במדבר – "בניו" של משה רבנו

במניין בני ישראל מפרטת התורה את צאצאיהם של משה רבינו ושל אהרן הכהן. התורה מכלילה את בני אהרן כחלק מצאצאיו של משה, מלבד היותם צאצאיו של אהרן . רש"י מסביר שבני אהרון מיוחסים אחר משה, כיוון שמשה לימדם תורה ו"כל המלמד בן חברו תורה כאילו ילדו". וכך נחשבים הם גם לבניו של משה . שואל על כך המהר"ל, הרי משה רבינו לא לימד רק את בני אהרון תורה, אלא הוא לימד תורה לכל כלל ישראל, ועם זאת לא רואים שום מקום בו נקראים כלל ישראל כ"בניו" של משה? הוא משיב שמשה נצטווה ללמד תורה לכל עם ישראל, והוא לימדם כפי שהורו לו, אולם את בניו של אהרון הוא לימד יותר, מעל ומעבר למה שהיה מחויב על פי צווי ה'. אותם דברי תורה שלימדם מעבר לחיובו הם אלה שזיכו אותו להיחשב לאביהם מולידם . מורי ורבי, ר' יצחק ברקוביץ שליט"א מוכיח מעניין אחר בספר במדבר, שהקב"ה דווקא רצה שמשה ייתן מתורתו מעבר לחיובו הבסיסי. בפרשת פינחס, הקב"ה הורה למשה למנות את יהושע בן נון לרשת את תפקידו ולהמשיך את דרכו. משה נצטווה לשים את ידו על ראש יהושע, אבל משה הניח את שתי ידיו על ראש יהושע. מדוע ציווה ה' להשתמש רק ביד אחת? ומדוע עשה זאת משה בשתי ידיו? הר' ברקוביץ משיב שה' רצה שמשה, מרצונו האישי ומהתנדבות ליבו יחליט להניח את היד השניה, כך שחלק משמעותי ממסירת התפקיד ליהושע יהיה מתוך תוספת התנדבות של משה, ולא מתוך חיוב. משה הבין זאת ונהג בהתאם . עדיין דרוש הסבר, מדוע רק אדם שמלמד אדם אחר תורה מרצונו האישי ולא כחובה נחשב כאילו ילדו, ואילו אדם שעושה זאת כחובה, לא זוכה לתואר כזה. הר' ברקוביץ שליט"א מסביר שכאשר נולד לאדם תינוק, הבן מקבל חלק מאביו ממש, חלק משמעותי מהקוד הגנטי של התינוק החדש מגיע אליו מאביו מולידו. כאשר אדם מלמד אדם אחר תורה, הוא לוקח חלק מתוך אוצרו הרוחני שבתוכו, ומעניק אותו לאחר. ברגע זה אותו עניין שנלמד הופך להיות חלק מאישיותו של הלומד. באופן זה הוא דומה מאד לאדם המוליד ילד, ההבדל היחיד הוא שהורה ביולוגי נותן מאישיותו הגשמית, בעוד המלמד מעניק מתוך פנימיותו הרוחנית. הסברו של המהר"ל מבהיר יותר מכך, שהמלמד תורה זוכה להחשב נותן מתוך עצמו אך ורק אם הוא עושה זאת מתוך רצון טהור ללמד את תלמידו ולא מתוך התחייבותו או מחויבות כלשהי. הסיבה לכך היא שכאשר אדם מלמד תורה מתוך חובה, הוא אינו מסוגל להעניק באופן מושלם מפנימיותו, כיוון שמטרתו ומגמתו העיקרית אינה טהורה לגמרי, ורצונו אינו רק להשפיע וללמד תורה, אלא גם יש לו בכך עניין של "לצאת ידי חובתו". כתוצאה מכך ישנו חסרון כלשהו באיכות המסירה והנתינה, חסרון הגורם לכך שתורתו של המלמד אינה מופנמת באופן מושלם באישיות התלמיד. ולכן התלמיד אינו נחשב להיות "בנו" של המלמד. לעומת זאת, כאשר מלמד תורה רק מתוך שאיפה לחלוק את הידע התורני והרוחני שלו עם האחר, אזי הוא מעניק מתוך תמצית עולמו הרוחני, ומסירה כזו מופנמת היטב בתלמיד עד כדי כך שהוא נחשב להיות בנו. עיקרון זה, על פיו ישנו הבדל איכותי בין לימוד תורה לאחרים מתוך מחויבות לעומת לימוד תורה מתוך נדיבות לב ורצון פנימי, בא לידי ביטוי בקשת רחבה מאד של מצבים ובני אדם: כל אב מחויב ללמד את בנו תורה, אך אם הוא פועל אך ורק מתוך אותו חיוב, אזי לבטח הילד יחוש בכך ומשהו בתהליך ההפנמה ייפגם. דוגמא רווחת נוספת היא, אדם שרוב ימיו ישב ולמד תורה בישיבה ובכולל, ובשלב מסוים, מסיבות כלשהן הוא מחליט לתור אחר משרה תורנית הכוללת בתוכה לימוד תורה לתלמידים. הכוונה העיקרית המניעה אותו היא זו שתשחק תפקיד משמעותי והיא שתכריע עד כמה משפיע הוא יהיה בתפקידו. אדם שעושה זאת כיוון שהוא חש אילוץ כספי או אילוץ אחר, לא יממש את כל הפוטנציאל שלו כמעביר השושלת לדור הבא. ועל כך הדגיש והזהיר ר' נחוםפרצוביץ זצ"ל את תלמידיו שסיבות פרנסה אינן יכולות להיות המניע העיקרי לנטילת משרה תורנית זו או אחרת . עיקרון זה משמעותי גם לאדם שאינו במעמד של מלמד תורה לילדיו או לתלמידיו באופן סדיר. ראשית כל, כולנו נתונים לסיטואציות בהם אנו מוכרחים ללמד אחרים לימודים מסוגים שונים, ומה שמניע אותנו לעשות זאת ישפיע על איכות ההעברה וההפנמה. שנית, אותו עיקרון תקף גם לכל אופני הנתינה לסוגיה, לא רק לימוד תורה. נתינה מתוך כורח או מחויבות היא הרבה פחות איכותית מנתינה מתוך שאיפה אמיתית לסייע לזולת. מקבל החסד בדרך כלל רגיש מאד לכל רגש של כורח מצד המקבל ויחוש תחושה מאד לא נוחה אם יבין שהוא גורם לנותן לעשות מה שהיה מעדיף לא לעשות. יתירה מזאת, נראה ברור שאותו עיקרון של הר' דסלר, על פיו היתרון הגדול של הנתינה היא שהיא מולידה אהבה בלב הנותן – למקבל, הוא מוגבל רק לאותם מקרים בהם אדם נותן מתוך רצון לתת ומתוך התנדבות, ולא מתוך מחוייבות. ואכן, נתינה שנובעת מכך ש"אין ברירה אחרת" פעמים שגורמת אף לתרעומת וכעס על המקבל. ראינו כיצד משה רבינו זכה להחשב אביהם של בני אהרון כיון שהוא לימדם מעל ומעבר למה שהיה מחויב מלכתחילה. מי ייתן וכלנו נזכה ללכת בדרכיו ולתת מתוך נדיבות לב ושאיפה אמיתית לתת מעצמנו ומתורתנו.

SHAVUOS - MAKING PEACE BETWEEN BODY AND SOUL

The Gemara in Pesachim teaches us a fascinating lesson about Shavuos; the Gemara brings a machlokes (disagreement) between Rebbe Yehoshua and Rebbe Eliezer with regard to how a person should conduct himself on the Yamim Tovim. Rebbe Yehoshua holds that one should devote part of his time to spiritual pursuits, and the rest of his time to physical enjoyment. Rebbe Eliezer argues that it is impossible to be involved in both ruchnius (spirituality) and gashmius (physicality) , rather one must choose to totally focus on one or the other. The implication of Rebbe Eliezer's approach is that one should focus purely on spiritual activities such as learning and praying, to the exclusion of physical pleasures such as eating and drinking. However, the Gemara then points out with regards to Shavuos, even Rebbe Eliezer agrees that one should also involve himself in eating and drinking. The reason given is that this is the day that the Torah was given . The commentaries find great difficulty with this Gemara, in particular they ask why the fact that the Torah was given on Shavuos means that one should eat and drink more. It would have seemed more appropriate that one should totally devote himself to spiritual pursuits on this holy day. The emphasis of physical enjoyment on Shavuos indicates that there must be some deeper connection between physicality and Shavuos. The key to understanding this connection is a Gemara in Shabbos: The Gemara tells us that after the Giving of the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim (heaven) in order to learn the entire Torah from Hashem. However, the Malachim (angels) took exception to the appearance of a mere human being in the higher realms. They argued that man is not deserving of the holy Torah because of his lowly physical nature, rather they should be its recipients. Hashem instructed Moshe Rabbeinu to refute their argument. He did so by pointing out numerous aspects and laws of the Torah that are clearly directed at physical beings; for example, the Torah commands that one should not do melacha (forbidden activity) on Shabbos but they do not do any melacha at any time so how is Shabbos relevant to them?!. Hashem and the Malachim themselves accepted this argument . Rav Chaim Friedlander zt"l, discusses at length the interaction between the Malachim and Moshe Rabbeinu. He points out that the Malachim's desire to receive the Torah instead of man is difficult to understand. They were surely aware of the Torah's contents and realized that they were clearly directed at physical beings so how could they hope to receive it themselves?! He explains that the Torah can be understood on many levels, and that the simple understanding that we relate to is just one of many ways of understanding it. Accordingly, the Torah also applies to Malachim on their level of existence; for example there is a spiritual version of refraining from melacha on Shabbos that relates to them, and so is the case with every word in the Torah. The Malachim argued that it should remain in Shamayim where they could learn it on a far deeper level, untainted by Olam HaZeh (this world). Moshe Rabbeinu understood that this was the Malachim's argument, nevertheless he argued that the Torah was made to be understood and applied on a physical level. He proved this by mentioning numerous Mitzvos that demonstrated that the Torah was deliberately written in such a way that it could be applied by physical beings. The reason for this is that there is a far greater increase of Kavod Shamayim when a human being overcome his physical nature in order to fulfill Ratson Hashem (Hashem's will) than when a purely spiritual being acts according to his nature. Thus, Moshe proved to the Malachim that they could not properly fulfill the Mitzvos in the Torah in such a way that would bring about the most Kavod Shamayim in the world. This Gemara teaches us of the central nature of the body with regard to receiving the Torah. The fact that human beings are attached to the physical world was the very reason that we merited to receive the Torah. We can now understand the connection between Shavuos and the focus on one's body. Shavuos is the very day that the spiritual world and physical world combined at Har Sinai. On this unique occasion, the purely spiritual Torah was clothed in physical garb in order that we could elevate ourselves through its observance. We asked why Rebbe Eliezer agrees that on Shavuos we must also provide enjoyment for our bodies. The Beis HaLevi answers that we must show an extra level of gratitude to our bodies because they were the cause of Moshe's victory over the Malachim . We therefore deliberately involve ourselves in physicality. It is possible to add that Rebbe Eliezer argued that on other Yom Tovim one cannot combine spiritual pursuits with physical involvement. It seems that he held that an excessive focus on gashmius would inevitably harm one's ruchnius. However, he agreed that Shavuos was different - on Shavuos there is a special energy whereby physicality and spirituality need not contradict each other, rather they can work together to bring about a greater revelation of Kavod Shamayim. In this vein, the Maharal notes that Shavuos is the only festival in which we offer a Communal Korban Shelamim . He explains, writing that "on this day there is peace and a strong connection between the upper and lower worlds. " We have seen how Shavuos involves a unique connection between the body and soul and that everyone agrees that it is appropriate to be involved in physical pursuits on this Holy day. This lesson can also be applied to the rest of the year through our efforts to elevate our physical activities. Nonetheless, it is no easy task to attain the correct balance between the two and a person is always at risk of overly focusing on gashmius for its own sake. Rav Avigdor Miller zt"l offered a way of avoiding this possible pitfall; he suggested that at least one action we perform each day should be done with a conscious effort to be leshem Shamayim . He suggests applying this exercise specifically in the area of one's eating. For one time in the day, a person should try to focus on eating so that he will be strong and healthy to perform Avodas Hashem as opposed to satisfying his more base physical desires. Through efforts at self-growth such as this a person will be able to elevate his physical pursuits.

במדבר – שתי דרגות בעבודת ה'

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.

BAMIDBAR - THE TWO STAGES OF AVODAS HASHEM

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 is 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 us. 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 Clal. Rav Shach zt”l is a perfect example of this, he learnt b’hasmada for many years but when he emerged as a Gadol he literally made himself hefker 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; my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that each maamer represented a new stage in creation. The maamer creating man represented the aspect of man’s avoda as an individual and his relationship with himself. The maamer 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 of kefira, 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.

BAMDIBAR – MOSHE’S “SONS”

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.

BECHUKOSAI – INSIGHTS IN RASHI – RAISING OUR BITACHON

Vayikra, 26:3: If you will follow My decrees and observe my Commandments and perform them. Vayikra, 26:12-13: I will walk among you, I will be G-d to you and you will be a people to me. I am HaShem, your G-d Who took you out of the land of Egypt from being their slaves… Rashi, Vayikra, 26:13, sv. I am HaShem your G-d: “I am reliable that you should believe in Me, that I can do all these [things] for, behold, I took you out of the land of Egypt and I performed for you great miracles.” The Parsha begins with an account of the great rewards that HaShem promises the Jewish nation if they observe the Torah. This section ends with HaShem reminding the people that He took them out of the land of Egypt. Rashi, based on the Toras Kohanim, explains that HaShem is reassuring the people that He can be relied upon to fulfill His promises; His ‘proof’ is the fact that He already performed remarkable miracles, thus He can be relied upon to also do so in the future. A number of questions can be asked on this Rashi. One is that HaShem issued these promises a very short time after the great miracles of the Exodus. Accordingly, why was it necessary for Him to remind the people of these miracles in order that they believe the promises of future miracles – surely they would not forget them so soon after they took place?! This question can be answered through understanding a different problem in the Torah narrative. On more than one occasion in the desert, the Jews complain to Moshe about their difficult situation and hearken back to the days that they were in Mitzrayim. For example, in Parshas Behaalosecha they complain about the manna from Heaven that they were eating and reminisce about their life in Mitzrayim: “We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge; the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic.” The commentaries wonder how they could have such short memories with regard to the terrible slavery that they endured. The answer given is based on the Gemara in Rosh Hashana that says that the Jews were freed from slavery for their last six months in Mitzrayim. In this time period they seemed to live comfortable lives and were able to eat the food mentioned in their complaints. Accordingly, when they fondly remembered their time in Mitzrayim they were thinking about their last six months, despite the facts that for many years before that they endured unbearable suffering. This demonstrates a powerful tool of the yetser hara to make a person have a short memory when it suits its purposes. In this instance, the yetser hara made them forget how terrible their time in Mitzrayim was, because of a mere six months of freedom. This caused them to complain so dramatically about their situation in the desert. With this principle we can answer our initial question as to why HaShem needed to remind the people about the great miracles as a reassurance that He would reward them in the future. The answer here too is that people have short memories; in this context it means that despite the fact that the Jewish people had recently experienced great miracles, it was very likely that when they would experience future hardships, their trust in G-d would falter. Consequently, they would be prone to forgetting the great kindnesses that He had done for them in the Exodus. Therefore it was necessary to remind them of HaShem’s ability to perform great miracles for them, so that they would use their memory of these events to bolster their trust in G-d in the future. This explanation has important ramifications on our lives. We too experience moments of clear Divine Kindness where it is obvious that HaShem is looking after us. Yet, on other occasions His Providence is not so evident and we can be prone to worrying about any number of possible situations, such as financial and health issues. In such situations we can easily forget the past kindnesses that HaShem has done for us and experience feelings of despair. Yet, by actively contemplating HaShem’s past actions we can be reassured that He is also with us in our current challenge. The Chovos Levavos makes this very point in Shaar Bitachon; he writes that one of the ways to increase our trust in G-d is to recall His numerous past kindnesses; this includes things that we take for granted including the gift of life itself. This requires an active effort, because, as we have seen, the yetser hara makes us quickly forget HaShem’s past kindnesses. But by spending a little time contemplating what He has done for us we can greatly increase our bitachon and serenity in difficult times.

BEHAR – HURTFUL WORDS

On two occasions in Parshas Behar the Torah instructs us not to afflict our fellow Jew. In the first instance, the Torah states: “When you sell an item to one of your people or buy from one of your people, a man should not afflict his brother. ” A few passukim later, the Torah seemingly repeats itself: “Do not afflict your people and fear your G-d, because I am Hashem, Your G-d. ” Chazal explain that there are two different types of onaah (affliction); the first passuk refers to onaas mammon - affliction relating to money . The second relates to onaas devarim - hurting someone through words . In general Chazal do not compare two specific mitzvos and say that one is greater than another, however, in this instance they compare the two forms of onaah. Initially, one would think that onaas mammon is more severe than onaas devarim because when a person is hurt verbally he does not lose any tangible object, however when he is afflicted financially then he suffers a real loss. However, surprisingly, the Gemara says that onaas devarim is considered a greater sin than onaas mammon for three different reasons. Firstly, with regard to onaas devarim the passuk says, and you should fear your G-d” but it omits this when discussing onaas mammon. The Maharsha explains that people are more likely to notice when someone is trying to commit onaas mammon but that it is far easier to conceal one’s true intentions to harm people verbally. Someone who harms other financially is aware that people will likely recognize what he is doing but continues regardless. He shows a lack of yiras Hashem because he is unconcerned that Hashem is totally aware of his actions but he also demonstrates no fear of what people think of his actions. A person who harms people in a concealed way demonstrates that he fears people more than Hashem - he is only concerned that people not think he is a cruel person, but he is unconcerned that Hashem knows his true intentions. He is considered on a lower level than one who harms financially because he demonstrates greater concern for the opinion of other people than for Hashem . Secondly, the Gemara says that onaas mammon merely harms people’s property, whereas onaas devarim is worse because it harms someone’s very being. This particularly refers to a person’s emotional well-being - the damage done to them by a careless word can penetrate to their very essence. A frightening example of this is related by Rav Dov Brezak Shlita: He relates how a well-respected Talmid Chacham in his forties required counseling because of a traumatic childhood experience - on one occasion his mother called him ‘tamay’. That single labeling damaged him so deeply that it stayed with him for the rest of his life. This provides ample indication that harmful words can cause untold damage. The Gemara continues with a third aspect in which onaas devarim is worse than onaas mammon - if a person deceitfully extracts money from his fellow he can repair the damage by simply returning that which he unjustly took. However, when one harms someone else with words, no amount of apologizing can change the past - those words can never be taken back. It is a common occurrence in relationships, especially in marriage, that a few insensitive words have long-lasting damage and that damage can never be fully healed because those words can never be fully taken back. Perhaps a corollary of this aspect of the severity of onaas devarim is that once harmful words are spoken they can rapidly have a ‘domino effect’ whereby the consequences of these few words can be so far-reaching that it is impossible to ever undo the damage those words had done. The following story, told over by Rav Dovid Kaplan Shlita, involves a situation where a few cruel words nearly had far-reaching consequences but they were averted by a few kind words: “Raised modern Orthodox, Devoras’s parents instilled in her a respect for rabbinic but a critical eye toward chareidim. When she got older, she decided to check it out for herself and davened at the Ponevezh Yeshiva during the Yamim Nora’im. She went back for Simchas Torah. Everything was fine until one of the girls present said to her in a loud voice in front of a crowd of girls, “you don’t come to dave here without wearing stockings!” Devora stormed out. If this was how chareidim behaved she was not interested. However, due to her respect for rabbinic, she decided to go speak to Rav Shach. When she arrived at his door, there was a long line of men waiting to go in. When the door opened and the person inside left, they called here in, explaining that women had higher priority. Pleasantly surprised, she related the shocking story to the gadol hador. “They did a big aveirah.” Rav Shach told her. “Maybe it was unintentional, but they are still obligated to ask your forgiveness.” He spoke to her for a long time about how careful we must be to be sensitive to others. She decided during this talk to become more religious. Today she is married to a Rosh Yeshiva and her sons and son-in-laws are talmidei chachamim. ” This story teaches us how much damage one wrong statement can do - it very nearly alienated this girl from chareidi Jewry and prevented her from becoming more observant. It also demonstrates how much good a few thoughtful words can do. It is very clear from the Gemara how serious the sin of onaas devarim can be, moreover it is a very difficult mitzvo to observe properly - we are constantly involved in conversation with other people and it is very easy to hurt their feelings through a thoughtless statement. Moreover, because we speak so much we can forget how serious a sin it is to hurt other people’s feelings. The Chazon Ish once witnessed a man strongly rebuke his young son for moving something on Shabbos that may have been muktza. The Chazon Ish told the man that his son may have transgressed a Rabbinical mitzvo, but that the father had definitely transgressed the Torah mitzvo of onaas devarim. One technique to help be more watchful of this mitzvo is to develop the attitude that we should be just as careful in it as in all other mitzvos such as kashrus - we would never eat something without being certain that it was permitted to eat it. So to, we need to try to develop a sense of vigilance that what we are about to release from our mouth is permitted. The best way of doing this is by learning the halachos and hashkafo behind it . It is instructive to end with one final saying of the Chazon Ish - he used to remark that one of the greatest possible sources of joy is that he lived his whole life without causing pain to his fellow Jew - may we all be zocheh to only do good with our speech..