantemente nos encontramos con personas que necesitan algún tipo de ayuda, pero están demasiado avergonzadas como para pedirla explícitamente. Es ahí donde hace falta que nos esforcemos para emular a Rivka y descifrar sus necesidades. Por ejemplo, una persona descubrió que su amigo vivía en la absoluta miseria. ¿Cómo lo descubrió? Él le había prestado a su amigo 25 shekalim unas semanas atrás, y le pidió si podía devolverle el dinero. Ante la imposibilidad de devolver el préstamo, la cara del prestatario se tornó blanca. Esa reacción alertó a su amigo, quien hizo algunas investigaciones y descubrió que aquel hombre no tenía suficiente dinero ni siquiera para satisfacer sus necesidades más básicas. En ocasiones, la expresión facial de una persona o un comentario casual indican una necesidad particular. De nosotros depende el desarrollar nuestro poder de observación, con lo cual aumentará en gran medida nuestra capacidad para hacer el bien.

חיי שרה – המלחמה בין הגוף והנשמה

לאחר שעמד אברהם אבינו בנסיון העקידה, בפטירת שרה אשתו, הוא נאלץ לעמוד מול עפרון החיתי במשא ומתן ממושך כדי להשיג חלקת קבר לשרה אימנו. בסופו של דבר, הוא קנה את מערת המכפלה במחיר עצום – 400 שקל כסף. הפרשנים מציינים שבדרך כלל שמו של עפרון נכתב עם האות ו', מלבד בפסוק המתאר את ביצוע העסקה, בפסוק זה שמו של עפרון נכתב ללא ו' – "עפרן". רש"י מסביר שעפרון אמר הרבה ועשה מעט, בתחילה הוא אמר לאברהם שהוא מוכן לתת לו את אחוזתו בחינם, אולם בסופו של דבר הוא דרש עליה מחיר מפולפל. כתוצאה מכך ערכו של עפרון ירד מאד. בעל הטורים כותב הסבר נוסף על הו' החסרה בפסוק זה. הוא כותב שהגימטריה של המילה עפרן היא 400 – הסכום המדויק אותו הרויח עפרון מעסקה זו ! מהי המשמעות של עניין זה? ר' אלחנן פישמן שליט"א מסביר שכאשר עפרון קיבל מאברהם אבינו סכום כזה של כסף, הוא חש שהוא מקבל בכך ערך מסוג חדש – מרגע זה הוא ראה את עצמו כ"שווה" 400 שקל כסף. הדימוי העצמי של עפרון התבסס על מצבו הכלכלי. הוא נפל בפח של יצר הרע מצוי מאד, מצבו הגשמי היה חשוב ומודגש בעיניו הרבה יותר מדרגתו הרוחנית. ישנה נטייה טבעית לנהוג כך כיוון שמאז חטא אדם הראשון האדם קשור ומודע הרבה יותר לגופו מאשר לנשמתו. ר' מוטי ברגר שליט"א אומר שאנו נוטים לזהות את עצמנו על ידי הגוף שלנו – לדוגמא, כאשר אדם חולה הוא אומר "אני לא מרגיש טוב", גופו שחש לא בטוב מזוהה אצלו כ"אני". נכון היה יותר לומר "גופי אינו חש בטוב", שהרי הנשמה שבתוכנו היא העיקר המרכיב אותנו. חלק חיוני מאד בעבודת ה' הוא לפתח מודעות גבוהה יותר למציאות הנשמה ולצרכיה. נוכל לקבל הבנה עמוקה יותר בסוגית היחסים בין הגוף והנשמה, אם נמשיך ונעמיק באותה גימטריה שהביא בעל הטורים. כאשר עפרון קיבל את הכסף מאברהם, הוא ודאי הרגיש שמעלתו וחשיבותו בעולם עלו לאין ערוך – הוא הפך לאדם עשיר. אולם למעשה אות אחת נפלה משמו, ואנו יודעים ששמו של אדם משקף את מהותו. מכך ניתן ללמוד שהערך האמיתי שלו כאדם דווקא ירד. יתירה מזאת, העובדה שהאות שנפלה משמו היא דווקא האות ו' משמעותית ביותר. ו' היא אות של חיבור; ו' החיבור מוסיפה ומחברת מילה למילה. אף צורת האות ו' מרמזת על משמעות החיבור שלה; צורת האות ו' היא כוו – קרס, המחבר בין שני חפצים. כאשר עפרון זכה בעושר גשמי, הוא ירד ברוחניות ואיבד את הקשר שלו עם הקב"ה. כאשר אדם מעניק חשיבות גדולה מידי לגופו, ממילא נשמתו נפגמת מכך. גם בפרשת השבוע הבא ניתן ללמוד על היחס ההפוך הקיים בין הגוף ובין הנשמה. הנביא אמר לרבקה ששני העוברים שבבטנה יתפתחו לשני עמים, ותמיד אחד יעמוד כנגד השני, ובמפלתו של האחד – יקום השני ויעלה"" . הפשט של פסוק זה הוא שבין עם ישראל ובין אדום מתקיים תמיד יחס של מאזניים – כאשר אחד עולה – השני יורד למטה. אולם ישנם מפרשים הרואים מלחמה אחרת המרומזת בפסוק זה – יעקב מרמז על הנשמה, ואילו עשו – על הגוף; ובין שני כוחות אלו מתקיים מאבק תמידי. אם הנשמה היא השולטת – כוח הגוף נחלש כתוצאה מכך. דוגמא מובהקת לכך היא הסיפור אודות ה"בית יוסף": בעקבות מדרגתו הרוחנית הגבוהה, הוא היה זוכה לעיתים קרובות להתגלות מלאך מן השמים. והנה, במשך מספר ימים המלאך לא נגלה אליו. נאמר לו שהסיבה לכך היא שבאחד הימים, כשהיה חם מאד הוא הקדיש יותר מידי זמן כדי להשיג מים קרים. דאגה זעירה זו לצרכי הגוף שלו השפיעה וגרמה לירידה במדרגתו הרוחנית עד כדי כך שהוא לא היה ראוי לדבר עם המלאך! רואים ממקורות אלה שלא ייתכן מצב בו אדם משקיע גם בגופו וגם בנשמתו. אדם עלול לחשוב שלא כך הוא – הוא יכול לעסוק בתורה ובמצוות ובו זמנית לשאוף להישגים גשמיים ונוחות פיזית. אולם בסופו של דבר כזה אדם נשאר רק עבד לגופו; ייתכן שהוא יוכל לקיים מצוות אבל ההשקעה והשאיפות הגשמיות לא יתנו לו לגדור את עצמו מתאוות ממון, תאוות אכילה וכדומה, זהו סימן מובהק לכך שהגוף הוא הוא השולט בו והוא הקובע לו את חייו. ר' שלמה ברוודה שליט"א מתאר עניין זה על ידי שני סיפורים: פעם אחת הוא שלח בחור ישיבה לאמריקה ללמוד בישיבה טובה מאד שם. כאשר הוא הגיע הוא התרשם מאד מהתמדתם של הבחורים. אולם, הוא היה מופתע לחלוטין בהפסקת הצהריים – אותם בחורים שעד עתה למדו בכזה חשק והתלהבות, היו עסוקים כל כולם באכילה מתוך להט והתלהבות גדולה! הר' ברוודה אומר שבחורים אלו היו עבדים לגוף שלהם. במקרה אחר, דיבר הר' ברוודה בפני מספר גדול של בנות נעורים חרדיות. בשלב מסוים בהרצאתו הוא אמר שהמטרה בחיים אינה לחיות בבית היפה ביותר המרוהט בשלמות עם מיטב הרהיטים. מאוחר יותר באותו יום ניגשה אליו אחת המורות, ואמרה שבת אחת מתוך הקהל נבוכה מאד מדבריו. היא גדלה בבית שומר תורה ומצוות אשר בו מודגש מאד הצורך לחיות ברמת חיים גבוהה, ולהשקיע בנוחות פיזית כמה שיותר. לאחר ששמעה את דברי הר' ברוודה, היא הפנימה אותם והבינה את נכונותם. היא קלטה פתאום שהיא חונכה בגישה מנוגדת להשקפת התורה. הר' ברוודה אומר שייתכן ותהיה מלחמה ממש בין הגוף ובין הנשמה. הגוף הוא בעל כוח גדול, בדרך כלל הוא מתגבר על השאיפה הקיימת באדם לרוחניות. אולם אם נבין לפחות שאנו נתונים במאבק, נוכל להתחיל לחזק את כוח הנשמה שלנו. אולם, טוען ר' שלמה ברוודה, לרבים משומרי התורה והמצוות אין כלל מלחמה. אדם לא עומד בפני שום קונפליקט כאשר יש בפניו עוגה טעימה, כאשר הוא אינו רעב – הוא בולע את העוגה בלי לחשוב פעמיים. אולם הגרוע ביותר הוא כאשר הוא לא מזהה אפילו שהגוף שלו שולט לחלוטין בכל ישותו. מה יכול אדם לעשות על מנת להצטרף לכל הפחות למלחמה? דוד המלך אומר שישנן שתי דרכים לאדם לעבוד על עצמו – "סור מרע ועשה טוב" . "סור מרע" - הכוונה כאן היא להרפות מעט את אחיזתנו בצרכי הגוף. הר' ברוודה מציע כיצד ניתן להתחיל בעבודה זו; כאשר אדם אוכל ארוחה עיקרית – לאכל רק מסוג אחד – הוא יכול לקחת כמה שרוצה מאותה מנה, אולם לפחות הוא מפתח בכך את היכולת להימנע מלקחת עוד משהו – על ידי כך ניתן יהיה להתחיל במאבק בין הנשמה ובין הגוף. אולם אנו חייבים גם לעסוק ב"עשה טוב" – על ידי שנפתח את הצד הרוחני שלנו, באופן אוטומטי יחלש הקשר שלנו עם העולם הגשמי. אל ר' נח אורלווק שליט"א ניגש פעם בחור ואמר לו שהוא מצפה לארוחת צהריים יותר מאשר לתפילת מנחה – ושאל כיצד עליו לעבוד על כך? הר' אורלווק ענה לו שעליו להשתדל להעריך יותר את התפילה, על ידי שיעשה כך, באופן בלתי נמנע הוא יחוש פחות ציפייה ופחות התלהבות מהנאות גשמיות. הר' ברוודה אף מציע כיצד ליישם רעיון זה למעשה - בעשר הדקות הראשונות של פסוקי דזמרה, יעשה כל שביכולתו כדי להתרכז אך ורק בסידור ולא להביט סביב. כאשר אדם נוהג כך הוא בעצם מנתק את עצמו מכל הגורמים המסיחים את דעתו ומונעים ממנו את הריכוז אך ורק בתפילה. הר' ברוודה אומר שאנשים אמרו לו שרעיון זה גרם להם לעלייה משמעותית ביותר בעבודת ה'. המלחמה בין הגוף ובין הנשמה היא ארוכה ומאתגרת, אולם, אם לכל הפחות נצטרף למלחמה – הרי בידינו להצליח. המהר"ל מציין נקודה חשובה מאד בדברי רש"י על יחסי המלחמה בין יעקב לעשיו . הוא כותב שרש"י אומר שכאשר יעקב יורד למטה – עשיו עולה, אולם הוא לא כותב את ההיפך. המהר"ל מסביר שיעקב הוא הקובע מי יהיה חזק יותר – עשיו לעומת זאת רק נתון לתוצאת מעשי יעקב – אם הם נכשלים – הוא עולה, אולם אם יעקב עולה ומצליח – אין לעשיו כל אפשרות לעלות. באותה מידה ניתן לומר בהקשר למלחמה בין הגוף והנשמה: ביד האדם לקבוע מי השולט בו – אם הוא מתאמץ ומשתדל להגביר את כוח נשמתו – אזי כוח הגוף מתרפה מיידית. מי ייתן וכולנו נזכה להצליח להצטרף למלחמה בין הגוף ובין הנשמה.

INSIGHTS IN RASHI: CHAYEI SARAH – ELIEZER’S HIDDEN INTENT

Bereishis, 24:39: “And I said to my master, ‘Perhaps ((אלי the woman will not follow me?” Rashi, Bereishis, 24:39, sv. Perhaps: אלי is written [without the ‘vav’]: Eliezer had a daughter and he was searching for a way in which Avraham would turn to him [so that Yitzchak] would marry his daughter. When Avraham instructed his faithful servant, Eliezer to search for a wife for Yitzchak, Eliezer asked what would happen if, perhaps, the woman would not want to come with him. When Eliezer found Rivka he retold the story to Besuel and Lavan. In the initial account of his discussion with Avraham, the hebrew word for perhaps, אולי, is spelt in the normal way (with a vav). However, when he retells the story the Torah spells the wordאלי without the vav. This alludes to a different word meaning “to me” which alludes to us that Eliezer was hoping that he would not find a wife for Yitzchak on his travels and therefore Yitzchak should come “to him” to marry his daughter. The commentaries ask why the Torah only made this allusion the second time that Eliezer said these words; it would have seemed more logical to tell us on the first occasion? The Kotsker Rebbe zt”l explains that the first time Eliezer expressed his reservations he was not consciously aware of his underlying hope that Yitzchak would marry his daughter. Therefore there is no allusion to his selfish motives at that time. The reason for this was that he was unable to view the situation totally objectively and realize that he had ulterior motives. After he had found a wife for Yitzchak he could have a totally unbiased view of what had happened. He then recognized retroactively that the root cause of his objection to Avraham was the hidden hope that his own daughter would marry Yitzchak. The Kotzker Rebbe’s explanation demonstrates to us how easily one can get caught in the trap of selfish motives without even realizing. A person can only recognize these motives with the benefit of the objectivity that comes after the event, but by then it is often too late. How can a person avoid this problem at the time that it takes place? The Mishna in Avos helps answer this question: It instructs us: “...Acquire for yourself a friend. ” Rabbeinu Yonah writes that one of the benefits of having a friend is that he can help you in observing Mitzvos. “Even when a friend is no more righteous than him and sometimes he even acts improperly, nonetheless he does not want a friend to do the same [action], because he has no benefit from it. ” He then brings as a proof to this idea the principle that “a person does not sin on behalf of someone else.” This means that a generally observant person usually sins because he is blinded by some kind of desire for pleasure, however with regard to someone else we presume that he is not blinded in the same way and therefore we do not suspect him of sinning on behalf of others. This idea is applied in a number of places throughout the Gemara . Rabbeinu Yonah thus teaches us the importance of acquiring at least one friend who can act as an objective onlooker towards our own actions and warn us when ulterior motives are clouding our reasoning. This friend need not necessarily be on a higher level than ourselves – it is his objectivity that makes him more able to discern our true intentions. In this way we can hope to avoid the pitfalls of being clouded by the yester hara and can attain clarity in the underlying motives for our actions.

AVRAHAM – REACTING TO SUCCESS AND FAILURE

There are many aspects of Avraham Avinu’s greatness that are discussed a great deal, in particular his perfection in the trait of kindness. However, on deeper examination we see other, more subtle facets of his greatness. Throughout his life, Avraham underwent numerous difficult challenges and setbacks. Some of these tests ended with great success but others did not necessarily culminate in the way that Avraham would have hoped. The way in which he reacted to these events teaches us tremendous lessons in how to respond to both success and adversity. Surely the most difficult challenge that Avraham ever faced in his eventful life was that of the Akeida, whereby he was commanded to slaughter his only son despite having no understanding of the reason for doing so. Finally, at the end of the arduous test he is told by the Malach that he has passed the test and thereby merited the blessing that his descendants will be like the stars of the Heavens. Avraham’s measure of success is further elucidated by a Yalkut Shimoni quoted by Rav Yissochor Frand shlita. When Avraham was about to slaughter his son at the Akeida, the Malach called to him, “Avraham,Avraham” Why did the Malach say his name twice? The Yalkut explains that there are two images of each person - his worldly image and his heavenly image; his worldly image is what he makes of himself in this world, and his heavenly image represents what he could become if he fulfill his potential. Avraham, after he passed the last of his ten tests, finally reached his complete potential and consequently his two images became identical. The Malach mentioned the two ‘Avrahams’ together, the Avraham of olam hazeh and the ideal Avraham of olam haba, indicating that the two of them were now the same. Thus at this point in time Avraham had reached the pinnacle of greatness, indeed he had attained spiritual perfection. How would a person react after such a momentous event? A little pride in his achievements would be understandable; Or at least a feeling of elation and celebration would be reasonable. Yet Avraham’s reaction was very different. The verse immediately after the Akeida tells us: “Avraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer Sheba and Avraham dwelled in Beer-Sheba.” The commentaries note the Torah’s wording that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, Eliezer and Yishmael. This wording denotes a sense of being on the same level or with the same feelings. Thus, here the Torah is telling us that Avraham went ‘together’ with the young men, in that just as they had not undergone any great experience at the Akeida, so too Avraham travelled as if he had not faced and passed the most difficult test that any man had ever faced. He felt no sense of pride and even no sense of celebration, rather he returned to Beer-Sheba to continue his holy work of teaching the world about the Divine Presence. Avraham’s greatness with regard to the aftermath of the Akeida is further demonstrated by his conduct in the subsequent incident discussed by the Torah; that of his dealings with the wily Efron in his efforts to acquire the Maaras HaMachpeila as a burial place for his wife, Sarah Imanu. Rabbeinu Yonah makes a seemingly baffling point – the Mishna in Avos tells us that Avraham faced ten extremely difficult tests, and most commentators explain that the Akeida was the final test. However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes that Avraham’s difficulties in finding a burial plot for Sarah constituted his final test. Rav Yissochor Frand shlita asks how it is fathomable that after the ultimate challenge, that of the Akeida, there could be yet another challenge that Avraham needed face – surely the Akeida represented the pinnacle of human achievement and no further tests were necessary! He answers that of course the Akeida was the most difficult test that Avraham faced, however the final test offered a different challenge. It is human nature that after a person succeeds in a difficult endeavor he may have a tendency to want to rest on his laurels, and to feel that he has a right to relax a little. After enduring the incredible challenges involved in the Akeida it would have been understandable for Avraham Avinu to hope for a little respite. Accordingly, when he was immediately faced with the tragic death of his wife and the subsequent difficulties in acquiring a burial plot for her, he could have easily become frustrated with the course of events and harbored feelings of complaints towards HaKadosh Baruch Hu. However, Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us, he succeeded in this very different kind of test, by accepting that even after he reached his full potential, he was still liable to face new challenges. This teaches us a further dimension in Avraham’s greatness in his response to success. Not only did he remain humble, but he also remained prepared to face whatever new challenges could arise. We have thus far seen how Avraham reacted to success without letting it affect his humility or hindering his Avodas HaShem. Yet how did Avraham react on the rare occasions where he did not succeed in his endeavors? One such instance occurred when HaShem informed Avraham of His plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of their evil behavior. Avraham launched into a lengthy attempt to rescue the people of Sodom. He argued that if there were fifty righteous people then HaShem should save the whole city, and so on until it became clear that there weren’t even ten. Once this had been determined and the decree had been issued the Torah makes a seemingly superfluous comment. “HaShem departed when He had finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his place.” What is the significance of the fact that Avraham returned to his place; what lesson is it teaching us? The Steipler Gaon zt”l addressed this question in making a vital point to Rav Elazar Shach zt”l. On one occasion the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah made a certain decision in opposition to the views of Rav Shach and the Steipler. The matter was of such importance to Rav Shach that he felt a great sense of despair and his spirits were broken. Rav Shlomo Lorincz zt”l writes that soon after this incident he visited the Steipler who asked him how Rav Shach was faring. He answered that Rav Shach was thoroughly dejected and did not know which way to turn. So great was his disappointment that he said he had no more strength to continue. The Steipler listened to this sadly and said, “I would like you to go to Rav Shach for me and tell him the following.” The Steipler proceeded to ask the aforementioned question as to the significance of the fact that “Avraham returned to his place.” He answered with the following words. “What this means is that the Torah wants to teach us – tell Rav Shach this – that when one has done everything in order to save a situation and the goal has not been achieved one must implement, ‘And Avraham returned to his place’. One has to go back and resume the activity that one is obligated to engage in, continuing as though nothing untoward has happened. Under no circumstances whatsoever does lack of success justify a person giving way and being unable to carry on his holy work. Repeat this, word for word, on my behalf. He has done everything without missing a single detail, therefore he must also fulfill, ‘And Avraham returned to his place,’ and continue leading Klal Yisroel as before.” Rav Lorincz reports that when he conveyed this message to Rav Shach, Rav Shach replied that he accepted this lesson and would return to his work on behalf of Klal Yisroel. The Steipler’s astute observation demonstrates Avraham’s attitude to failure – he recognized that he did his utmost to achieve his goal but when he failed he did not let that failure prevent his holy work. By the fact that a man as great as Rav Shach faced great difficulty in overcoming this challenge, it is clear that this is a test that can affect everyone. Avraham’s reaction to his setback teaches us the proper way to react to failure. We have seen yet another facet to the greatness of Avraham Avinu – he excelled in his reaction to both success and failure. Perhaps the underlying trait that enabled him to succeed in all the tests that we have mentioned was his great humility. That taught him not to become haughty or complacent in the face of success, and not to despair when, through events beyond his power, he could not fulfill his goal.