THE FREEDOM OF TORAH - NASSO

The parsha discusses the mitzva of Nezirus, whereby a person takes a vow to abstain from wine, to avoid coming into contact with a dead body, and to let his hair grow . The author of Toras Avraham, Rav Avraham Grodzinki zt”l , discusses a number of difficulties with regard to the spiritual standing of the Nazir. He notes that at one point the Torah describes him as ’holy’ for depriving himself of physical pleasure . However, soon after, in the process of describing the sacrifices that he brings, it tells us that he must bring a sin-offering to atone for a certain aveira that he has committed. What is that aveira? Rashi brings the opinion of Rebbe Elazar Hakappa that his sin was that he caused himself pain by depriving himself of the enjoyment of drinking wine . Thus there is a blatant contradiction as to whether the Nazir is doing a great mitza or is in fact committing an aveira. The Toras Avraham answers that the Nazir is doing the right thing - he is someone who feels an unhealthy tendency towards physical pleasure, and therefore deems it necessary to make the drastic step of taking a vow of Nezirus. However, there is an element of sin in this action that requires atonement. The Toras Avraham explains that G-d created man with a body and soul and that it is wrong for man to totally neglect his body. Man‘s job in this world is to live in the physical world but to elevate it. The Nazir feels that he cannot do this without totally abstaining from wine. He is correct for acting this way, but in doing so, he causes his body considerable discomfort because it has a certain level of shibud (attachment) to the physical world and feels pain at being deprived of the pleasures that the physical world has to offer. Consequently, he is considered ‘holy’ for undertaking such a bold process of purification, but simultaneously needs to bring a sin offering for causing pain to his body . Having explained the duality in the act of Nezirus, the Torah Avraham then poses a new problem. He brings the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim who writes that it is not sufficient to merely observe mitzvas but live a life full of indulgence, rather the Torah requires us to ’be holy’. To fulfill this mitzva, he writes that one must abstain from physical pleasures. He even equates the holy man to the Nazir who is described as being holy for abstaining from wine. However, he makes absolutely no allusion to any sin committed by abstaining from physical pleasures even though it seems to cause pain to the ’holy’ man’s body. The Toras Avraham writes that this Ramban is discussing the level of a ‘Talmid Chacham’, a person who strives to separate himself from the luxuries of this world. This leads to the obvious question: What is the difference between the Nazir who sinned by abstaining from wine, and the Talmid Chacham who commits no sin in following a similar process?! The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the prishus (separation) of the Nazir and that of the Talmid Chacham. The Nazir is subject to a strong physical drive for the baser pleasures such as wine. It is painful for him to withdraw from partaking of them, therefore he is considered to be sinning by causing himself pain. In contrast the Talmid Chacham feels no pain at avoiding physical self-indulgence because he is not bound to his physical drives. He has such a strong recognition of the futile and transient nature of physical pleasures that it is not difficult for him to abstain from them. Thus, whilst the Nazir needs atonement for causing himself pain, the Talmid Chacham is not considered to have committed any kind of misdemeanor. We learn from here a fundamental principle; that the ideal way of separating from physical pleasures should not involve a painful process of self-deprivation. Rather it should emanate from a natural sense of the ultimate futility of physical gratification. This stands in stark contrast to the secular attitude to self-deprivation. This is most manifest in the widespread attempts of people to lose weight through intense diets. These largely fail and it seems that a significant reason for this is that denying oneself food is a cause of great self-affliction. The dieter does not free himself of a desire for pleasant tasting foods, rather often his craving for them actually increases. Thus he goes through a painful process of self-deprivation which invariably cannot last indefinitely. It seems that the Torah approach to food should automatically enable a person to eat healthily and even lose weight . If a person frees himself from his shibudim to physical pleasures, then abstaining from them will become a painless process. One ben Torah who was somewhat overweight and was known to eat large amounts of food, undertook to reduce his food intake through a gradual process of reducing his shibudim to food - in the process he lost about thirty pounds in a few months! It still needs to be understood how a person can reach the level of the Talmid Chacham and be able to separate from physical pleasures without causing himself discomfort. The key seems to be that if one develops a strong appreciation for spirituality then he automatically frees himself of a shibud to physicality. A yeshiva bachur once asked Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he change this? Rav Orlowek answered him that he should deepen his appreciation for tefilla and by doing so he would automatically reduce his preference for lunch. This dichotomy is highly relevant to our relationship with Torah that we celebrated on Shavuos. The Mishna in Avos exhorts us that the way of Torah is to eat bread and salt, drink water and sleep on the ground . This does not necessarily mean that to become a Talmid Chacham one must live in this fashion, rather the Mishna is telling us that we should develop such a deep appreciation for Torah that the baser pleasures become meaningless. Consequently, for a person to aspire to be a Talmid Chacham he must be willing and able to live in a sparse way. Thus, even if he does have access to a higher standard of living he will nevertheless be able to focus on the higher pleasure of learning Torah. However, if he feels a great pull to physical comfort then it will be impossible for him to sufficiently devote himself to Torah. We have seen how there are two ways in which a person can deprive himself of physical pleasures. The Nazir’s self-deprecation causes him considerable discomfort, whilst the Talmid Chacham feels no pain in refraining from such pleasures. Our goal is to reduce our shibudim to the physical world through a heightened sense of appreciation for spirituality.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL - NASSO

Towards the end of Parshas Nasso, the Torah describes at great length the offerings of the Nesi’im (Princes) on the day that the Mishkan was sanctified. What is unusual about this section is that every Nasi offered exactly the same offerings, yet the Torah describes each one separately in virtually identical verses. We know that there are no extra words in the Torah, accordingly, the commentaries ask why it was necessary to enumerate the same information twelve times; why could the Torah not simply mention the offerings the first time and then simply say that all the other Nesi’im brought the exact same offerings?! The Darchei Mussar, quoting the Alter of Kelm zt”l, answers this question: He writes that the Torah is coming to teach us how to relate to the individual’s performance of Mitzvos within the Jewish nation. A person may think that when a large number of people perform the same Mitzva then they are all subsumed within the group and there is no focus on each individual’s performance of the Mitzva. However, this is not the case; rather HaShem is happy at every single Mitzva that every single Jew performs. This is because HaShem’s capacity to love and care for each Jew is infinite and is not hindered by the fact that He also loves so many other Jews. Accordingly, to the same extent that HaShem was gladdened because of the offering of the first Nasi, Nachshon ben Aminadav, He was also joyful at the offerings of all the Nesi’im. Therefore, the Torah deemed it appropriate to specify each set of offerings in and of itself. This teaches a fundamental lesson about Jewish thought in contrast with that of other belief systems. The atheist, for example, cannot believe that each individual has any intrinsic worth. He is merely one of several billion human beings who are made up of flesh and bone just like all other living beings who reside in a small, insignificant planet in a minor Solar System that is located in one of millions of galaxies. If an atheist would take this belief to its logical conclusion he would feel a great sense of lack of self-worth because he is indeed insignificant. In contrast, according to the Torah view, each person is of Infinite worth because he is made in the image of G-d and is beloved by Him. This is expressed in a number of Rabbinic sources: The Mishna in Pirkei Avos says: “Man is beloved because he was created in the image [of God]...” This Mishna is teaching us that since every person has a soul he is dear to G-d. The Mishna in Sanhedrin is even more explicit about the individual importance of every person. The Mishna discusses why, of all living beings, only man was created alone, whereas with regard to all other creatures were created in large numbers. The Mishna explains: “Man was created alone to teach that about whoever destroys one soul from Yisrael the Torah considers it as if he destroyed a whole world. And about whoever saves a soul from Yisrael, the Torah considers it as if he saved the whole world.” These sources emphasize the great value of each individual and teach us the logical consequences of this belief. Firstly, as we discussed above, one should realize his own self-worth. But moreover, this teaches us that .no person is insignificant in the eyes of God, and therefore each person is obligated to view everyone else in this fashion and treat them accordingly. The following story demonstrates the lengths to which this obligation applies. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l was in his home with some of his talmidim. One of them looked out of the window and saw a man approaching the house who appeared to be the great Brisker Rav, Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik zt”l. The talmid told Rav Meltzer who quickly put on this Shabbos clothes in honor of the esteemed visitor. He then rushed outside to greet the Rav. As they approached the man it became evident that this was not the Brisker Rav, rather a simple Jew who bore a resemblance to the Rav. However, Rav Meltzer continued acting towards the man in the way that he would have had it been the Brisker Rav. He treated him with great honor, placing him at the head of the table and offering him food. The man, surprised at this royal treatment, said that Rav Meltzer need not burden himself in such a way. He had come to request a recommendation from the Rav for a certain matter. The Rav gladly fulfilled his request, and then accompanied him all the way out of the house. When the Rav returned, the astonished students asked why he went to such extremes to honor the mane even after they realized that it was not the Brisker Rav. He explained that in truth the Mitzva of honoring Jews is so great that in truth we should honor every simple Jew in the same way that we honor great Torah scholars. However, due to our low level, the Mitzvos are not so important to us, and we do not treat each Jew with the honor he deserves. However, in this instance Divine Providence decreed that he should prepare to welcome a great Rabbi and why should he lose out on this great Mitzva just because the visitor was simple Jew. Moreover, he continued, how do we know that this man is a simple Jew. This story teaches us the extent of the value of each Jew, no matter who he is. We have seen how the Torah went to great lengths to enumerate the offerings of twelve Nesi’im to teach that HaShem cares about every individual’s actions. This makes it incumbent upon us to respect ourselves and to treat others with the respect due to them. There is one final outcome of this tenet of Judaism; since God cares about every single action that every single person takes, each person must develop an acute sense of responsibility for his actions. In this vein the Rambam writes that each person should view the world as being constantly on a weighing scale of Mitzvos versus sins, and that every Mitzva that he does could tip the scales for the good, and every sin that he commits could have the opposite effect. This should imbue us with a recognition of the importance of each and every action that we take.

PARSHAS BAMIDBAR - YEHUDA AND YISSOCHOR

PARSHAS BAMIDBAR - YEHUDA AND YISSOCHOR The Parsha devotes considerable time to describing the formations of the tribes. They were arranged in groups of three. The commentaries point out that they were deliberately placed in such a position so as to be able to exert influence on each other. The first formation was that of Yehuda, Yissochor and Zevulun. Yehuda was directly next to Yissochor. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l writes that Yehuda’s distinguishing characteristic was the ability to take achrayus (responsibility), both for himself, and for others. He exercised this mida when he took achrayus for the incident with Tamar, when he accepted the consequences of bringing Binyomin down to Mitzrayim and when Nachshon ben Amminadav, the Prince of Yehuda, was the first person to step into the sea at the Yam Suf before it had even split. Yissochor is known to represent Torah; he devoted himself to Torah study whilst his brother Zevulun provided for his physical needs , furthermore, many of the leading members of the Sanhedrin were from Yissochor . In this article we will focus on how Yehuda was intended to exert a positive influence on Yissochor. In Parshas Vayigash, the Torah describes how the Bney Yisroel left Eretz Yisroel to live in Mitzrayim. We are told that Yaakov Avinu sent Yehuda ahead of him to prepare the way in Goshen. Rashi explains that he was sent to start a Beis Talmud. This set a precedent for all Jewish history that the first priority of a Jewish community should be Torah education. However, it is difficult to understand why Yehuda was sent to establish the Beis Talmud - would not Yissochor have been a more appropriate choice, given that his ikar mida is learning Torah? The Tiferes Shlomo answers that Yehuda was the first person to take achrayus for another to the extent that he was willing to give up his own life. We see this when Yehuda guaranteed to Yaakov that he would protect Binyomin from any danger in Mitzrayim. This was an act of incredible self-sacrifice emanating from Yehuda’s deep feeling of responsibility for others. Consequently, the reason that Yaakov sent Yehuda to open the Beis Talmud was so that it’s guiding principle would be a sense of achrayus for the well-being of one’s fellow Jew. This idea can help us explain why Yehuda was placed next to Yissochor in the tribe formation - it is not sufficient merely to learn Torah for one’s own spiritual benefit, rather one must have the attitude that he is learning Torah so that he can pass it on to others. Moreover, the greater one’s ability to learn and understand Torah, the greater the obligation is upon him to be mashpia on others. Rav Yisroel Salanter zt”l epitomised such an attitude. “After resolving a difficulty in Rambam, R.Yisroel fainted. “If I have such talent,” he explained upon coming to, “I have a tremendous responsibility. The Heavenly Court will demand of me, “Why didn’t you get the whole world to do teshuva?” How significant a part of our Talmud Torah is the necessity to pass it on to others? The Mishna in Avos states: “If you have learnt much Torah, ‘al tachzik tova’ to yourself, because that is why you were created.” The simple understanding of this Mishna is that a person should not be proud of his achievements in Talmud Torah because learning Torah is his purpose in life. However, many commentaries suggest a different explanation. They explain the Mishna to mean that if a person has learnt much Torah he should not keep its goodness for himself, rather he should teach it to others - why? Because his purpose in creation is to learn and teach.” It is clear from this explanation of the Mishna that passing on Torah is not merely an aspect of one’s Talmud Torah, rather it is part of the very foundation of one’s learning. In this vein, Rav Wolbe zt”l expressed his views on educating our children in their attitude to learning Torah. “I think that we must teach this to youngsters already from the time that they enter into yeshiva katana. Immediately in the first year, we must say to them that they are intrinsically connected to Klal Yisroel, and that they are obligated to give over to Klal Yisroel all the Torah that they will learn in yeshiva katana and yeshiva gedola. This is their avoda - not just to think about themselves. One must know that he must give over his Torah to Klal Yisroel.’ It is clear that Rav Wolbe believed that approaching our learning with a sense of achrayus is not just a good mida, rather it is a prerequisite to our relationship with Torah. If a person does bear this sense of achrayus then he receives a reward over and above the normal reward for Talmud Torah. The Mishna in Avos states that one who is mezakeh the rabim is saved from chet and he receives reward for every mitzva that he caused to be done. The Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Zev Segal zt”l would say that if one’s years of learning are a preparation for his disseminating Torah in the years to come, the Torah student is already considered a mezakeh es harabim during his years of learning. Since his learning is done with the intention of enabling him to pass on more to others, then the learning itself provides him with the inestimable merit of one who helps many. Hashem intended for Yehuda to influence Yissochor to learn Torah in order to share it with others. So too we must learn this lesson and approach our own learning with a great sense of achrayus for our fellow Jew, if we do so, then the benefits for ourselves and Klal Yisroel are endless.

במדבר – שתי דרגות בעבודת ה' יהונתן גפן

במדבר – שתי דרגות בעבודת ה' יהונתן גפן בעת שמונה התורה את תולדות שבט לוי, היא מזכירה את האירוע הקשה בו נפטרו שני בניו הצדיקים של אהרן הכהן, נדב ואביהו. בפסוק זה מוסיפה התורה לסיפור מותם פרט שלא היה ידוע עד כה – העובדה שהם נפטרו ללא ילדים . הגמרא לומדת מכך, שלו היו להם ילדים – הם לא היו נענשים במיתה . החת"ם סופר זצ"ל מסביר שנדב ואביהו הגיעו לדרגת קרבת אלוקים כה גבוהה, עד שהשיגו כבר את מטרתם ותכליתם בזה העולם, לא נשאר להם תפקיד עלי אדמות ולכן נפטרו. אולם, אילו היו להם ילדים – היה צורך שיישארו בחיים כדי לגדל את ילדיהם ולספק להם את צרכיהם. לומדים מכך שאף אם אדם יגיע לשלמות מוחלטת בעבודת ה' הפרטית שלו, הוא בכל זאת יישאר בחיים על מנת להיטיב עם צאצאיו. יתירה מזאת, מדברי החת"ם סופר משתמע שקיימות שתי דרגות בעבודת ה' – הראשונה היא התעלותו בתורה, במידות, ביראת שמיים ובקרבת אלוקים, והשניה היא האחריות כלפי ילדיו. ב"פיתוחי חותם" מוסיף עוד החת"ם סופר ואומר שצדיק גדול יכול להישאר בחיים גם על מנת להנהיג את תלמידיו, נוסף לילדיו, כלומר דרגה שנית זו בעבודת ה' אינה מסתכמת רק לחוג המשפחה של האדם, אלא גם לעדת התלמידים הסובבת אותו. בפרשת וישלח מצינו דוגמא לכך שעבודת ה' אינה מסתכמת אך ורק בין אדם לקונו – אלא מתפרשת על סביבתו: לאחר שיעקב אבינו יצא מהנסיון הקשה של חיים בצילו של לבן הרשע, והתמודדות מול אחיו העוין – עשיו, מתארת אותו התורה כ"שלם" – חז"ל מסבירים שהכוונה היא שהוא היה במצב של שלמות רוחנית; הוא עמד בגבורה בפני הסכנות הרוחניות שארבו לו בדמות לבן הרשע ועשיו אחיו, ויצא מכך כשהוא טהור ונקי מכל חטא ופגם. שנותיו הבאות עדיין לא התנהלו על מי מנוחות אלא הוא סבל רבות כתוצאה מטעויותיהם של הסובבים אותו – יציאתה של ביתו החוצה שנבעה מחֶסר בצניעותה וגרמה ללקיחתה בידי שכם, ובסופו של דבר להריגת כל העיר בידי שמעון ולוי. לאחר מכן הגיע המקרה בו העביר ראובן את מיטתה של בלהה, ואז נמכר יוסף. בולט מאד הפער בין גדולתו המיוחדת של יעקב המתוארת בתחילה, לבין ההמשך המתאר את חסרונותיהם ואי שלמותם של הסובבים אותו. ניתן ללמוד מכך שלמרות שהוא היה שלם בעבודתו הפרטית, הוא נשאר בעולם על מנת לתקן את חסרונותיו של העולם הסובב אותו. גדולי ישראל רבים השקיעו נתחים גדולים מחייהם בהתמקדם בעבודת ה' הפרטית שלהם, אולם כאשר ראו שהגיע הזמן הנכון, הם הקדישו כוחות עצומים מעצמם ומאישיותם על מנת לדאוג לעם ישראל. הר' שך זצ"ל מהווה דוגמה מובהקת לכך, הוא ישב ולמד ללא הרף במשך שנים ארוכות, אולם כאשר הפך להיות גדול בישראל, הוא הקדיש את כל כולו למען כלל ישראל, ומעולם לא סירב לסייע לכל אחד ואחד בצרכיו. שתי דרכי העבודה דורשות מהאדם שתי יכולות וגישות שונות; ניתן לראות זאת מיצירתו של האדם. בעוד כל בעלי החיים נוצרו במאמר אחד, האיש והאישה נוצרו בשני מאמרים נפרדים; מורי ורבי ר' יצחק ברקוביץ שליט"א מסביר שכל מאמר מייצג דרגה חדשה נוספת בבריאה. המאמר בו נוצר האדם מייצג את דרגת העבודה של האדם בהתקרבותו האישית והפרטית אל הקדוש ברוך הוא. ואילו המאמר בו נוצרה האישה הביא לעולם רמה חדשה, יצירה חדשה שנקראת – חברה. מצב בו האדם נדרש לתקשר עם הסובבים אותו. שתי דרגות אלה דורשות כל אחת יכולת אנושית שונה: ביחס לעבודתו הפרטית, נדרש האדם לנהוג במידה מסויימת של דין עם עצמו, לנהוג בביקורת כלפי עצמו ולשאוף לתקן ולשפץ עוד ועוד את אישיותו. כאשר בא על האדם מצב של סבל וקושי מסוים, עליו להתמקד בחיובו להאמין בהקב"ה למרות הכל, ולתקן ולשפץ את דרכיו. בניגוד מוחלט לכך, ביחס לסובבים אותו על האדם לנהוג בדרך שונה לחלוטין. כאשר אדם אחר סובל ממשהו, אסור לחברו לומר לו שהסבל מגיע לו מאת ה', והמטרה היא לעוררו לתקן את דרכיו, אלא עליו להתמקד בנשיאה בעול עם חברו, ועליו לנהוג עם חברו כאילו אין מי שדואג לו ומשגיח עליו – כולל הקב"ה. הרב מבריסק התייחס לרעיון זה בדרך זו באופן מיוחד. הוא יצא מתוך הנחה שלכל תכונת אופי שלילת יש גם ביטוי חיובי כלשהו – כשנשאל מהו הצד החיובי של כפירה, הוא ענה שתכונה זו מסייעת לאדם לנהוג כפי הנדרש ממנו כאשר חברו נמצא בצרה. אסור לו אז לומר שהוא מאמין בה' שהכל יהיה לטובה, אלא עליו לפעול ולעשות את המוטל עליו, כאילו אין יד ה' מעורבת בעניין, והוא ורק הוא מחויב לקחת את כל האחריות על כתפיו . גדולי ישראל שילבו באישיותם את שתי הדרגות בעבודת ה' - ביחס לעצמם נהגו בביקורת חדה ונוקבת, ברחו מפני הכבוד וסירבו לקבל כל עזרה מאחרים, בעוד שכלפי זולתם נהגו בטוב לב מאין כמוהו, נשיאה בעול, סבלנות רבה ויחס של כבוד והערכה עצומים. נדב ואביהו מעולם לא נשאו באחריות של הנהגת אחרים, ולכן עבודתם הסתכמה אך ורק בגבולות עצמם, ורק בה קנו שלמות מוחלטת. מי ייתן וכולנו נזכה לפתח שלמות בשתי הדרגות של עבודת ה' – שלמות עצמית, ודאגה לעולם הסובב אותנו.

THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM - BAMIDBAR

BAMIDBAR - THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM By Yehonasan Gefen BS"D In the Torah’s account of the Tribe of Levi it reviews the tragic deaths of Aaron Hakohen’s righteous sons, Nadav and Avihu. On this occasion it adds a hitherto unmentioned detail - that they died without any sons . The Gemara extrapolates from here that had they had sons then they would not have died . The Chasam Sofer zt”l explains that Nadav and Avihu had reached such a high level of closeness to Hashem that they had fulfilled their potential, and there was no further need for them to live in Olam Hazeh. However, had they had children then they would have been needed to stay alive in order to bring them up and provide for their needs. We learn from here that even if a person reaches total perfection in his own personal Avoda, he is nevertheless kept alive so that he can benefit his children. Moreover, it seems from the yesod of the Chasam Sofer that there are two levels in Avodas Hashem - the first is a person’s development of his Torah, midos and relationships to Hashem, and the second, his responsibility to his children. In the ‘pisuchay chosam’, the Chasam Sofer adds that a great tzaddik can be kept alive in order to guide his talmidim as well as his children, implying that a person‘s second stage of Avoda is not limited to helping his children, but also his talmidim . We find an example of the dualistic nature of Avodas Hashem in Parshas Vayishlach. After Yaakov Avinu emerged from the tremendous challenges of living with Lavan and facing his hostile brother Esav, the Torah describes him as being ’shalem’ - Chazal understand this to mean that he was spiritually complete; he had withstood the spiritual threats of Lavan and Esav and emerged totally pure of any lacking. Yet, the rest of his life was plagued by the difficulties he endured as a result of the mistakes and shortcomings of people around him - his daughter’s lack of tznius in going out resulted in her abduction by Shechem and its eventual destruction by Shimon and Levi. This was followed by the incident with Reuven moving Bilhah’s bed, and the sale of Yosef. It is striking that after emphasizing Yaakov’s individual greatness, it then outlines in great depth the imperfections of the world around him. This shows us that whilst he had completed his own personal Avoda, he remained on this world in order to rectify the lacking of those around him . Many Gedolim spent a great portion of their lives focused largely on their own personal avoda, but when the time was right, they devoted great amount of energy into serving the Jewish people. Rav Shach zt”l is a perfect example of this, he continuously for many years but when he emerged as a Gadol he totally devoted himself to Klal Yisroel, and never turned away people in need of his help. The two forms of Avoda also require two different attitudes and approaches; this is demonstrated in the creation of mankind. Whilst all the animals were created in one maamer, man and woman were created in two separate maamarim (sayings); my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that each maamar represented a new stage in creation. The maamar creating man represented the aspect of man’s avoda as an individual and his relationship with himself. The maamar creating woman led to a new stage of creation known as society, whereby man has to interact with those around him. These two stages require very different mindsets - with regard to his attitude towards himself, man has to apply a certain degree of din on himself., involving self-analysis an striving to improve oneself. When he endures suffering he should stress the need to trust in Hashem and to strive to improve his ways. In contrast, man must have a very different view towards other people - when someone else suffers, he must not tell them that it is all from Hashem and that they should strive to grow, rather he should focus on caring for them and acting as if they are not being looked after by anyone, including Hashem. The Brisker Rav zt’l made this point in a remarkable way. He posited that every negative trait has a positive aspect to it - when asked what was the positive aspect of the trait of kefira (denying G-d), he answered that it helps us act properly when out friend is in need. We cannot tell him to have trust in Hashem that everything will be fine, rather we must act, so to speak, as if G-d is not involved in his life and we must take responsibility . Gedolim also demonstrated a dualistic attitude in their lives - to themselves they were demanding and self-critical, hiding from kavod and refusing help from other people, but to their fellow man, they were kind, caring, tolerant, and full of praise. Nadav and Avihu never had the responsibility of guiding others, and therefore their avoda was limited to self-perfection. May all of us merit to perfect ourselves in both levels of Avodas Hashem - perfecting ourselves and the world around us.

MOSHE'S "SONS" - BAMIDBAR

BAMDIBAR – MOSHE’S “SONS” By Yehonasan Gefen In its account of the genealogy of the tribes of Israel, the Torah outlines the offspring of Moshe Rabbeinu and Aaron HaKohen Gadol. The Torah includes Aaron’s sons as being part of the offspring of Moshe, as well as of Aaron. Rashi explains that Aaron’s sons are described as the offspring of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah, and one who teaches Torah to his friend’s son is considered to have given birth to him. Therefore, since Moshe taught Aaron’s sons, they are considered to be his sons. The Maharal asks that Moshe did not only teach Aaron’s sons, rather he taught all of Klal Yisroel, and yet we do not see that Moshe is considered to have given birth to all of the Jewish people. He answers that Moshe was commanded to teach the Jewish people, and he taught them that which he was instructed. However, he taught the sons of Aaron over and above what he was commanded. It is this Torah that he voluntarily taught them that earns him the merit of being considered to have given birth to them. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita proves from another episode in Sefer Bamidbar, that HaShem, b’davke wanted Moshe to give of himself from his own volition. In Parshas Pinchas, Hashem instructs Moshe to appoint Yehoshua bin Nun as his successor. He tells Moshe to place his hand on Yehoshua, but Moshe places both hands on Yehoshua. Why did HaShem only ask Moshe to use one hand and why did Moshe use both? Rav Berkovits answers that HaShem wanted Moshe, of his own volition, to lay the second hand on Yehoshua, so that a significant part of Moshe’s transmission to Yehoshua would be voluntary . Moshe understood this and acted accordingly. It still needs to be explained why only a person who teaches someone voluntarily is considered to have given birth to him, but one who does so out of obligation is not given this accolade. Rav Berkovits Shlita, explains that a when a person has a child he gives part of himself into the new offspring, in that his genetic make-up constitutes a very significant part of this new being. When a person teaches someone Torah, he gives of his own spiritual make-up and puts that into his student. In that way, he is similar to one who has children, the only difference being that the true parent gives of his physical self, whereas the teacher gives of his spiritual self. The Maharal’s explanation demonstrates further that a teacher is only considered to merit this level of giving of himself when he does it purely out of a ratson (desire) to teach the person, and not simply because of obligation. This is because when a person teaches another out of a sense of obligation he is unable to totally give of himself, because his intention is not purely to be mashpia (spiritually influence), rather it is to fulfill his chov (obligation). As a result, there is a qualitative lacking in the transmission process, to the extent that the Torah of the teacher is not fully internalized by the student. Therefore, the student is not considered to be the offspring of the teacher. However, when one teaches because of a desire to share the spiritual wonders of the Torah with another, then he is giving over of his own spiritual essence and this is transmitted to the student. Accordingly, the teacher is equivalent to the child’s parent. The principle that there is a qualitative difference between Torah taught out of obligation and Torah taught out of one’s own volition, applies to a wide variety of people and situations: A parent is obligated to teach his child Torah, but if he only acts out of his sense of chiyuv then the child will surely sense it and the transmission process will be hindered. Another common example relevant to this topic is when a person who has spent most of his life in yeshiva and kollel may, for a number of reasons, decide to look into a career that involves teaching of some kind. It seems that the main kavannah that motivates him will play a significant role in determining how effective he becomes as a teacher. A person who does so because he feels compelled to do so for financial or other reasons, will not reach his potential as a conveyor of the Mesorah. In this vein, Rav Nochum Pirtzovitz zt”l stressed to his students that parnassa should not be the primary motivation for taking a position in teaching. This lesson seems to also be relevant to a person who is not in a position to teach children or students on a fixed basis. Firstly, we are all placed in situations where we need to teach others some kind of lesson, and the motivating factors in doing this will play a key role in the effectiveness of the lessons transmitted. Secondly, the principle applies to all forms of giving, not just teaching Torah. Giving out of obligation is far less praiseworthy than giving out of a desire to help one’s fellow. The recipient of the chessed will often sense any feelings of compulsion in the giver and will feel discomfort for placing the giver in a situation he would rather not be in. Furthermore, it seems clear that Rav Dessler’s principle that the great benefit of giving that it leads to greater love for the recipient is only limited to cases where one gives out of volition, and not out of obligation. Indeed, giving because one has no choice, often causes resentment. We have seen how Moshe Rabbeinu merited to have been considered to have given birth to Aaron’s sons because he taught them over and above his actual obligation. May we all merit to emulate Moshe and voluntarily give over of our Torah and ourselves.

RUTH – ACQUIRING MEANING THROUGH YISSURIM

RUTH – ACQUIRING MEANING THROUGH YISSURIM Every Shavuos, we read Megillas Ruth, the story of the conversion of the Moabite Ruth, and her subsequent marriage to Boaz, which led to the birth of David HaMelech and ultimately the future Mashiach. Analyzing aspects of the story can help us deepen our understanding of the lessons that we can learn from Shavuos. One of the striking features of the Megilla is the self-sacrifice that Ruth demonstrated in her decision to join the Jewish people. The gemara in Brachos tells us that HaShem gave the Jewish people three “matanos tovos” (special gifts); and all of them are only acquired through yissurim . The three gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba. The story of the Megilla shows how Ruth acquired two of these gifts (with the exclusion of Torah ) and had to undergo the yissurim that the gemara promises. The difficulty of acquiring Eretz Yisroel is seen at the beginning of the Megilla. The story opens with the yerida of Elimelech and his family to Moav. The process of leaving Israel is covered in one short passuk, “…a man and his family left Beit Lechem to live in the fields of Moav...” In contrast ,the return of Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah to Eretz Yisroel, is expressed in a much lengthier manner: “And she and her daughters-in-laws rose up and returned from the fields of Moav… and she left the place where she had been and her two daughters-in-law were with her, and they went on the way to return to the land of Yehuda.” It is noteworthy how many verbs are used that indicate the travelling involved in the journey back to Eretz Yisroel. The Megilla then describes at length the discussion between Naomi and her daughters-in-law about whether they would accompany her back. Finally, Naomi and Ruth, return to Israel. The stark contrast of the single passuk recounting their leaving of Israel, to the lengthy account of their return, teaches us that it is much easier to leave Eretz Yisroel than to come to it. Moreover, after Ruth and Naomi return to the land, the Megilla describes their great difficulties in supporting themselves there. In this way, Megillas Ruth demonstrates a striking example of how Eretz Yisroel is only acquired with difficulty. In a similar vein, a key feature in the story is Ruth’s willingness to undergo a great deal of discomfort and difficulty in order to join the Jewish nation, and, consequently, merit a new portion in Olam Haba. Chazal tell us that Ruth and Orpah were daughters of the King of Moav. Accordingly, they merited to have a very high stature in Moav. In contrast, by joining Naomi, they faced a life of poverty and the prospects of a low standing in society. This was because at that time there was a great dispute as to whether the Torah prohibition to marry a Moabite convert, also applied to female Moabite converts. Indeed, later in the Megilla, we see that the closest relative of Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, refused to marry Ruth because of her Moabite origins. In addition to these obstacles, lay the numerous obligations involved in becoming a Jew. Chazal tell us that Naomi stressed this to Ruth and Orpah; she mentioned a number of Mitzvos that would cause them to undergo great restrictions to their life. Indeed, her arguments persuaded Orpah to return to Moav. Ruth, in contrast told Naomi that she was willing to undergo all the difficulty involved in converting. Because of her willingness to undergo yissurim, Ruth merited a very unique place in Olam Haba. It still needs to b explained why the matanos tovos of Torah, Eretz Yisroel, and Olam Haba are only acquired through yissurim. This can be explained through a principle that Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l would constantly emphasize. He taught that genuinely meaningful pleasure could only be acquired through challenge. For example, when people look back at the most satisfying moments in their lives, they usually mention times when they had put great effort into achieving something, such as passing a difficult exam, or they choose a happy occasion such as marriage or having children. Anyone who has experienced such times of happiness, knows that marriage and child rearing involve a great deal of difficulty and challenge. Yet, they are causes of great joy for those who make the effort. In this vein, Torah, Eretz Yisroel and Olam Haba are the most meaningful things that a person can acquire. Precisely because of their great value, they can only be acquired with great difficulty. Ruth recognized this fact, and made the decision to forego the less ‘painful’ pleasures that life had to offer, for the meaningful experience of joining the Jewish nation in Eretz Yisroel. This lesson is highly relevant to Shavuos: Chazal tell us that HaShem offered the Torah to the nations of the world, but they refused when they saw how difficult it would be to observe its laws. The Jewish nation realized that despite the responsibilities that came with accepting the Torah, it was the greatest gift possible. Their decision to choose the more difficult and more meaningful option, is one that every Jew must strive to emulate. We must realize that keeping the Torah is the only way to achieve true life fulfillment.