Our parsha tells us that there was a dispute that broke out between the shepherds of Avraham and the shepherds of Lot. The Torah immediately tacks on, "V'ha'K'na'ani v'haPrizi az yosheiv ba'aretz." (13:7) Note the use of "yosheiv," as opposed to earlier in the parsha when we were told (12:6), "V'ha'K'na'ani az ba'aretz." "Yosheiv," means our enemies were settled in the land, not just temporarily there or there by happenstance. When Jews fight with each other, even if it is just fight, even if it is a fight against the injustices committed by a Lot, even if it is a fight where one side is defending the interests of an Avraham Avinu in all his tzidkus, the net result is a gain for our enemies, who as a result are bolstered and have a greater sense of security and a stronger foothold. It's the Chasam Sofer who says this, someone who knew how to fight when he perceived a threat to Orthodoxy, but here he is telling us to be careful. Apply as you like to current events.
Getting back to the story, Avraham tells Lot that they must separate, and wherever he chooses to go, Avraham will head in the opposite direction. Lot sees the land of Sdom and its beautiful fertile pastures before him, and he makes the logical choice to move there with his flocks. "Va'yisa Lot m'kedem" (13:11) -- literally, he headed away from the east, where Avraham was camped (see Seforno,) but the Midrash reads much more into the phrase and tells us that Lot was moving away from G-d, the "kadmono shel olam." Lot was running away from religion, abandoning his faith.
Asks the Alter m'Kelm: in next week's parsha we are going to read how Lot, despite living amidst the wicked people of Sdom, risked his life to fulfill the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim. We are going to read how he baked matzah for his guests because it was Pesach (Rashi). Unlike his sons in law, he did not doubt the malach's message that Sdom would be destroyed, and he immediately abandoned his home when he was told to flee. Does this sound like someone who has run away from G-d and religion?! OK, so he wanted to move to the best pasture land, he cared maybe too much about his flocks and his wealth, and so he ended up is Sdom, but why does that mean he is someone trying to escape from religion?
The Alter answers that we see from here that even if you eat the most kosher matzah, do mitzvos, dress the dress and walk the walk, if what really anchors your life is the almighty $ instead of the Almighty, then you are on the wrong path. Then you are a Lot.
Is it too early in the year for me to write about advertisements for Pesach vacations in luxury hotels with pools and beaches and every amenity one can dream of, including a 24 hour a day tea room because you never know when you will be hungry, as if the banquet size meals were not enough (don't worry -- there is a gym and exercise room too, probably with a personal trainer available to help you)? Of course they all have the best hashgachos, non-gebrokst food, daf yomi shiurim daily (maybe poolside?). This is what Lot wanted -- the beautiful pastures of Sdom! -- while doing mitzvos.
You can dress it up in hashgachos and mitzvos and other nice frum things, but it's still Sdom, far away from the values of kadmono shel olam.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
ba'avur vs biglal
Both the Malbim and Netviv distinguish between the words "biglal" and "ba'avur," both of which can be translated as "because," but which actually have different connotations. (The Malbim throughout his commentary assumes there are no synonyms in Hebrew and there must be at least subtle differences between words that seem at first glace to mean the same thing.)
"Ba'avur" implies doing something because there is some tangible benefit to be gained. Rivka tells Ya'akov to prepare a meal and bring it to Yitzchak, "ba'avur yivarechicha lifnei moso." Prepare a meal because you want to get a blessing.
"Biglal" is about logical causes, not gain/loss. G-d promised to remove the 7 nations from Canaan and give us their land "biglal ha'toeivos ha'eileh" which they did -- because of their wrongs.
Interestingly you have a pasuk in our parsha (12:13) that contains both words. Avraham tells Sarah that when they enter Egypt she should say he is her brother "l'ma'an yitav li ba'avureich" -- there is a tangible gain of wealth that Avraham will accrue, hence "ba'avur." He then adds, "v'chaysa nafshi biglaleiach" -- Sarah will be the cause of the Egyptians avoiding the crime of murder. (Shouldn't the latter point have come first? Good question, but not for this post : )
Turning back two weeks to parshas Braishis, which "because" word would you use in the sentence telling us that man was giving the earth to toil because of his sin? You would think it should be "biglal," -- sin is a logical cause. But we know that's not what the pasuk says -- it says "arura ha'adaman ba'avurecha..." (3:17) What's going on?
Malbim and Netziv explain that the pasuk is in one word giving us a beautiful lesson: man's punishment forcing him to toil is to his benefit -- it is something he can gain from and grow from. Work and toil will serve to curb his yetzer ha'ra so that the sin of eitz ha'da'as can ultimately be rectified. The punishment is itself a bracha in disguise.
Homework: check your concordance -- does the Malbim"s distinction work in all the places these words are used? I was a bit puzzled by a number of examples...
"Ba'avur" implies doing something because there is some tangible benefit to be gained. Rivka tells Ya'akov to prepare a meal and bring it to Yitzchak, "ba'avur yivarechicha lifnei moso." Prepare a meal because you want to get a blessing.
"Biglal" is about logical causes, not gain/loss. G-d promised to remove the 7 nations from Canaan and give us their land "biglal ha'toeivos ha'eileh" which they did -- because of their wrongs.
Interestingly you have a pasuk in our parsha (12:13) that contains both words. Avraham tells Sarah that when they enter Egypt she should say he is her brother "l'ma'an yitav li ba'avureich" -- there is a tangible gain of wealth that Avraham will accrue, hence "ba'avur." He then adds, "v'chaysa nafshi biglaleiach" -- Sarah will be the cause of the Egyptians avoiding the crime of murder. (Shouldn't the latter point have come first? Good question, but not for this post : )
Turning back two weeks to parshas Braishis, which "because" word would you use in the sentence telling us that man was giving the earth to toil because of his sin? You would think it should be "biglal," -- sin is a logical cause. But we know that's not what the pasuk says -- it says "arura ha'adaman ba'avurecha..." (3:17) What's going on?
Malbim and Netziv explain that the pasuk is in one word giving us a beautiful lesson: man's punishment forcing him to toil is to his benefit -- it is something he can gain from and grow from. Work and toil will serve to curb his yetzer ha'ra so that the sin of eitz ha'da'as can ultimately be rectified. The punishment is itself a bracha in disguise.
Homework: check your concordance -- does the Malbim"s distinction work in all the places these words are used? I was a bit puzzled by a number of examples...
Thursday, October 19, 2017
the one word diffence between ya'aleh v'yavo in tefilah vs bentching
Over Yom Tov I reminded my family of a halacha that will come up once again on Rosh Chodesh when we have the addition of ya'aleh v'yavo in our davening and bentching. If you look in your bentcher, you will see one little difference in the way ya'aleh v'yavo appears there from the way it appears in the siddur: the word melech in ki K-l melech chanun v'rachum atah is in parenthesis. This is based din in O.C. 188:3 The Shulchan Aruch says that when you mention malchus beis David (rachem... al malchus beis David m'shichecha) in the third bracha of bentching you should not mention the malchus of Hashem along side it, e.g. a person should not say malchuscha u'malchus beis David, as if one were to do so it would give the impression that one is equating the malchus of Hashem with another malchus. Adds the Rama, that the same principle holds true at the end of the bracha as well and the word melech should be left out of ya'aleh v'yavo. That being said, the Rama continues and says that he has noticed that the minhag does not follow this recommendation. Achronim (see Taz) try to justify the common practice, but the Aruch haShulchan writes that has noticed that where he lived people do in fact follow the Rama and leave the word melech out. Now that I've made you aware of the issue, you can start leaving it out too : )
One other interesting note on the parsha: Chazal (Sanhedrin 58) darshen from the words "yom v'layla lo yisbosu" that an aku"m who observes a day of shabbos is chayav misa. Achronim say pilpulim to explain how it is that the Avos were able to keep Shabbos (the gemara in Kiddushim tells us that Avraham kept even dinim derabbanan) when technically they might still have had the status of bnei Noach and not been allowed to set aside a day of rest.
Shu"T Binyan Tzion (126) suggests that the key word is "yishbosu." Resting means avoiding hard labor. That is very different that our definition of Shabbos, which is based on the word "melacha," referring specifically to the 39 actions done in the construction of the mishkan. An aku"m who moves a heavy couch between rooms in his house has broken his "shabbos" because he has done hard work, not kept it as a day of "shevisa", but a Jew who does the same action on our Shabbos is not liable because it does not fall into the category of melacha.
One other interesting note on the parsha: Chazal (Sanhedrin 58) darshen from the words "yom v'layla lo yisbosu" that an aku"m who observes a day of shabbos is chayav misa. Achronim say pilpulim to explain how it is that the Avos were able to keep Shabbos (the gemara in Kiddushim tells us that Avraham kept even dinim derabbanan) when technically they might still have had the status of bnei Noach and not been allowed to set aside a day of rest.
Shu"T Binyan Tzion (126) suggests that the key word is "yishbosu." Resting means avoiding hard labor. That is very different that our definition of Shabbos, which is based on the word "melacha," referring specifically to the 39 actions done in the construction of the mishkan. An aku"m who moves a heavy couch between rooms in his house has broken his "shabbos" because he has done hard work, not kept it as a day of "shevisa", but a Jew who does the same action on our Shabbos is not liable because it does not fall into the category of melacha.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
dor ha'mabul -- dor she'kulo chayav
The end of last week's parsha sets the stage for the story of the mabul. "Va'yinachem Hashem ki asah es ha'adam ba'aretz." Netziv notes that it doesn't say "ki bara es ha'adam," like "braishis bara..." G-d did not "regret" kavyachol the creation of man. What G-d wanted to change is "ki asah es ha'adam." Asiya is a more complete stage of creation. Man needs to struggle, to work. There has to be a void for us aspire to fill. When things are done for us and we don't have enough to do, it's not good. "Ha'batalah m'vi'ah l'ydei shi'amum," Chazal tell us. Indolence breeds sloth and bad behavior.
The Kozhnitzer Magid similarly writes that if a human artisan sets out to make a vessel and it does not meet expectations, he tosses it out and starts again, but it is impossible to say the same thing about G-d. To think that G-d would destroy the world and start again because it did not work out the way he "anticipated" is an impossibility. (What about the Midrash that G-d created many worlds and destroyed them before creating ours? He does not address it. My hunch is that the difference is that only our world was created based on the blueprint of Torah, and Torah is eternal).
With this background we can understand a Rashi a little more deeply. The Midrash writes (quoted in Rashi) that the dor ha'mabul threatened that if Noach entered the ark they would to destroy it and kill him. "Va'yisgor Hashem ba'ado" means Hashem protected Noach and ensured he could enter the ark without harm. R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar asks what it is the dor ha'mabul were hoping to gain by this. Did they want to prevent Noach from saving himself out of sheer vindictiveness? What did Noach do to them that would warrant such a reaction? After all, he had been trying to convince them to repent and save themselves for years. Why were they out to get him?
The Kozhnitzer Magid answers that had Noach not entered the ark, the result would not have been his perishing with everyone else. Once G-d created the world, there is no undoing the act of creation -- again, G-d is not like a human artisan who tosses side a failed product to start over. There had to be a shei'ris ha'pleita of the old world; there had to be continuity. Therefore, the only possible result of Noach not entering the ark would be no one perishing. If the choice was total destruction or no destruction, the only possible outcome would have been no destruction.
Chazal (Sanhedrin 98) tell us that there are two ways Moshiach can come: he can come in a generation that proves itself completely righteous, but more amazingly, he can also come in a generation that is completely wicked. If the historical struggle between good and evil comes to the point where evil completely vanquishes good, then game over, but it does not mean the world is destroyed. It means that there is no longer any purpose to the game, and G-d will reveal himself fully (see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol1 p 28). The end of the game is the same no matter how it plays out. This was the plan of the dor ha'mabul. So long as there was a Noach, a spark of righteousness, of hope, then the status quo of schar v'onesh and the struggle between good and evil would continue. If Noach however was killed, the struggle would end in complete redemption of dor she'kulo chayav.
In his Mayan Chaim, R' Chaim Charlap (son of R' Y"M Charlap) suggests that this is what Rashi means when he writes that Noach vacillated, "ma'amin v'aino ma'amin," when it came time to enter the ark. Surely Noach, the tzadik tamim, did not harbor doubts in emunah. Yet, what Noach realized is that his very lack of doubt, his tzidkus, his belief, would destroy the world. What he realized is that he was the one thing that stood between the complete redemption of dor she'kulo chayav and a flood that would destroy most of mankind. The flood is called "mei Noach," says the Kozhnitzer Magid, because Noach's righteousness effectively doomed the world. Would it not be better under those circumstances to maybe doubt a little bit, maybe as an aveira lishma, to spare the world and bring it to redemption?
Yet paradoxically, the very thought of doing an aveira lishma to spare the world itself only enhances and proves Noach's tzidkus. Who else other than a tzadik would do an aveira for the sake of sparing a generation of such evildoers? And so G-d protected Noach as he entered the ark and the flood came.
"Va'ya'as Noach k'chol asher tzivah oso Elokim..." A perplexing diyuk: why the name Elokim, which connotes midas ha'din, when we are speaking about the means of rescue? Should the pasuk use the shem Hashem that connotes rachamim?
Based on this approach, the pasuk hits the nail right on the head. Davka because Noach had a path to rescue himself, the rest of the world was doomed and was subject to din.
(As for R' Shteimnan's second question on the Rashi, maybe you can use Sefas Emes 5641 d"h b'Rashi from "af she'lo matzinu she'pa'al bahem" to answer it.)
The Kozhnitzer Magid similarly writes that if a human artisan sets out to make a vessel and it does not meet expectations, he tosses it out and starts again, but it is impossible to say the same thing about G-d. To think that G-d would destroy the world and start again because it did not work out the way he "anticipated" is an impossibility. (What about the Midrash that G-d created many worlds and destroyed them before creating ours? He does not address it. My hunch is that the difference is that only our world was created based on the blueprint of Torah, and Torah is eternal).
With this background we can understand a Rashi a little more deeply. The Midrash writes (quoted in Rashi) that the dor ha'mabul threatened that if Noach entered the ark they would to destroy it and kill him. "Va'yisgor Hashem ba'ado" means Hashem protected Noach and ensured he could enter the ark without harm. R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar asks what it is the dor ha'mabul were hoping to gain by this. Did they want to prevent Noach from saving himself out of sheer vindictiveness? What did Noach do to them that would warrant such a reaction? After all, he had been trying to convince them to repent and save themselves for years. Why were they out to get him?
The Kozhnitzer Magid answers that had Noach not entered the ark, the result would not have been his perishing with everyone else. Once G-d created the world, there is no undoing the act of creation -- again, G-d is not like a human artisan who tosses side a failed product to start over. There had to be a shei'ris ha'pleita of the old world; there had to be continuity. Therefore, the only possible result of Noach not entering the ark would be no one perishing. If the choice was total destruction or no destruction, the only possible outcome would have been no destruction.
Chazal (Sanhedrin 98) tell us that there are two ways Moshiach can come: he can come in a generation that proves itself completely righteous, but more amazingly, he can also come in a generation that is completely wicked. If the historical struggle between good and evil comes to the point where evil completely vanquishes good, then game over, but it does not mean the world is destroyed. It means that there is no longer any purpose to the game, and G-d will reveal himself fully (see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol1 p 28). The end of the game is the same no matter how it plays out. This was the plan of the dor ha'mabul. So long as there was a Noach, a spark of righteousness, of hope, then the status quo of schar v'onesh and the struggle between good and evil would continue. If Noach however was killed, the struggle would end in complete redemption of dor she'kulo chayav.
In his Mayan Chaim, R' Chaim Charlap (son of R' Y"M Charlap) suggests that this is what Rashi means when he writes that Noach vacillated, "ma'amin v'aino ma'amin," when it came time to enter the ark. Surely Noach, the tzadik tamim, did not harbor doubts in emunah. Yet, what Noach realized is that his very lack of doubt, his tzidkus, his belief, would destroy the world. What he realized is that he was the one thing that stood between the complete redemption of dor she'kulo chayav and a flood that would destroy most of mankind. The flood is called "mei Noach," says the Kozhnitzer Magid, because Noach's righteousness effectively doomed the world. Would it not be better under those circumstances to maybe doubt a little bit, maybe as an aveira lishma, to spare the world and bring it to redemption?
Yet paradoxically, the very thought of doing an aveira lishma to spare the world itself only enhances and proves Noach's tzidkus. Who else other than a tzadik would do an aveira for the sake of sparing a generation of such evildoers? And so G-d protected Noach as he entered the ark and the flood came.
"Va'ya'as Noach k'chol asher tzivah oso Elokim..." A perplexing diyuk: why the name Elokim, which connotes midas ha'din, when we are speaking about the means of rescue? Should the pasuk use the shem Hashem that connotes rachamim?
Based on this approach, the pasuk hits the nail right on the head. Davka because Noach had a path to rescue himself, the rest of the world was doomed and was subject to din.
(As for R' Shteimnan's second question on the Rashi, maybe you can use Sefas Emes 5641 d"h b'Rashi from "af she'lo matzinu she'pa'al bahem" to answer it.)
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha -- taking the happiness of Y"T out with you
1. The navi concludes its description of the chanukas habayis done by Shlomo by telling us, "Va'ayas Shlomo ba'eis ha'hi es ha'chag... shivas yamim v'shivas yamim arb'ah asar yom." (Melachim I 8:65) Chazal explain that Shlomo celebrated the dedication of the Mikdash for 7 days, and then immediately thereafter celebrated Sukkos for the next 7 days. In other words, these were two different celebrations that happened to fall out one right after the other. Why then, asks R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Sukkos 32), does the navi describe it as a celebration of the chag, singular, and tell us the celebration was 14 days, as if it was one long event?
R' Tzadok explains that the chanukas haMikdash and the holiday of sukkos are in fact one and the same celebration. The sukkah is a commemoration of the ananei ha'kavod that surrounded Bnei Yisrael in the desert, and when the Mikdash was dedicated, the navi tells us, "V'he'anan malei es beis Hashem," (8:10) that Hashem's anan descended into the place. The ananei ha'kavod of the midbar came in Aharon's merit, and it was Aharon's descendants who served in the Mikdash. Mikdash and sukkah both symbolize the same hashra'as haShechina in Klal Yisrael. Each one of our sukkos is a mini-Mikdash.
The Vilna Gaon writes that the reason we celebrate Sukkos in Tishei and not in Nisan is because the ananei ha'kavod departed after the sin of cheit ha'eigel and did not return until 15 Tishrei when Moshe began collecting for the construction of the Mishkan. In light of R' Tzadok's explanation, it is not coincidental that the clouds returned just then. The kedusha manifest in Mishkan/Mikdash is the very same as was manifest by the ananei ha'kavod.
2. On one of the days of Sukkos I suggested that the shalosh regalim correspond to banei, chayaei, and mezonai. Pesach is the holiday of banai -- the Torah speaks to us of 4 sons. Shavos is chayai -- chayei olam nata b'socheinu, the Torah. Sukkos and Shmini Atzeres is mezonai, as it is on this chag that we daven for geshem, which encompasses our material needs. I found the Sefas Emes alludes to this idea, see 5743 d"h baMishna.
3. The gemara says Shmini Atzeres is distinct from Sukkos with respect to 6 halachos represented by the siman PZ"R KSh"V. R=regel. With respect to what din is it a new regel? I saw quoted in the name of the Rogatchover that there is a new din of chayav adam l'hakbil pnei rabo ba'regel on Shmini Atzeres in addition to the chiyuv of the same din on Sukkos.
4. V'Zos haBracha is the only parsha not read on a Shabbos. R' Tzadok explains that Shabbos is "keviya v'kayma," it's kedusha is set without our having to do anything, unlike the kedusha of Yom Tov which comes through beis din's declaration. The parsha of each Shabbos, the torah unique to that week, comes down to us like the kedusha of Shabbos, from without. We hope that we can accept it and absorb it each week when it comes down to us.
The kedusha of Zos haBracha, after a full year of parshiyos, after experiencing a whole cycle of moadim, is a kedushah that comes from within. At the end of the day, what Torah is all about is not obeying rules imposed upon us from without, but discovering within ourselves that those rules are built into our souls and define who we are.
Sefas Emes explains that the difference between Shavuos and Simchas Torah is that on Shavuos we celebrate Torah sheb'ksav -- it is the Torah given to is, imposed upon us. Simchas Torah, Shmini Atzeres, is torah she'ba'al peh, the Torah that comes from within, that we are mechadesh, that is part of who we are.
5. "Smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha..." Sefas Emes asks: why should Zevulun be happy that he has to go off on business? I don't know about you, but I don't get much simcha out of riding the subway and dealing with hectic problems at work all day. And it's not just about work. This is the last few days of Yom Tov, and then we go out -- "tzeisecha" -- out from an intense period of kedusha back to the daily grind, back to the world of chol. Where's the happiness in that?
Sefas Emes answers that what the Torah is doing here is giving us advice. How can we make that transition back to the world that for better or worse we have to be part of a successful one? By making sure we start off with simcha. If you are a Zevulun and are stuck going out there, then "smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha," before you go, take a moment to rejoice in what you have before you leave. Have a simchas Torah, celebrate the dveikus of the chagim, appreciate the experience. How many people go through three+ weeks of Yom Tov and don't even take a moment to THINK about what is going on? How many people pause to reflect? This is the last chance -- take advantage! Absorb the simcha now, and then it will stick with you, so that even "b'tzeisecha," the Torah will be with you, the dveikus will still be with you.
R' Tzadok explains that the chanukas haMikdash and the holiday of sukkos are in fact one and the same celebration. The sukkah is a commemoration of the ananei ha'kavod that surrounded Bnei Yisrael in the desert, and when the Mikdash was dedicated, the navi tells us, "V'he'anan malei es beis Hashem," (8:10) that Hashem's anan descended into the place. The ananei ha'kavod of the midbar came in Aharon's merit, and it was Aharon's descendants who served in the Mikdash. Mikdash and sukkah both symbolize the same hashra'as haShechina in Klal Yisrael. Each one of our sukkos is a mini-Mikdash.
The Vilna Gaon writes that the reason we celebrate Sukkos in Tishei and not in Nisan is because the ananei ha'kavod departed after the sin of cheit ha'eigel and did not return until 15 Tishrei when Moshe began collecting for the construction of the Mishkan. In light of R' Tzadok's explanation, it is not coincidental that the clouds returned just then. The kedusha manifest in Mishkan/Mikdash is the very same as was manifest by the ananei ha'kavod.
2. On one of the days of Sukkos I suggested that the shalosh regalim correspond to banei, chayaei, and mezonai. Pesach is the holiday of banai -- the Torah speaks to us of 4 sons. Shavos is chayai -- chayei olam nata b'socheinu, the Torah. Sukkos and Shmini Atzeres is mezonai, as it is on this chag that we daven for geshem, which encompasses our material needs. I found the Sefas Emes alludes to this idea, see 5743 d"h baMishna.
3. The gemara says Shmini Atzeres is distinct from Sukkos with respect to 6 halachos represented by the siman PZ"R KSh"V. R=regel. With respect to what din is it a new regel? I saw quoted in the name of the Rogatchover that there is a new din of chayav adam l'hakbil pnei rabo ba'regel on Shmini Atzeres in addition to the chiyuv of the same din on Sukkos.
4. V'Zos haBracha is the only parsha not read on a Shabbos. R' Tzadok explains that Shabbos is "keviya v'kayma," it's kedusha is set without our having to do anything, unlike the kedusha of Yom Tov which comes through beis din's declaration. The parsha of each Shabbos, the torah unique to that week, comes down to us like the kedusha of Shabbos, from without. We hope that we can accept it and absorb it each week when it comes down to us.
The kedusha of Zos haBracha, after a full year of parshiyos, after experiencing a whole cycle of moadim, is a kedushah that comes from within. At the end of the day, what Torah is all about is not obeying rules imposed upon us from without, but discovering within ourselves that those rules are built into our souls and define who we are.
Sefas Emes explains that the difference between Shavuos and Simchas Torah is that on Shavuos we celebrate Torah sheb'ksav -- it is the Torah given to is, imposed upon us. Simchas Torah, Shmini Atzeres, is torah she'ba'al peh, the Torah that comes from within, that we are mechadesh, that is part of who we are.
5. "Smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha..." Sefas Emes asks: why should Zevulun be happy that he has to go off on business? I don't know about you, but I don't get much simcha out of riding the subway and dealing with hectic problems at work all day. And it's not just about work. This is the last few days of Yom Tov, and then we go out -- "tzeisecha" -- out from an intense period of kedusha back to the daily grind, back to the world of chol. Where's the happiness in that?
Sefas Emes answers that what the Torah is doing here is giving us advice. How can we make that transition back to the world that for better or worse we have to be part of a successful one? By making sure we start off with simcha. If you are a Zevulun and are stuck going out there, then "smach Zevulun b'tzeisecha," before you go, take a moment to rejoice in what you have before you leave. Have a simchas Torah, celebrate the dveikus of the chagim, appreciate the experience. How many people go through three+ weeks of Yom Tov and don't even take a moment to THINK about what is going on? How many people pause to reflect? This is the last chance -- take advantage! Absorb the simcha now, and then it will stick with you, so that even "b'tzeisecha," the Torah will be with you, the dveikus will still be with you.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
teshuvah = achdus
I haven't had time to write much lately, but wanted to say gmar chasima tovah to all and thank everyone who takes the time to read, comment, email. Our biggest tefilah on Yom Kippur should be that Hashem should give all of us strength to continue learning Torah and growing in avodah.
"Va'yar Moshe es ha'am ki par'ua hu..." (Shmos 25:32) Rambam explains that as a result of cheit ha'eigel the people were torn apart -- some thought making an eigel was a good idea; others thought just the opposite; everyone was going in a different direction.
The tikun of cheit ha'eigel -- the achievement of forgiveness -- occurred on Yom Kippur. On that day the shattering of Am Yisrael into splinter groups was repaired. We became one people again and regained that lost unity and common direction.
"Shuva Yisrael ad Hashem Elokecha" -- lashon yachid, in the singular, not Elokeichem, the plural. The path to teshuvah starts with our becoming one united people.
(Another possible pshat is that teshuvah is not accomplished by thinking about what the Klal can/should do -- it starts with each individual asking what he/she can do about his/her own behavior. As the Brisker Rav points out, when Yonah was sitting on a boat filled with people who were actual avodah zarah and a storm arose, he stood up and said, "Throw me into the sea -- it's my fault." He didn't point the finger at anyone but himself.)
Sefas Emes explains that this is why there is a special mitzvah of ritzuy on erev Yom Kippur. Ritzuy is not appeasement or saying, "I'm sorry." Ritzuy, says Sefas Emes, is from the word ratzon. We have to want to be with all our fellow Jews, we have to want good things for them. (I'm only half joking if I say that this idea is probably a more difficult mitzvah than all 5 inuyim combined.)
Wishing all a year of shalom and achdus and kaparah and geulah.
"Va'yar Moshe es ha'am ki par'ua hu..." (Shmos 25:32) Rambam explains that as a result of cheit ha'eigel the people were torn apart -- some thought making an eigel was a good idea; others thought just the opposite; everyone was going in a different direction.
The tikun of cheit ha'eigel -- the achievement of forgiveness -- occurred on Yom Kippur. On that day the shattering of Am Yisrael into splinter groups was repaired. We became one people again and regained that lost unity and common direction.
"Shuva Yisrael ad Hashem Elokecha" -- lashon yachid, in the singular, not Elokeichem, the plural. The path to teshuvah starts with our becoming one united people.
(Another possible pshat is that teshuvah is not accomplished by thinking about what the Klal can/should do -- it starts with each individual asking what he/she can do about his/her own behavior. As the Brisker Rav points out, when Yonah was sitting on a boat filled with people who were actual avodah zarah and a storm arose, he stood up and said, "Throw me into the sea -- it's my fault." He didn't point the finger at anyone but himself.)
Sefas Emes explains that this is why there is a special mitzvah of ritzuy on erev Yom Kippur. Ritzuy is not appeasement or saying, "I'm sorry." Ritzuy, says Sefas Emes, is from the word ratzon. We have to want to be with all our fellow Jews, we have to want good things for them. (I'm only half joking if I say that this idea is probably a more difficult mitzvah than all 5 inuyim combined.)
Wishing all a year of shalom and achdus and kaparah and geulah.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
the parsha of teshuvah
"V'shavta ad Hashem Elokecha... b'chol levavcha u'bchol nafshecha." (30:2) A few pesukim later we have, "V'atah tashuv... v'asisa es kol mitzvosav." (30:8) Chasam Sofer explains that the first pasuk is addressing us in galus. We don't have a beis hamikdash; many of us are not even living in Eretz Yisrael. Return to authentic Jewish life, meaning living as Jewish nation in our own Jewish homeland where Torah and mitzvos are our national culture, is something we dream of, "b'chol levavcha u'bchol nafshecha," in our hearts,but is something far from our reality. R' Tzadoh haKohen interprets "lo b'shamayim hi," assuming that the pasuk is speaking about teshuva (as Ramban learns, not like Rashi), as meaning that one should not think that the fact that Beis haMikdash is up in heaven now and inaccessible is an obstacle to teshuvah; "lo mei'eiver l'yam hi," the fact that Eretz Yisrael is across the ocean is not an obstacle either. We can dream, we can hope, we can have the desire to get there. Continues the parsha, one day, "v'hevi'acha Hashem Elokecha el ha'aretz..." (30:5) we will return to the land. When that day comes, "V'atah tashuv... v'asisa," (30:8) we will have the opportunity to do, to take action and live as we are supposed to, not just to dream about it. But it all starts with the "hishtokekus," the desire to get there. That much we can all do now.
Ramban asks why it is that when describing the mitzvah of teshuva the Torah uses "lashon beinoni" -- a description, not a command, e.g. "V'hasheivosa... V'shavta..." but it does not say "tashuv." Minchas Chinuch raises the possibility that according to the Rambam there is a mitzvah of viduy, but no actual mitzvah of teshuvah. When you want to do teshuvah, you have to do viduy, but there is no command to do teshuvah. According to this approach, Ramban's question seems to be moot. Ramban, however, assumes there is a mitzvah of teshuvah and explains that the Torah here is giving us more than a command -- it is a promise. We all have dreams, some of which might come true, many of which will not. The hope and dream of the Jewish people returning to Eretz Yisrael and doing teshuvah is something that is built into our destiny. The Torah is describing what must come to fruition, not just giving a command that we have a choice whether or not to fulfill.
I would like to flip this model of the Chasam Sofer, of moving from "hishtokekus," from desire, from the heart and soul, to the world of action, on its head. Shem m'Shmuel is bothered by the order of words in the pasuk, "...b'ficha u'b'levavcha l'asoso" Ramban writes that the Torah here is describing the mitzvah of teshuvah. Shouldn't the order be reversed? Doesn't a person first come to teshuvah with his heart, and only afterwards, articulate through viduy what he/she did wrong, and express and formulate and new, positive direction? The heart precedes the mouth, not the other way around?
Of course you should see the Shem m'Shmuel for a great answer, but I would like to suggest that the pasuk makes perfect sense and is telling us how to do teshuvah. There are lots of people who know that it is the teshuvah season and they therefore run to this shiur or that lecture seeking to be inspired. They wait to do teshuvah -- they are waiting to hear just the right lecture that will lift them up, they waiting to hear just the right shiur from the right Rabbi that will capture their heart. In the meantime, while they are waiting for that elusive moment of inspiration, the clock is ticking toward Rosh haShana. The Torah here is telling us, "Don't wait!" Say the words of viduy, say an extra perek of tehilim, learn an extra blatt of gemara. You may not feel inspired -- you may feel like you are just going through the motions -- but those words will sink in. Start with the words (and deeds) and the heart will follow. Inspiration will stem from action, not the other way around.
We baruch Hashem get a second helping of parshas hashavu'a this week with Vayeilech. The Midrash Tanchuma writes that "Vayeilech Moshe" is a tochacha. Here Moshe steps out of his holy space and comes to each sheivet, maybe each member of Klal Yisrael, to speak to them -- where is the rebuke? What could be more positive than that?
Shem m'Shmuel writes that the Torah is not telling us that Moshe took a physical walk to get from place to place -- who cares about that? It is telling us that Moshe had to make a spiritual journey. He had to leave where he was spiritually holding in and travel down a notch to come speak to us.
I don't remember what the person did to earn it, but the Tchebiner Rav promised a certain person that he would make sure to get him into Gan Eden. Later in life the Tchebiner asked that person for one favor: "Don't make it so hard for me."
Why should Moshe Rabeinu need to take a walk down the spiritual ladder in order to speak to us? Why do we have to make it so hard for him? Can't we make it a little easier and come a little closer to his level? That's the tochacha.
Thursday, September 07, 2017
for the sake of bikurim
"B-reishis" = the world was created for the sake of reishis, the "reishis pri ha'adamah," the first fruits of bikurim which the farmer brings to the Mikdash, as described in the opening to our parsha.
I don't mean to minimize the importance of bikurim, but let's be real -- if you asked 100 people to pick one mitzvah for which the world was created, most would answer things like learning Torah, saying shema, emunah. Not bikurim. What do Chazal see as so crucial in the mitzvah if bikurim?
When the farmer brings bikurim to the Mikdash in essence what he is saying is, "It's not me." He may have plowed the field, he may have planted the seeds, he may have weeded, watered, tended the crops, and finally harvested, but the crops are not the product of his work alone. By bringing bikurim the farmer is saying that it's not "kochi v'otzem yadi," but rather his success comes from Hashem.
"V'lakach ha'kohen ha'teneh mi'yadecha" -- bikurim takes the fruit out of being "mi'yadecha," the work of your hands (alone), and acknowledges that it is a gift from Hashem.
"Lo achalti b'oni mi'menu" -- R' Shimon Sofer explains that the word "oni" can be interpreted as strength. Ya'akov describes Reuvain as "kochi v'reishis oni," my first strength. Again, the farmer is declaring that the fruit does not come from the strength of his labor, but rather is a gift from G-d.
What Chazal are telling us is that G-d created this thing we call "earth" with laws of nature that serve to obscure his presence and where humans can delude themselves into thinking they are in total control in order so that we might have the opportunity to make the biggest kiddush Hashem possible -- to pierce that veil and declare that Hashem is behind it all. Even if there was no physical world there could be angels who learn Torah, who say shema, who have emunah. You don't need a world for that. All that can take place in Heaven. What you need a world for is so that we can declare, through our bikurim, that G-d is present even where he doesn't seem to be.
The Torah uses the term "higadti" when describing the farmer's speech to the kohen. Normally the term hagadah, as opposed to amirah or dibur, connotes harsh words. The farmer is relating how G-d helped bring us to Eretz Yisrael and his asking for Hashem's bracha -- what's so harsh about what he is saying?
Here we have the kohen, says the Ishbitzer, who lives a holy life, who can cloister himself in the Mikdash, who is involved in Torah (Rambam end of Hil Shemitah) when he is not doing avodah. Along comes a simple farmer with his basket of fruit and barges into that domain of kedusha. You can picture him with his overalls, maybe with the mud from the field still on his workboots, marching up to the kohen and handing over that basket. The farmer then declares to the kohen, "Don't think you have an exclusive on G-d. I may be out on the field working, I may be a simple farmer, but my basket of fruit is as valuable as what you are doing." That's hagadah = kashe k'gidim, harsh words. "Higadti l'Hashem Elokecha..." -- your G-d, reb kohen, is my G-d too. My avodah is at least as valuable as yours. Real holiness is not just when you live a life in the Mikdash, in the beis medrash, the life of the kohen. Real holiness is when you live in the darkness of olam=he'elem, where G-d's presence is hidden, out in the field, out dealing with the struggles of the world, and you come with bikurim and declare that that "real" world is just a fake and what is real is G-d.
Maybe this is what the Midrash Tanchuma means when it teaches that Moshe was troubled as to how we would get by without bikurim when we no longer had a Mikdash. Moshe was not worried about the loss of korbanos or avodah -- holiness. Moshe was worried more about the loss of a place where one could elevate the mundane and make even it holy. That's what bikurim is all about.
Hashem's answer to Moshe was that we will have 3 tefilos a day that will make up for the loss. Tefilah reminds us (especially when you stop right in the middle of a work day for minchah!) that it's not the hard work we do that makes things happen, but it's G-d who is behind it all.
I don't mean to minimize the importance of bikurim, but let's be real -- if you asked 100 people to pick one mitzvah for which the world was created, most would answer things like learning Torah, saying shema, emunah. Not bikurim. What do Chazal see as so crucial in the mitzvah if bikurim?
When the farmer brings bikurim to the Mikdash in essence what he is saying is, "It's not me." He may have plowed the field, he may have planted the seeds, he may have weeded, watered, tended the crops, and finally harvested, but the crops are not the product of his work alone. By bringing bikurim the farmer is saying that it's not "kochi v'otzem yadi," but rather his success comes from Hashem.
"V'lakach ha'kohen ha'teneh mi'yadecha" -- bikurim takes the fruit out of being "mi'yadecha," the work of your hands (alone), and acknowledges that it is a gift from Hashem.
"Lo achalti b'oni mi'menu" -- R' Shimon Sofer explains that the word "oni" can be interpreted as strength. Ya'akov describes Reuvain as "kochi v'reishis oni," my first strength. Again, the farmer is declaring that the fruit does not come from the strength of his labor, but rather is a gift from G-d.
What Chazal are telling us is that G-d created this thing we call "earth" with laws of nature that serve to obscure his presence and where humans can delude themselves into thinking they are in total control in order so that we might have the opportunity to make the biggest kiddush Hashem possible -- to pierce that veil and declare that Hashem is behind it all. Even if there was no physical world there could be angels who learn Torah, who say shema, who have emunah. You don't need a world for that. All that can take place in Heaven. What you need a world for is so that we can declare, through our bikurim, that G-d is present even where he doesn't seem to be.
The Torah uses the term "higadti" when describing the farmer's speech to the kohen. Normally the term hagadah, as opposed to amirah or dibur, connotes harsh words. The farmer is relating how G-d helped bring us to Eretz Yisrael and his asking for Hashem's bracha -- what's so harsh about what he is saying?
Here we have the kohen, says the Ishbitzer, who lives a holy life, who can cloister himself in the Mikdash, who is involved in Torah (Rambam end of Hil Shemitah) when he is not doing avodah. Along comes a simple farmer with his basket of fruit and barges into that domain of kedusha. You can picture him with his overalls, maybe with the mud from the field still on his workboots, marching up to the kohen and handing over that basket. The farmer then declares to the kohen, "Don't think you have an exclusive on G-d. I may be out on the field working, I may be a simple farmer, but my basket of fruit is as valuable as what you are doing." That's hagadah = kashe k'gidim, harsh words. "Higadti l'Hashem Elokecha..." -- your G-d, reb kohen, is my G-d too. My avodah is at least as valuable as yours. Real holiness is not just when you live a life in the Mikdash, in the beis medrash, the life of the kohen. Real holiness is when you live in the darkness of olam=he'elem, where G-d's presence is hidden, out in the field, out dealing with the struggles of the world, and you come with bikurim and declare that that "real" world is just a fake and what is real is G-d.
Maybe this is what the Midrash Tanchuma means when it teaches that Moshe was troubled as to how we would get by without bikurim when we no longer had a Mikdash. Moshe was not worried about the loss of korbanos or avodah -- holiness. Moshe was worried more about the loss of a place where one could elevate the mundane and make even it holy. That's what bikurim is all about.
Hashem's answer to Moshe was that we will have 3 tefilos a day that will make up for the loss. Tefilah reminds us (especially when you stop right in the middle of a work day for minchah!) that it's not the hard work we do that makes things happen, but it's G-d who is behind it all.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Al dvar asher lo tza'akah -- sometimes you have to scream
The one factor, at least based on a superficial reading of the parsha, that distinguishes a case of ones from a case of znus is whether the woman screamed out or not. "Al dvar asher lo tza'akah ba'ir" (22:24) -- the assumption is that if whatever happened took place in the city, the woman must be guilty as well or someone would have heard her screaming.
Ramban is bothered: why are we so hung up on the screaming? Maybe this woman lives in NY and knows no one is going to respond to her screams anyway, like the Kitty Genovese story, so she doesn't scream -- she obviously is not still guilty. The key question should be whether she was coerced or not, whether she engaged in an illicit act willfully, not whether she specifically screamed.
Ramban answers that you have to say that screaming is lav davka and the Torah is just describing a typical case.
Sefas Emes, however, says screaming makes all the difference in the world. Screaming is not just a siman, a way to raise an alarm, but screaming is the means to effect yeshu'a. "Al dvar asher lo tza'akah ba'ir" -- because had she screamed, she surely would have been heard and saved. Not seizing that opportunity is itself a crime.
(Without the Sefas Emes I think you have a bit of a pshat difficulty. The Torah tells us exactly what the man did wrong -- "al asher inah..." When it comes to the woman, if you read the pasuk like Ramban, it does not tell us anything. It just gives us a siman, "asher lo tza'akah," and leaves us to infer that she therefore consented and committed an immoral act. According to Sefas Emes, the failure to scream, the failure to avail oneself of the opportunity of rescue, is itself the crime. It's not just an inference but the Torah is telling us exactly what was done wrong by the man and by the woman.)
The Sefas Emes is not just a comment on this specific parsha, but is a comment on life. There is a lot of stuff that does not befit us that we come in contact with due to our having to work in and live in a secular society. What can you do -- ones! We can't so easily change when and where we live. The Sefas Emes is telling us that if it's really ones, then you should be screaming. If you passively sit back and do nothing, or worse, accommodate yourself to the situation or enjoy he situation, then all bets are off. If you want to be saved, you have to scream. And if you do scream, you will be saved.
(I had a very hard time trying to formulate this Sefas Emes. For some reason earlier in the week I became fixated on writing this point up and then I couldn't let it go. It became a mental block to my writing anything else. After mulling it over for 2 days I don't like the results. See S.E. in the Likutim, in 5634, and 5640 and see what you make of it.)
Ramban is bothered: why are we so hung up on the screaming? Maybe this woman lives in NY and knows no one is going to respond to her screams anyway, like the Kitty Genovese story, so she doesn't scream -- she obviously is not still guilty. The key question should be whether she was coerced or not, whether she engaged in an illicit act willfully, not whether she specifically screamed.
Ramban answers that you have to say that screaming is lav davka and the Torah is just describing a typical case.
Sefas Emes, however, says screaming makes all the difference in the world. Screaming is not just a siman, a way to raise an alarm, but screaming is the means to effect yeshu'a. "Al dvar asher lo tza'akah ba'ir" -- because had she screamed, she surely would have been heard and saved. Not seizing that opportunity is itself a crime.
(Without the Sefas Emes I think you have a bit of a pshat difficulty. The Torah tells us exactly what the man did wrong -- "al asher inah..." When it comes to the woman, if you read the pasuk like Ramban, it does not tell us anything. It just gives us a siman, "asher lo tza'akah," and leaves us to infer that she therefore consented and committed an immoral act. According to Sefas Emes, the failure to scream, the failure to avail oneself of the opportunity of rescue, is itself the crime. It's not just an inference but the Torah is telling us exactly what was done wrong by the man and by the woman.)
The Sefas Emes is not just a comment on this specific parsha, but is a comment on life. There is a lot of stuff that does not befit us that we come in contact with due to our having to work in and live in a secular society. What can you do -- ones! We can't so easily change when and where we live. The Sefas Emes is telling us that if it's really ones, then you should be screaming. If you passively sit back and do nothing, or worse, accommodate yourself to the situation or enjoy he situation, then all bets are off. If you want to be saved, you have to scream. And if you do scream, you will be saved.
(I had a very hard time trying to formulate this Sefas Emes. For some reason earlier in the week I became fixated on writing this point up and then I couldn't let it go. It became a mental block to my writing anything else. After mulling it over for 2 days I don't like the results. See S.E. in the Likutim, in 5634, and 5640 and see what you make of it.)
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Even ha'Azel: special din of bitul Torah that applies only to a melech
(If you don't want any derush skip 1-4 but don't skip #5, the Even ha'Azel's beautiful chiddush based on a diyuk in Rambam.)
1. In Gertrude Himmelfarb's The Demoralization of Society (p 39) she quotes Hipployte Taine as saying, "The aim of every society must be a state of affiars in which every man is his own constable, until at least none other is required." In other words, "Shoftim v'shotrim titen LECHA," you have to make yourself into the shofet and shoteir. You have to develop a moral compass and police yourself.
2. Ksav Sofer notes that the parsha that speaks of the appointment of a king the Torah uses the singular voice: "Asima alay melech.... Som tasim alecha melech..." There is a din (O.C. 53:19) that when a congregation appoints a new chazzan, any single individual may object to the appointment (provided they can offer a legitimate reason for doing so). There has to be no dissension with respect to the final choice. So too, suggests the Ksav Sofer, when it comes to the appointment of a king, the people have to speak with unanimity, with one voice. There can be no objections to the selection.
I wonder if this reflects the reality. David haMelech was chased across the countryside by Shaul -- it doesn't seem that even he had the unanimous consent of the people, at least at the time of his appointment.
3. Speaking of Shaul haMelech (that last paragraph was an excuse to make a transition : )... The parsha tells us that we cannot use sorcery or fortune telling like the other nations do. Hashem instead gives us nevi'im to reveal to us what we need to know of the future. The Netziv says a chiddush: if there is no navi to consult, if there is no other recourse, and we absolutely need information, then those other means are at our disposal as well. If it's pikuach nefesh and the only way out is through sorcery, then you have to use it. Why then, asks the Netziv, was Shaul punished for consulting the witch of Endor? He was not getting an answer from the u'rim v'tumim or any other way and had no other choice?
Netziv answers that Shaul was punished because he created the situation in which he found himself. He killed the kohanim of Nov, he caused G-d not to be responsive to him, and so he was responsible for the outcome. You can't put yourself in hot water and then cry ones and expect to be excused. (There is a similar idea the Brisker Rav has on parshas Braishis -- see this post from 11 years ago.)
4. Not every king has access to a navi, and we for sure don't have access to a navi, but Chasam Sofer says the parsha has a solution for us without our having to go to fortune tellers. "V'haya k'shivta al kisei mamlachto," when the king is sitting on his throne, the Torah tells us that he has to write a sefer Torah. Chasam Sofer explains that when Klal Yisrael is on the level we are supposed to be on, our king is not sitting just on his throne -- he is sitting on Hashem's throne, as Hashem is the true king. The melech is just his top representative down here. So the parsha is not speaking about that ideal time. The parsha is speaking about the b'dieved state, when the king is just on HIS throne. There is no navi, there is no ruach hakodesh when we are in that state. So where are we supposed to get answers from? This Torah says when "k'shivto al kisei MAMLACHTO," (as opposed to malchus Hashem,) then write a sefer Torah, "V'kara bo kol y'mei chayav," and read about life in it. You want answers -- learn Torah.
A solution that applies to us as much as a king.
5. The Rambam (Melachim 3:5) writes that a king is not permitted to drink like a drunkard, but rather he is supposed to learn Torah and deal with the needs of Klal Yisrael day and night. The Rambam quotes as proof this pasuk of "v'kara bo kol y'mei chayav."
Don't all of us have to (ideally) learn Torah day and night, to the extent possible? The Rambam in hil talmud Torah ch 1 paskens this way with respect to any Jew. So why do we need a special din by a melech that he has to learn day and night?
R' Isser Zalman Meltzer in the Even ha'Azel answers that there is a difference. If you or I want to relax, we are free to sit down and have a beer, read a book, take a jog. If that leads to some bitul Torah, we are excused. Enjoying life is not assur. Bitul Torah means deliberately not learning when one has nothing else to do and no other interest at the moment. The melech, however, is different. The melech is not allowed to sit back and relax with a beer or go for a jog. He has an affirmative obligation to be engrossed in Torah and the needs of Klal Yisrael every moment, irrespective of his personal interests.
When I saw this Even ha'Azel I understood in a completely different light the statement of "man malchai? -- Rabbanan." The true kings are the Rabbis, talmidei chachamim, because only they, like kings, are engaged every moment in the dvar Hashem to the exclusion of their own interests and pleasures.
1. In Gertrude Himmelfarb's The Demoralization of Society (p 39) she quotes Hipployte Taine as saying, "The aim of every society must be a state of affiars in which every man is his own constable, until at least none other is required." In other words, "Shoftim v'shotrim titen LECHA," you have to make yourself into the shofet and shoteir. You have to develop a moral compass and police yourself.
2. Ksav Sofer notes that the parsha that speaks of the appointment of a king the Torah uses the singular voice: "Asima alay melech.... Som tasim alecha melech..." There is a din (O.C. 53:19) that when a congregation appoints a new chazzan, any single individual may object to the appointment (provided they can offer a legitimate reason for doing so). There has to be no dissension with respect to the final choice. So too, suggests the Ksav Sofer, when it comes to the appointment of a king, the people have to speak with unanimity, with one voice. There can be no objections to the selection.
I wonder if this reflects the reality. David haMelech was chased across the countryside by Shaul -- it doesn't seem that even he had the unanimous consent of the people, at least at the time of his appointment.
3. Speaking of Shaul haMelech (that last paragraph was an excuse to make a transition : )... The parsha tells us that we cannot use sorcery or fortune telling like the other nations do. Hashem instead gives us nevi'im to reveal to us what we need to know of the future. The Netziv says a chiddush: if there is no navi to consult, if there is no other recourse, and we absolutely need information, then those other means are at our disposal as well. If it's pikuach nefesh and the only way out is through sorcery, then you have to use it. Why then, asks the Netziv, was Shaul punished for consulting the witch of Endor? He was not getting an answer from the u'rim v'tumim or any other way and had no other choice?
Netziv answers that Shaul was punished because he created the situation in which he found himself. He killed the kohanim of Nov, he caused G-d not to be responsive to him, and so he was responsible for the outcome. You can't put yourself in hot water and then cry ones and expect to be excused. (There is a similar idea the Brisker Rav has on parshas Braishis -- see this post from 11 years ago.)
4. Not every king has access to a navi, and we for sure don't have access to a navi, but Chasam Sofer says the parsha has a solution for us without our having to go to fortune tellers. "V'haya k'shivta al kisei mamlachto," when the king is sitting on his throne, the Torah tells us that he has to write a sefer Torah. Chasam Sofer explains that when Klal Yisrael is on the level we are supposed to be on, our king is not sitting just on his throne -- he is sitting on Hashem's throne, as Hashem is the true king. The melech is just his top representative down here. So the parsha is not speaking about that ideal time. The parsha is speaking about the b'dieved state, when the king is just on HIS throne. There is no navi, there is no ruach hakodesh when we are in that state. So where are we supposed to get answers from? This Torah says when "k'shivto al kisei MAMLACHTO," (as opposed to malchus Hashem,) then write a sefer Torah, "V'kara bo kol y'mei chayav," and read about life in it. You want answers -- learn Torah.
A solution that applies to us as much as a king.
5. The Rambam (Melachim 3:5) writes that a king is not permitted to drink like a drunkard, but rather he is supposed to learn Torah and deal with the needs of Klal Yisrael day and night. The Rambam quotes as proof this pasuk of "v'kara bo kol y'mei chayav."
Don't all of us have to (ideally) learn Torah day and night, to the extent possible? The Rambam in hil talmud Torah ch 1 paskens this way with respect to any Jew. So why do we need a special din by a melech that he has to learn day and night?
R' Isser Zalman Meltzer in the Even ha'Azel answers that there is a difference. If you or I want to relax, we are free to sit down and have a beer, read a book, take a jog. If that leads to some bitul Torah, we are excused. Enjoying life is not assur. Bitul Torah means deliberately not learning when one has nothing else to do and no other interest at the moment. The melech, however, is different. The melech is not allowed to sit back and relax with a beer or go for a jog. He has an affirmative obligation to be engrossed in Torah and the needs of Klal Yisrael every moment, irrespective of his personal interests.
When I saw this Even ha'Azel I understood in a completely different light the statement of "man malchai? -- Rabbanan." The true kings are the Rabbis, talmidei chachamim, because only they, like kings, are engaged every moment in the dvar Hashem to the exclusion of their own interests and pleasures.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
don't give tzedaka because it's a mitzvah
Last week's post generated some comments in response to my having written that someone who observes mishpatim simply because it's the right think to do still can call on zechus avos because he/she is doing the right thing. Since I opened that can of worms, let me continue on the same theme. R' Simcha Zisel of Kelm makes a striking claim with respect to the mitzvah of tzedaka mentioned in this week's parsha. It's davka not the person who gives to charity because it's a mitzvah who fulfills tzedaka to its fullest. Rather, it's the person who empathizes with the poor and gives because he is moved by their needs who fulfills tzedaka to its fullest.
R' Simcha Zisel sees tzedaka as an extension of v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha. Most of us don't eat because it's a mitzvah -- we eat because we feel hungry. Says R' Simcha Zisel, treat your fellow Jew in need the same way. Don't feed your friend because it's a mitzvah. Feed your friend because you empathize with his pain to such a degree that if he is hungry, you are hungry, and when you are hungry, you eat.
R' Ya'akov Naiman in his Darkei Musar uses this yesod of R' Simcha Zisel to answer a question posed by the Maharasha. The gemara in Kesubos (67) relates that Nakdimon ben Gurion was punished for not fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedaka properly. Asks the gemara: Nakdimon ben Gurion was rich and give a fortune to tzedaka; how is it possible to say he did not fulfill the mitzvah properly? The gemara gives two answers: 1) as much as he gave, he could have done more; 2) he gave for the kavod of giving. Maharasha on the spot questions this second answer. We know that someone who gives charity "al menas she'yichyeh b'ni," with ulterior motives, because he wants the zechus of tzedaka to bring a refuah to his child, is called a tzadik gamur. So who cares of Nakdimon ben Gurion did it for the kavod!? He should still go down on the books as a tzadik gamur!
Yes, says R' Naiman, someone who gives with ulterior motives is a tzadik and fulfills a mitzvah -- but that mitzvah is not the mitzvah of tzedaka. When you giving is motivated by any reason other than empathy, other than truly identifying with the needs of another, that's not true tzedaka.
The point of the mitzvah of tzedaka is not the ma'aseh nesina -- the act of giving -- but rather it's the chalos in the gavra of becoming a person who is sensitive to the needs of others.
Rashi quotes a derush that the Torah juxtaposes "aser te'aser" with "lo tevaseh g'di b'chaleiv imo" because G-d is telling us that if we don't give ma'aser he will be forced to be "mevashel gedi'im shel tevuah" = cause the grain to rot in its husk before it is fully ripe and ready to harvest. OK, it's talking about ma'aser, ma'ser sheni, and not tzedaka, but Chazal learn ma'aser kesafim from this pasuk, so derech derush you can give me some leeway and in turn I will give you a tremendous Ishbitzer (from Ne'os Desheh, the Mei HaShiloach's son). Someone who does not give properly is like that grain rotting in it's husk -- on the outside, everything looks OK, but when you peel back the shell, the husk, there is nothing there on the inside. A person who lacks empathy, who is not moved by others needs to want to help them, is just an empty shell of a person.
R' Simcha Zisel sees tzedaka as an extension of v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha. Most of us don't eat because it's a mitzvah -- we eat because we feel hungry. Says R' Simcha Zisel, treat your fellow Jew in need the same way. Don't feed your friend because it's a mitzvah. Feed your friend because you empathize with his pain to such a degree that if he is hungry, you are hungry, and when you are hungry, you eat.
R' Ya'akov Naiman in his Darkei Musar uses this yesod of R' Simcha Zisel to answer a question posed by the Maharasha. The gemara in Kesubos (67) relates that Nakdimon ben Gurion was punished for not fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedaka properly. Asks the gemara: Nakdimon ben Gurion was rich and give a fortune to tzedaka; how is it possible to say he did not fulfill the mitzvah properly? The gemara gives two answers: 1) as much as he gave, he could have done more; 2) he gave for the kavod of giving. Maharasha on the spot questions this second answer. We know that someone who gives charity "al menas she'yichyeh b'ni," with ulterior motives, because he wants the zechus of tzedaka to bring a refuah to his child, is called a tzadik gamur. So who cares of Nakdimon ben Gurion did it for the kavod!? He should still go down on the books as a tzadik gamur!
Yes, says R' Naiman, someone who gives with ulterior motives is a tzadik and fulfills a mitzvah -- but that mitzvah is not the mitzvah of tzedaka. When you giving is motivated by any reason other than empathy, other than truly identifying with the needs of another, that's not true tzedaka.
The point of the mitzvah of tzedaka is not the ma'aseh nesina -- the act of giving -- but rather it's the chalos in the gavra of becoming a person who is sensitive to the needs of others.
Rashi quotes a derush that the Torah juxtaposes "aser te'aser" with "lo tevaseh g'di b'chaleiv imo" because G-d is telling us that if we don't give ma'aser he will be forced to be "mevashel gedi'im shel tevuah" = cause the grain to rot in its husk before it is fully ripe and ready to harvest. OK, it's talking about ma'aser, ma'ser sheni, and not tzedaka, but Chazal learn ma'aser kesafim from this pasuk, so derech derush you can give me some leeway and in turn I will give you a tremendous Ishbitzer (from Ne'os Desheh, the Mei HaShiloach's son). Someone who does not give properly is like that grain rotting in it's husk -- on the outside, everything looks OK, but when you peel back the shell, the husk, there is nothing there on the inside. A person who lacks empathy, who is not moved by others needs to want to help them, is just an empty shell of a person.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
earning our own reward
V'haya eikev tishme'un es hamishpatim ha'eileh v'shamar Hashem Elokecha lecha es ha'bris v'es ha'chessed asher nishba l'avosecha.
Our parsha opens by telling us that if we observe the commandments, specifically mishpatim, then Hashem will fulfill his promise made to the avos and give us the brachos that follow.
If we are doing what we are supposed to, then shouldn't we deserve reward based on our own merits and actions, not because of the promise made to the avos? (The Sefas Emes explains that the word v'haya, which always connotes simcha, appears here because Hashem has tremendous simcha when a person earns his own reward and doesn't receive gifts based on someone else's merit.) Zechus avos is invoked when we have no other merits of our own to call on, not when we are doing everything right?
Maybe you can answer that question by way of another question. Last week's parsha ends with the pasuk, "V'shamarta es ha'mitzvah v'es ha'chukim v'es ha'mishpatim..." Meforshim are bothered by the fact that that pasuk lists off multiple categories of mitzvos -- mitzvah, chukim, mishpatim -- while the pasuk that opens our parsha refers only to the one category of mishpatim. Why the difference?
Perhaps the point of our parsha is that even if we are not exactly doing what we are supposed to -- we are only fulfilling the logical laws of mishpatim that make sense to us, but are not on target with all the mitzvos and chukim -- nonetheless, Hashem will reward us because in addition to our own actions, we have zechus avos as well.
Our parsha opens by telling us that if we observe the commandments, specifically mishpatim, then Hashem will fulfill his promise made to the avos and give us the brachos that follow.
If we are doing what we are supposed to, then shouldn't we deserve reward based on our own merits and actions, not because of the promise made to the avos? (The Sefas Emes explains that the word v'haya, which always connotes simcha, appears here because Hashem has tremendous simcha when a person earns his own reward and doesn't receive gifts based on someone else's merit.) Zechus avos is invoked when we have no other merits of our own to call on, not when we are doing everything right?
Maybe you can answer that question by way of another question. Last week's parsha ends with the pasuk, "V'shamarta es ha'mitzvah v'es ha'chukim v'es ha'mishpatim..." Meforshim are bothered by the fact that that pasuk lists off multiple categories of mitzvos -- mitzvah, chukim, mishpatim -- while the pasuk that opens our parsha refers only to the one category of mishpatim. Why the difference?
Perhaps the point of our parsha is that even if we are not exactly doing what we are supposed to -- we are only fulfilling the logical laws of mishpatim that make sense to us, but are not on target with all the mitzvos and chukim -- nonetheless, Hashem will reward us because in addition to our own actions, we have zechus avos as well.
es Hashem Elokecha tira - l'rabos talmidei chachamim = community building
The gemara tells us that Shimon ha'Amsuni was able to darshen every single "es" in the Torah, but when he got to the pasuk, "Es Hashem Elokecha tira," "pireish," he could not go further. R' Akiva, on the other hand, darshened even that "es." It explained it as coming "l'rabos talmidei chachamim," to include havin awe of talmidei chachamim (Pesachim 22)
When Shimon ha'Amsuni encountered the mitzvah of yirah, he thought the way to fulfill it was "pireish," through prishus=separating from the world, from the community, and digging inward to achieve self perfection.
R' Akiva, on the other hand, thought just the opposite. One can achieve yirah by "l'rabos talmidei chachamim," by building the community, increasing the number of people involved in Torah and learning Torah.
Why was it R' Akiva in particular who was able to arrive at this insight? R' Meir Shapira of daf yomi fame explained that R' Akiva early in life before he came to learning had an intense hatred for talmidei chachamim. The Rambam writes that the way to correct a midah is to go to the opposite extreme. Therefore, R' Akiva more than anyone else came to an intense love and appreciation for talmidei chachamim and their influence.
When Shimon ha'Amsuni encountered the mitzvah of yirah, he thought the way to fulfill it was "pireish," through prishus=separating from the world, from the community, and digging inward to achieve self perfection.
R' Akiva, on the other hand, thought just the opposite. One can achieve yirah by "l'rabos talmidei chachamim," by building the community, increasing the number of people involved in Torah and learning Torah.
Why was it R' Akiva in particular who was able to arrive at this insight? R' Meir Shapira of daf yomi fame explained that R' Akiva early in life before he came to learning had an intense hatred for talmidei chachamim. The Rambam writes that the way to correct a midah is to go to the opposite extreme. Therefore, R' Akiva more than anyone else came to an intense love and appreciation for talmidei chachamim and their influence.
Thursday, August 03, 2017
T"u b'Av -- a feminist holiday
The gemara at the end of Ta'anis tells us that the two biggest yamim tovim for Klal Yisrael were 15 Av and Yom Kippur. On those days the girls would go out into the fields and dance and the boys would come and find their shidduch (simple solution to the shidduch crisis). The girls who had money would say, "Marry us for our money," the girls who had yichus would say, "Marry for yichus!" and the girls who had nothing would say, "Marry l'shem shamayim and then afterwards give us gold jewelry."
We all know why Yom Kippur is a special day, and the gemara gives a hosts of reasons why 15 Av was a special day, among them that on that day the dor ha'midbar stopped dying for the sin of cheit ha'meraglim. But why were these days in particular the days set aside to make shidduchim? What does finding a girl to marry have to do with the nature of these days?
Secondly, what does the gemara mean when it tells us that the girls who said to get married added, "And buy us gold jewelry!" It seems incongruous with the call to act "l'shem shamayim." Were the girls who said that being disingenuous and just needed a way to snatch a boy when they had nothing else going for them? Do we really have to be that cynical? It's strange that the gemara even bothers add this line about gold when it has nothing to do with the shidduch itself. Maharasha writes that it's just a "milsa b'alma," but maybe there is more to it.
There were two major sins that Klal Yisrael committed en route to Eretz Yisrael: 1) the sin of the cheit ha'eigel = abandoning G-d; 2) the sin of the meraglim = abandoning Eretz Yisrael. There was one group of people, however, who did not involve themselves in either sin -- the women of Klal Yisrael. By the cheit ha'eigel the women did not willingly turn over their gold jewelry to their husbands to make the golden calf. When it came time to apportion Eretz Yisrael, it was the Bnos Tzelafchad who demonstrated their love of the land and demanded a portion.
Yom Kippur is the tikun of the cheit ha'eigel. On that day Hashem gave us the second luchos, a second chance after the first were broken by Moshe in response to the eigel.
T"u b'Av is the day the dying of the generation of the midbar stopped. It brought closure to the cheit ha'meraglim.
For the women who needed no tikun, these days are "feminist" holidays -- days when they could boast of their superiority. Not holidays of modern feminism, where women want to be men, but Torah feminism, when women can be proud of their own stellar achievements. On these days the women reach out to their male counterparts and call, "bachur, sa na einecha," lift up your eyes and look at the madreiga we reached! These are days of shidduchim because on these days the bachurim reach out to find partners to help bring up their level of ruchniyus.
The conclusion, "Adorn us in gold jewelry," is not just an aside, but is part of the whole message, explains the Sefas Emes in Likutim. The women could boast that they deserved to be adorned with the gold that they did not turn over to the eigel, the gold that we men so eagerly surrendered for avodah zarah.
When we lost Eretz Yisrael and the Mikdash and went into galus, we lost T"u b'Av. We lost the tikun for the cheit ha'meraglim. All that is left is Yom Kippur, the tikun for the cheit of avodah zarah.
Maybe a reinvigoration of T"u b'Av is something to look forward to as we get closer to geulah.
We all know why Yom Kippur is a special day, and the gemara gives a hosts of reasons why 15 Av was a special day, among them that on that day the dor ha'midbar stopped dying for the sin of cheit ha'meraglim. But why were these days in particular the days set aside to make shidduchim? What does finding a girl to marry have to do with the nature of these days?
Secondly, what does the gemara mean when it tells us that the girls who said to get married added, "And buy us gold jewelry!" It seems incongruous with the call to act "l'shem shamayim." Were the girls who said that being disingenuous and just needed a way to snatch a boy when they had nothing else going for them? Do we really have to be that cynical? It's strange that the gemara even bothers add this line about gold when it has nothing to do with the shidduch itself. Maharasha writes that it's just a "milsa b'alma," but maybe there is more to it.
There were two major sins that Klal Yisrael committed en route to Eretz Yisrael: 1) the sin of the cheit ha'eigel = abandoning G-d; 2) the sin of the meraglim = abandoning Eretz Yisrael. There was one group of people, however, who did not involve themselves in either sin -- the women of Klal Yisrael. By the cheit ha'eigel the women did not willingly turn over their gold jewelry to their husbands to make the golden calf. When it came time to apportion Eretz Yisrael, it was the Bnos Tzelafchad who demonstrated their love of the land and demanded a portion.
Yom Kippur is the tikun of the cheit ha'eigel. On that day Hashem gave us the second luchos, a second chance after the first were broken by Moshe in response to the eigel.
T"u b'Av is the day the dying of the generation of the midbar stopped. It brought closure to the cheit ha'meraglim.
For the women who needed no tikun, these days are "feminist" holidays -- days when they could boast of their superiority. Not holidays of modern feminism, where women want to be men, but Torah feminism, when women can be proud of their own stellar achievements. On these days the women reach out to their male counterparts and call, "bachur, sa na einecha," lift up your eyes and look at the madreiga we reached! These are days of shidduchim because on these days the bachurim reach out to find partners to help bring up their level of ruchniyus.
The conclusion, "Adorn us in gold jewelry," is not just an aside, but is part of the whole message, explains the Sefas Emes in Likutim. The women could boast that they deserved to be adorned with the gold that they did not turn over to the eigel, the gold that we men so eagerly surrendered for avodah zarah.
When we lost Eretz Yisrael and the Mikdash and went into galus, we lost T"u b'Av. We lost the tikun for the cheit ha'meraglim. All that is left is Yom Kippur, the tikun for the cheit of avodah zarah.
Maybe a reinvigoration of T"u b'Av is something to look forward to as we get closer to geulah.
Tuesday, August 01, 2017
Ki tavo'u lei'ra'os panay -- coming to be seen
Ki tavo'u lei'ra'os panay, mi bikesh zos m'yedchem r'mos chatzeiray?
Yishyahau haNavi, in the haftarah of Shabbos Chazon, says to those people coming to the Beis haMikdash, "Who needs you here? What business do you have trampling through the Mikdash?" When you come to make aliya la'regel on the three regalim, it's all for naught.
That's the gist of what the pasuk means, but that first phase is difficult. If the pasuk means to speak about coming to see Hashem in the Mikdash, it should say "liros panay." If it means to speak about being seen by Hashem, it should say "lei'ra'os lifanay." What's "leira'os panay?" It's like a grammatical hodge-podge that makes no sense.
You can ask the same question about the pasuk in chumash that talks about aliya la'regel. "...Yera'eh kol zechurcha es pnei Hashem" Here too, if it means to see Hashem, it should say "liros;" if it means to be seen, it should say "lifnei Hashem?"
There is an amazing Alshich that you can find in the Maros haTzov'os on Shmuel I 2:11 that I will save you some trouble looking for -- in your standard edition with the Malbim it's printed on the bottom of the page all the way in perek 22. You don't make aliya la'regel "liros," to see G-d, because that's impossible -- G-d has no face. The reason to make aliya la'regel is to be seen. But, says the Alshich, it's not "lifanei," but rather "es panay." There is a Zohar that tells us that the faces of tzadikim are called "apei Shechinta," the face of the Shechina. You want to see G-d's face? Look in the mirror. G-d wants us to be tzadikim -- he wants us to be able to look in the mirror and see his face, his reflection there.
On a previous 9 Av I posted a pshat that the greatness of Moshe Rabeinu, "temunas Hashem yabit," is not that he looked up to the Heavens and saw G-d like no other navi, but rather that when Moseh Rabeinu saw a simple Jew in Klal Yisrael, that was for him "temunas Hashem yabit." Moshe Rabeinu saw the pnei Hashem in every Jew he met. That's a navi, a manhig, the greatest of great (see the Netziv on that phrase).
The word "es" in Tanach often means the same as "im," with. The mitzvah of aliya la'regel is "yera'eh kol zechurcha" -- to be seen, but in order to stand before Hashem and be seen, you have to come "es panay" = im panay, with MY face, with Hashem's face reflected in our own. You want to have a Beis haMikdash and be able to walk in its halls? First ask yourself when you walk down the street do people say there goes the pnei Hashem, there goes a reflection of kvod Shamayim.
This is what Yishayahu was telling Klal Yisrael. We were given a mitzvah "leira'os panay" -- to come to the Mikdrash so that our faces, our "apei Shechinta," can be seen by Hashem. But if we don't behave the way we are supposed to, if our faces are indistinguishable G-d forbid, from the faces of the nations around us, then "Mi bikesh zos m'yedchem r'mos chatzeiray?"
My daughter this afternoon sent the picture below from Yerushalayim Ir Ha'kodesh where she has the zechus of spending the summer:
There were mobs of people by the kosel, by the makom mikdash.
I got this picture a short while after getting home from finishing kinos, which closed with the kinah of the Bobover Rebbe written for the Holocaust.
Do you think any Jew who lived through the horrors of the war would have imagined that just 70 years later we would have hundreds of Jewish youth gathered on 9 Av in our Jewish homeland, standing by the kosel under a Jewish degel, protected by Jewish soldiers, so that they could learn Torah and sing ani ma'amin in that makom kadosh?
We live in times of such great opportunity, such great potential, but when you read the news that is always so filled with machlokes and tragedy it is easy to lose sight of what we have achieved (or maybe I should say what Hashem has given us) and where we are headed. Of course we are still in galus, and it's still 9 Av, and we have what to mourn, but we also need to recognize chasdei Hashem. One day I am sure that we will not just be standing outside the walls of the kosel, but on top of the mountain as well. That's probably as unbelievable to most people today as dream of standing by the kosel would have been to someone 70 years ago. Yet here we are. But the navi is clear: it has to be "leira'os panay," to come to be seen by Hashem because we reflect in our faces, in who we are, in how we act, his greatness. That's what we have to work on.
Yishyahau haNavi, in the haftarah of Shabbos Chazon, says to those people coming to the Beis haMikdash, "Who needs you here? What business do you have trampling through the Mikdash?" When you come to make aliya la'regel on the three regalim, it's all for naught.
That's the gist of what the pasuk means, but that first phase is difficult. If the pasuk means to speak about coming to see Hashem in the Mikdash, it should say "liros panay." If it means to speak about being seen by Hashem, it should say "lei'ra'os lifanay." What's "leira'os panay?" It's like a grammatical hodge-podge that makes no sense.
You can ask the same question about the pasuk in chumash that talks about aliya la'regel. "...Yera'eh kol zechurcha es pnei Hashem" Here too, if it means to see Hashem, it should say "liros;" if it means to be seen, it should say "lifnei Hashem?"
There is an amazing Alshich that you can find in the Maros haTzov'os on Shmuel I 2:11 that I will save you some trouble looking for -- in your standard edition with the Malbim it's printed on the bottom of the page all the way in perek 22. You don't make aliya la'regel "liros," to see G-d, because that's impossible -- G-d has no face. The reason to make aliya la'regel is to be seen. But, says the Alshich, it's not "lifanei," but rather "es panay." There is a Zohar that tells us that the faces of tzadikim are called "apei Shechinta," the face of the Shechina. You want to see G-d's face? Look in the mirror. G-d wants us to be tzadikim -- he wants us to be able to look in the mirror and see his face, his reflection there.
On a previous 9 Av I posted a pshat that the greatness of Moshe Rabeinu, "temunas Hashem yabit," is not that he looked up to the Heavens and saw G-d like no other navi, but rather that when Moseh Rabeinu saw a simple Jew in Klal Yisrael, that was for him "temunas Hashem yabit." Moshe Rabeinu saw the pnei Hashem in every Jew he met. That's a navi, a manhig, the greatest of great (see the Netziv on that phrase).
The word "es" in Tanach often means the same as "im," with. The mitzvah of aliya la'regel is "yera'eh kol zechurcha" -- to be seen, but in order to stand before Hashem and be seen, you have to come "es panay" = im panay, with MY face, with Hashem's face reflected in our own. You want to have a Beis haMikdash and be able to walk in its halls? First ask yourself when you walk down the street do people say there goes the pnei Hashem, there goes a reflection of kvod Shamayim.
This is what Yishayahu was telling Klal Yisrael. We were given a mitzvah "leira'os panay" -- to come to the Mikdrash so that our faces, our "apei Shechinta," can be seen by Hashem. But if we don't behave the way we are supposed to, if our faces are indistinguishable G-d forbid, from the faces of the nations around us, then "Mi bikesh zos m'yedchem r'mos chatzeiray?"
My daughter this afternoon sent the picture below from Yerushalayim Ir Ha'kodesh where she has the zechus of spending the summer:
There were mobs of people by the kosel, by the makom mikdash.
I got this picture a short while after getting home from finishing kinos, which closed with the kinah of the Bobover Rebbe written for the Holocaust.
Do you think any Jew who lived through the horrors of the war would have imagined that just 70 years later we would have hundreds of Jewish youth gathered on 9 Av in our Jewish homeland, standing by the kosel under a Jewish degel, protected by Jewish soldiers, so that they could learn Torah and sing ani ma'amin in that makom kadosh?
We live in times of such great opportunity, such great potential, but when you read the news that is always so filled with machlokes and tragedy it is easy to lose sight of what we have achieved (or maybe I should say what Hashem has given us) and where we are headed. Of course we are still in galus, and it's still 9 Av, and we have what to mourn, but we also need to recognize chasdei Hashem. One day I am sure that we will not just be standing outside the walls of the kosel, but on top of the mountain as well. That's probably as unbelievable to most people today as dream of standing by the kosel would have been to someone 70 years ago. Yet here we are. But the navi is clear: it has to be "leira'os panay," to come to be seen by Hashem because we reflect in our faces, in who we are, in how we act, his greatness. That's what we have to work on.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Eichah esa livadi -- complaint or compliment?
1. The ba'al korei usually reads the pasuk "eichah esa livadi..." in this week's parsha using the sad Megilas Eichah tune instead of the usual tune for krias ha'Torah. The tune "attunes" us to the fact that 9 Av is coming, and links the complaint voiced by Moshe about his burdens with the mourning cry of Yirmiyahu.
But was Moshe in fact complaining? Was be bemoaning his burdens?
R Meshulam Dovid Solovietchik points out that you get a very different impression from the Midrash. The pesichta to Eichah (#11) uses pesukim in chumash to contrast what should/could have been how we lived in Eretz Yisrael with what became of us during the churban as described in Eichah. For example, the midrash writes that had we been zocheh we would be reading "shalosh pe'amim ba'shana...," the pesukim describing aliya la'regel, but now we are read, "darkei tzion aveilus..." The midrash ends by saying had we been zocheh, we would be reading, "eichah esa livadi," but instead now we read "eichah yashvah badad."
According to the midrash, "eichah esa livadi" is a positive, something to celebrate. It shouldn't be read in a tune of mourning, but rather in a tune of jubilation.
This is not just fanciful derash. Ramban interprets the pasuk "al derech ha'peshat" that Klal Yisrael was not burdening Moshe with trivialities. Moshe's burdens were "torchachem" = teaching Torah, "masa'achem" - davening on behalf of those in need; "rivchem" = paskening dinei Torah. Moshe was overworked because he had to keep giving shiurim, saying tefilos for Klal Yisrael, and involving himself in shaylos. These things demand time and energy and work, but they are great things. Ha'levay every community should keep its Rabbi busy saying shiurim, davening, etc.
2. When one reads the story of the meraglim presented in our parsha one gets a sense that ikar chaseir min ha'sefer. We are told (1:25) that the meraglim brought back fruit and said, "Tovah ha'aretz..." and next thing you know the people are refusing to enter the land. Why? There is nothing mentioned in the meraglim's report as recorded here that would cause the people to have second thoughts. And why indeed is nothing mentioned of the slander of the meraglim, their report that the land was unconquerable and uninhabitable? Finally, why rebuke those present now, in year 40, those who were about to enter the land, with past history of their forefather's mistakes?
Maharasha (Ta'anis 29) highlights one additional difference between the account in our parsha and that of parshas Shlach that is the key to the puzzle. The story in Shlach records that the spies returned and reported, "el Moshe v'el Aharon v'el kol adas Bnei Yisrael" -- it was a public referendum, and the reaction to the report was public outcry. In our parsha, the Torah writes, "va'teiragnu b'ohaleichem," the crying was in private, in the tents of individual families.
Maharasha explains that the two parshiyos are addressing two different sins. The adults in the community heard the negative report of the spies and responded with public protest, as recorded in Shlach. They then went home, and what do you think they said to little Yankel or Sarah when they were tucking them into bed that night? Imagine the scary bed time story about what would happen if Moshe carried out this crazy plan of bringing them to Eretz Yisrael! Imagine the dinner conversation with the older kids listening in and participating. "Va'teiragnu b'ohaleichem" -- our parsha is about the sin of the crying of the families, those who had not heard the spies report directly, those who had no reason to think anything other than "tovah ha'aretz," but who nonetheless, fell into despair based on false news and false reports that they heard. The sin of thinking "b'sinas Hashem osanu," G-d hates us, G-d forbid, is not mentioned in Shlach -- that was not part of the public outcry, but was part of the private reaction based on second hand reports. It was the reaction of the generation that now stood before Moshe, mature, grown up, but still perhaps living in the shadow of that past experience of their youth. You cried "bechiya shel shinam" -- a cry of sinas chinam, hating G-d because of the mistaken impression that he hates you; therefore, this night of 9 Av in the future will be a night of destruction because of sinas chinam that caused the churban ha'bayis.
I'm struggling a bit figuring out how Maharasha fits certain pesukim into this approach, but be that as it may, the takeaway I think is that what was said "b'ohaleichem" is as significant as what is said in public. We have to inculcate in our homes a love of Eretz Yisrael. Hopefully we will be zocheh to get there ourselves one day, but even if not, we want out children to want to be there.
But was Moshe in fact complaining? Was be bemoaning his burdens?
R Meshulam Dovid Solovietchik points out that you get a very different impression from the Midrash. The pesichta to Eichah (#11) uses pesukim in chumash to contrast what should/could have been how we lived in Eretz Yisrael with what became of us during the churban as described in Eichah. For example, the midrash writes that had we been zocheh we would be reading "shalosh pe'amim ba'shana...," the pesukim describing aliya la'regel, but now we are read, "darkei tzion aveilus..." The midrash ends by saying had we been zocheh, we would be reading, "eichah esa livadi," but instead now we read "eichah yashvah badad."
According to the midrash, "eichah esa livadi" is a positive, something to celebrate. It shouldn't be read in a tune of mourning, but rather in a tune of jubilation.
This is not just fanciful derash. Ramban interprets the pasuk "al derech ha'peshat" that Klal Yisrael was not burdening Moshe with trivialities. Moshe's burdens were "torchachem" = teaching Torah, "masa'achem" - davening on behalf of those in need; "rivchem" = paskening dinei Torah. Moshe was overworked because he had to keep giving shiurim, saying tefilos for Klal Yisrael, and involving himself in shaylos. These things demand time and energy and work, but they are great things. Ha'levay every community should keep its Rabbi busy saying shiurim, davening, etc.
2. When one reads the story of the meraglim presented in our parsha one gets a sense that ikar chaseir min ha'sefer. We are told (1:25) that the meraglim brought back fruit and said, "Tovah ha'aretz..." and next thing you know the people are refusing to enter the land. Why? There is nothing mentioned in the meraglim's report as recorded here that would cause the people to have second thoughts. And why indeed is nothing mentioned of the slander of the meraglim, their report that the land was unconquerable and uninhabitable? Finally, why rebuke those present now, in year 40, those who were about to enter the land, with past history of their forefather's mistakes?
Maharasha (Ta'anis 29) highlights one additional difference between the account in our parsha and that of parshas Shlach that is the key to the puzzle. The story in Shlach records that the spies returned and reported, "el Moshe v'el Aharon v'el kol adas Bnei Yisrael" -- it was a public referendum, and the reaction to the report was public outcry. In our parsha, the Torah writes, "va'teiragnu b'ohaleichem," the crying was in private, in the tents of individual families.
Maharasha explains that the two parshiyos are addressing two different sins. The adults in the community heard the negative report of the spies and responded with public protest, as recorded in Shlach. They then went home, and what do you think they said to little Yankel or Sarah when they were tucking them into bed that night? Imagine the scary bed time story about what would happen if Moshe carried out this crazy plan of bringing them to Eretz Yisrael! Imagine the dinner conversation with the older kids listening in and participating. "Va'teiragnu b'ohaleichem" -- our parsha is about the sin of the crying of the families, those who had not heard the spies report directly, those who had no reason to think anything other than "tovah ha'aretz," but who nonetheless, fell into despair based on false news and false reports that they heard. The sin of thinking "b'sinas Hashem osanu," G-d hates us, G-d forbid, is not mentioned in Shlach -- that was not part of the public outcry, but was part of the private reaction based on second hand reports. It was the reaction of the generation that now stood before Moshe, mature, grown up, but still perhaps living in the shadow of that past experience of their youth. You cried "bechiya shel shinam" -- a cry of sinas chinam, hating G-d because of the mistaken impression that he hates you; therefore, this night of 9 Av in the future will be a night of destruction because of sinas chinam that caused the churban ha'bayis.
I'm struggling a bit figuring out how Maharasha fits certain pesukim into this approach, but be that as it may, the takeaway I think is that what was said "b'ohaleichem" is as significant as what is said in public. We have to inculcate in our homes a love of Eretz Yisrael. Hopefully we will be zocheh to get there ourselves one day, but even if not, we want out children to want to be there.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
no place to run
The Midrash opens Parshas Masei by telling us that although many great people -- Ya'akov, Moshe, David -- had to flee from their enemies, throughout our 40 years of travel in the desert not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't even have to run away from the snakes and scorpions.
Earlier this month we discussed yet again the famous Ohr haChaim, based on the Zohar, that says a human being, being a ba'al bechira, poses a greater threat than an animal because a human being can decide to act as he/she pleases irrespective of G-d's plan, but an animal is basically a robot.
Our Midrash seems to contradict that view, as it implies (...not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't have to flee from animals either...) that the snakes and scorpions posed a greater danger than human enemies.
I paraphrased the Midrash in order to convey what I think is its simple meaning, but if you read it carefully, the words suggest a deeper meaning. Sefas Emes points out that it does not say that we did not have to flee from danger, but rather "lo hinachti eschem livro'ach," G-d did not let us flee. It's not that we encountered no danger in the desert. On the contrary, the desert was filled with dangers. G-d, however, did not let us run away from them. We were forced, with his help, to face down the threats.
All of life's challenges are there to being us closer to G-d. Sometimes a person davens that Hashem deliver them from needing a refuah, a shiduch, employment, etc. and Hashem enables them to escape the situation of need -- the person is able to flee from danger. But there is another way to come closer to Hashem when faced with an obstacle. "Min ha'meitzar karasi K-h" -- a person can find Hashem from within the dire straits themselves. Rather than escaping the situation, the person can discover that Hashem is right there with them in their suffering, in their sorrow, in their needs, and that itself gives them the ability to overcome. "Bein ha'metzarim" = "Min ha'meitzar..." We are hedged in with no way out, no place to run. "Lo hinachti eschem livro'ach." But "imo anochi b'tzarah," Hashem is here with us, and an appreciation of that truth is itself a way out.
On a completely different topic... has anyone else noticed the numerous ads for various events, some of which do benefit worthwhile organizations that this post should take nothing way from, that are basically exercises in gluttony? Each one boasts of bigger and better meats prepared by various "master" barbequers (how hard is it to throw some food on a grill? Even I can do it!), hand rolled cigars (I kid you not), scotch tasting, etc. etc.
Maybe I don't like it because my subconscious is bothered by the fact that I never get to go to one of these things, but I just can't square in my mind things like this with concepts like kedusha and tahara. You want to do something like this in your own backyard -- be my guest. But is this what you want associated with yeshivos? With community mosdos? You can't even put a woman's picture in a yeshiva journal because it somehow is beneath our lofty standards of kedusha, but stuff like this goes?
I don't understand it, but there is much in life I don't understand.
Earlier this month we discussed yet again the famous Ohr haChaim, based on the Zohar, that says a human being, being a ba'al bechira, poses a greater threat than an animal because a human being can decide to act as he/she pleases irrespective of G-d's plan, but an animal is basically a robot.
Our Midrash seems to contradict that view, as it implies (...not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't have to flee from animals either...) that the snakes and scorpions posed a greater danger than human enemies.
I paraphrased the Midrash in order to convey what I think is its simple meaning, but if you read it carefully, the words suggest a deeper meaning. Sefas Emes points out that it does not say that we did not have to flee from danger, but rather "lo hinachti eschem livro'ach," G-d did not let us flee. It's not that we encountered no danger in the desert. On the contrary, the desert was filled with dangers. G-d, however, did not let us run away from them. We were forced, with his help, to face down the threats.
All of life's challenges are there to being us closer to G-d. Sometimes a person davens that Hashem deliver them from needing a refuah, a shiduch, employment, etc. and Hashem enables them to escape the situation of need -- the person is able to flee from danger. But there is another way to come closer to Hashem when faced with an obstacle. "Min ha'meitzar karasi K-h" -- a person can find Hashem from within the dire straits themselves. Rather than escaping the situation, the person can discover that Hashem is right there with them in their suffering, in their sorrow, in their needs, and that itself gives them the ability to overcome. "Bein ha'metzarim" = "Min ha'meitzar..." We are hedged in with no way out, no place to run. "Lo hinachti eschem livro'ach." But "imo anochi b'tzarah," Hashem is here with us, and an appreciation of that truth is itself a way out.
On a completely different topic... has anyone else noticed the numerous ads for various events, some of which do benefit worthwhile organizations that this post should take nothing way from, that are basically exercises in gluttony? Each one boasts of bigger and better meats prepared by various "master" barbequers (how hard is it to throw some food on a grill? Even I can do it!), hand rolled cigars (I kid you not), scotch tasting, etc. etc.
Maybe I don't like it because my subconscious is bothered by the fact that I never get to go to one of these things, but I just can't square in my mind things like this with concepts like kedusha and tahara. You want to do something like this in your own backyard -- be my guest. But is this what you want associated with yeshivos? With community mosdos? You can't even put a woman's picture in a yeshiva journal because it somehow is beneath our lofty standards of kedusha, but stuff like this goes?
I don't understand it, but there is much in life I don't understand.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
do we have to ask Hashem to keep his promise?
V'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael b'kinasi... If not for Pinchas taking action, that would have been it -- end of the story, sof pasuk, full stop, G-d forbid. Jewish history would have ended a mere 40 years after we were freed from Egypt. How do you wrap your mind around such a pasuk? Is such a thing even conceivable? Just a few days ago on 17 Tamuz we read Moshe's plea for mercy after the cheit ha'eigel. There too, Hashem threatened to start again with a Bnei Yisrael 2.0, but Moshe davened, "zechor l'avadecha... asher nishbata lahem bach," and reminded Hashem of his promise to make Bnei Yisrael a great nation and give them Eretz Yisrael. Rashi explains "nishbata lahem BACH": G-d did not place his hand on a whatever to take an oath. G-d took an oath on Himself. Just like G-d is eternal and unchanging, so too, his promise is eternal and unchanging. There is no possibility of an end for Bnei Yisrael or a 2.0 So what does our parsha mean?
And what if Moshe had not davened, "zechor... asher nishbata lahem bach?" Would the promise be any less binding? Do you have to pray in order for G-d to fulfill his promise?
There is one circumstance that seems to allow for Hashem to break his promise. In parshas Vayeitzei Hashem promises Ya'akov Avinu that his will protect and sustain him in his travels. Ya'akov responds, "Im y'hiyeh Elokim imadi... v'nasan li lechem le'echol u'beged lilbosh," etc." It sounds like Ya'akov is uncertain whether Hashem will fulfill his promise, and he is davening for it to come true. Why the uncertainty? Chazal answer: shema yigrom ha'cheit. The simple pshat in that answer is that Ya'akov did not doubt G-d -- Ya'akov doubted himself. Ya'akov was worried that perhaps he would prove unworthy of G-d's blessing due to his sins, and if so, G-d would be off the hook and not have to keep his word.
R' Leibele Eiger, however, says a chiddush: G-d's word is a reality; his promise in unbreakable. It is going to come true no matter what. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" doesn't mean that G-d has an out. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" means that instead of the promise coming true m'meila, Hashem will have to intervene and cause the person to have a hisorerus to once again become worthy of the promise being fulfilled.
One of my favorite pieces in the Ishbitzer is his interpretation of "terem nikra'u v'ani e'eneh, od heim m'dabrim v'ani eshma." If G-d responds "terem nikra'u," before we even call out to him, them what's the "od heim m'dabrim...?" He responded already before our dibur!? The Ishbitzer answers that "terem nikra'u" means Hashem responds by giving us the hisorerus to pray and call to him. He gives is the inspiration we need! Then, once we start davening, he listens to our prayers.
R' Leibele Eiger is telling us that either we will be inspired and deserve G-d's promise, or he will inspire us and cause us to have a hisorerus and thereby deserve it. Either way, it will always come true.
Now we understand why sometimes there is a need for tefilah even though Hashem has made a promise. Tefilah is the hisorerus that Hashem awakens in the nation, or even in a single individual speaking up on the nation's behalf, that makes keeping the promise possible, that makes keeping the promise worth doing, even when all seems lost.
We have it all backwards, says R' Leibele Eiger. It's not that Pinchas took action, "heishiv es chamasi," and therefore, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael b'kina'si," and if not for that, all would be lost. Rather, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael," Hashem promised never to destroy us, and therefore, He inspired a Pinchas to take action, "heishiv es chamasi." Pinchas was a tool in Hashem's hands so that the promise could be kept.
(Because Hashem used him as a tool, he gets the reward of shalom. To me it seems a little difficult to get this to fit the Midrash of "b'din hu she'yitol secharo," but you have to say some explanation for that Midrash anyway.)
There will always be a Moshe in every generation, a Pinchas, a Ya'akov Avinu. There will always be someone to bring us back, to plead on our behalf, a tool Hashem uses to bring us inspiration so we are never completely lost.
And what if Moshe had not davened, "zechor... asher nishbata lahem bach?" Would the promise be any less binding? Do you have to pray in order for G-d to fulfill his promise?
There is one circumstance that seems to allow for Hashem to break his promise. In parshas Vayeitzei Hashem promises Ya'akov Avinu that his will protect and sustain him in his travels. Ya'akov responds, "Im y'hiyeh Elokim imadi... v'nasan li lechem le'echol u'beged lilbosh," etc." It sounds like Ya'akov is uncertain whether Hashem will fulfill his promise, and he is davening for it to come true. Why the uncertainty? Chazal answer: shema yigrom ha'cheit. The simple pshat in that answer is that Ya'akov did not doubt G-d -- Ya'akov doubted himself. Ya'akov was worried that perhaps he would prove unworthy of G-d's blessing due to his sins, and if so, G-d would be off the hook and not have to keep his word.
R' Leibele Eiger, however, says a chiddush: G-d's word is a reality; his promise in unbreakable. It is going to come true no matter what. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" doesn't mean that G-d has an out. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" means that instead of the promise coming true m'meila, Hashem will have to intervene and cause the person to have a hisorerus to once again become worthy of the promise being fulfilled.
One of my favorite pieces in the Ishbitzer is his interpretation of "terem nikra'u v'ani e'eneh, od heim m'dabrim v'ani eshma." If G-d responds "terem nikra'u," before we even call out to him, them what's the "od heim m'dabrim...?" He responded already before our dibur!? The Ishbitzer answers that "terem nikra'u" means Hashem responds by giving us the hisorerus to pray and call to him. He gives is the inspiration we need! Then, once we start davening, he listens to our prayers.
R' Leibele Eiger is telling us that either we will be inspired and deserve G-d's promise, or he will inspire us and cause us to have a hisorerus and thereby deserve it. Either way, it will always come true.
Now we understand why sometimes there is a need for tefilah even though Hashem has made a promise. Tefilah is the hisorerus that Hashem awakens in the nation, or even in a single individual speaking up on the nation's behalf, that makes keeping the promise possible, that makes keeping the promise worth doing, even when all seems lost.
We have it all backwards, says R' Leibele Eiger. It's not that Pinchas took action, "heishiv es chamasi," and therefore, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael b'kina'si," and if not for that, all would be lost. Rather, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael," Hashem promised never to destroy us, and therefore, He inspired a Pinchas to take action, "heishiv es chamasi." Pinchas was a tool in Hashem's hands so that the promise could be kept.
(Because Hashem used him as a tool, he gets the reward of shalom. To me it seems a little difficult to get this to fit the Midrash of "b'din hu she'yitol secharo," but you have to say some explanation for that Midrash anyway.)
There will always be a Moshe in every generation, a Pinchas, a Ya'akov Avinu. There will always be someone to bring us back, to plead on our behalf, a tool Hashem uses to bring us inspiration so we are never completely lost.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
what the three weeks really are about
1) R' Zalman Melamed writes here:
"Yizal mayim m'dalav..." Bilam said. The Megaleh Amukos writes that the shem Hashem of adnus has 4 letters, and if you spell out each letter, e.g. aleph = aleph, lamed, pei... you end up with 12 letters. These 12 letters correspond to the months of the year, i.e. aleph will be Nisan, lamed = Iyar, etc. It comes out that Tamuz and Av are the letters daled and lamed. This, says the Igra d'Kallah is what Bilam's blessing hints at: the bitter tears of "dalav," our daled-lamed of Tamuz and Av, should be transformed into sweet flowing waters of rachamim.
Every year, as the Three Weeks (of mourning over the Temple’s destruction) approach, people ask me all sorts of questions relating to the nature of mourning: What is and is not permissible in kindergartens? Can movies be watched? Fieldtrips? Swimming?2) For those who like remazim:
All such questions pertain to mourning practices, but nobody ever asks about what sort of paths should be followed to achieve repentance during these days!
"Yizal mayim m'dalav..." Bilam said. The Megaleh Amukos writes that the shem Hashem of adnus has 4 letters, and if you spell out each letter, e.g. aleph = aleph, lamed, pei... you end up with 12 letters. These 12 letters correspond to the months of the year, i.e. aleph will be Nisan, lamed = Iyar, etc. It comes out that Tamuz and Av are the letters daled and lamed. This, says the Igra d'Kallah is what Bilam's blessing hints at: the bitter tears of "dalav," our daled-lamed of Tamuz and Av, should be transformed into sweet flowing waters of rachamim.
Thursday, July 06, 2017
v'lo ra'ah amal b'yisrael -- whose suitcases are we schlepping?
1) If someone is lost in the desert and doesn't know when Shabbos is he/she has to make kiddush and havdalah one day a week as if that day was Shabbos, and on any given day no melacha except for what is needed for pikuach nefesh may be done lest that day is Shabbos. The MG"A asks why this should be so. Shabbos is only one day out of seven. Whatever day is Shabbos should be bateil b'rov to the six days of chol.
Question: how can you speak of bitul brov (or kavua) with respect to days? The chiyuv to keeps Shabbos is a chovas ha'gavra (see R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa re: whether time bound chiyuvim are issurei gavra or issurei cheftza) on the person, not a chiyuv of the day. The person lost in the desert, the gavra, is not bateil to anything?
When I saw this question I first thought it was great and now I'm not sure it makes sense. True, keeping Shabbos may be an issur gavra, but you have to define the day before you can say the chovas ha'gavra gets off the ground. It's an intrinsic condition to the chiyuv.
2) Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov. Rashi explains that Bilam saw that ain pischeihem mechuvanim.
Chazal teach us that if we just open a pesach k'chudo shel machat, an opening the size of the hole in a needle, to let Hashem into our hearts, he will open for us a pesach as wide as the door of the heichal. R' Meir Shapiro explained that this is what Bilam saw. Ain pischeihem mechuvanim: the door Hashem opens for us is completely out of proportion to the door we opened for him -- the two are not aligned. But Hashem loves us, so that's the way it is.
3) The gemara (A"Z 4) writes that Bilam's success was due to the fact that he was able to figure out when the one moment of the day that Hashem gets angry. Hashem did a miracle and withheld his anger the entire time that Bilam tried to curse us.
The gemara continues that R' Yehoshua ben Levi had an obnoxious neighbor who was a min and drove him crazy, so he decided to wait for that moment of Hashem's anger and then ask Hashem to do away with this neighbor. The moment came, but just then RYb"L fell asleep. He took this as a sign that v'rachamav al kol ma'asav, Hashem has mercy even on the wicked and did not like his plan.
If Hashem gets angry for this one moment every single day, there must be some need in the seder of the world for such a thing to happen. So why withhold that anger just to thwart Bilam? Hashem, for example, does not stop the sun from rising just because idolaters worship it. Why didn't Hashem just make Bilam fall asleep like he did to RYb"L instead of interrupting the course of nature?
We've discussed lots of times (e.g. here, here, and other places ) the famous view of the Ohr haChaim (and others) that while Hashem can force animals and inanimate objects to conform to his plan, a ba'al bechira, a human being that has free choice, has far more latitude and can do an end run around Hashem's designs. What that (probably) means is not that Hashem does not have control over people -- what it means is that it takes for more zechuyos to cause/ask for Hashem to interfere with a ba'al bechira.
Of course if Bilam just fell asleep his plan would have been thwarted. Our parsha is telling us a bigger chiddush, explains R' Yerucham Lebovitz. Even though Bilam was awake and had free choice as a ba'al bechira to act against Klal Yisrael, he still did not succeed.
4) V'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael... A beautiful Ohr haChaim here
גם נתכוון לומר שהצדיקים הגם שעושים מצות וכל עסקם בתורה אינם מרגישים שיש להם עמל, על דרך אומרו (תהלים עג) עמל הוא בעיני אלא אדרבא כאדם המרויח וכאדם המשתעשע בשעשועים לרוב חשקם בתורה
Mitzvos should not been seen as a burden or bother -- amal -- but rather as a pleasure to do.
R' Ya'akov Neiman in his Darkei Musar quotes a famous mashal (I'll write it over anyway : )of the Dubno Magid which the Kotzker said must have been given b'ruach hakodesh. V'lo oso karasa Ya'akov, ki yagata bi Yisrael (Yeshaya 43:22). Hashem criticizes Klal Yisrael for not calling to him, for being weary of him. The mashal: the was a royal officer who was travelling through some town, and when he got off the train he went ahead to his hotel and left his bags to be brought later. Later that day the bellhop, huffing and puffing and sweating from the exertion, knocked on the hotel door and told him that he had brought the suitcases. Without even looking, the officer replied that he was confused and had brought someone else's bags. "How do you know?" the bellhop asked. "You didn't even look at them!' "Because," answered the officer, "My bags were light -- you obviously have been struggling with whatever you brought, and so I know they are not mine."
Hashem tells Klal Yisrael, "OSI lo karasa," whatever frumkeit you have been killing yourself over and struggling with, it's not MY frumkeit, that's not MY Torah and mitzvos, "ki yagata bi Yisrael," because whatever it is you think you are doing is an unbearable and painful burden. Those suitcases you've been struggling with, says Hashem, are not my suitcases. When you are schlepping my suitcases, "v'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael," they are no bother at all.
Question: how can you speak of bitul brov (or kavua) with respect to days? The chiyuv to keeps Shabbos is a chovas ha'gavra (see R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa re: whether time bound chiyuvim are issurei gavra or issurei cheftza) on the person, not a chiyuv of the day. The person lost in the desert, the gavra, is not bateil to anything?
When I saw this question I first thought it was great and now I'm not sure it makes sense. True, keeping Shabbos may be an issur gavra, but you have to define the day before you can say the chovas ha'gavra gets off the ground. It's an intrinsic condition to the chiyuv.
2) Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov. Rashi explains that Bilam saw that ain pischeihem mechuvanim.
Chazal teach us that if we just open a pesach k'chudo shel machat, an opening the size of the hole in a needle, to let Hashem into our hearts, he will open for us a pesach as wide as the door of the heichal. R' Meir Shapiro explained that this is what Bilam saw. Ain pischeihem mechuvanim: the door Hashem opens for us is completely out of proportion to the door we opened for him -- the two are not aligned. But Hashem loves us, so that's the way it is.
3) The gemara (A"Z 4) writes that Bilam's success was due to the fact that he was able to figure out when the one moment of the day that Hashem gets angry. Hashem did a miracle and withheld his anger the entire time that Bilam tried to curse us.
The gemara continues that R' Yehoshua ben Levi had an obnoxious neighbor who was a min and drove him crazy, so he decided to wait for that moment of Hashem's anger and then ask Hashem to do away with this neighbor. The moment came, but just then RYb"L fell asleep. He took this as a sign that v'rachamav al kol ma'asav, Hashem has mercy even on the wicked and did not like his plan.
If Hashem gets angry for this one moment every single day, there must be some need in the seder of the world for such a thing to happen. So why withhold that anger just to thwart Bilam? Hashem, for example, does not stop the sun from rising just because idolaters worship it. Why didn't Hashem just make Bilam fall asleep like he did to RYb"L instead of interrupting the course of nature?
We've discussed lots of times (e.g. here, here, and other places ) the famous view of the Ohr haChaim (and others) that while Hashem can force animals and inanimate objects to conform to his plan, a ba'al bechira, a human being that has free choice, has far more latitude and can do an end run around Hashem's designs. What that (probably) means is not that Hashem does not have control over people -- what it means is that it takes for more zechuyos to cause/ask for Hashem to interfere with a ba'al bechira.
Of course if Bilam just fell asleep his plan would have been thwarted. Our parsha is telling us a bigger chiddush, explains R' Yerucham Lebovitz. Even though Bilam was awake and had free choice as a ba'al bechira to act against Klal Yisrael, he still did not succeed.
4) V'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael... A beautiful Ohr haChaim here
גם נתכוון לומר שהצדיקים הגם שעושים מצות וכל עסקם בתורה אינם מרגישים שיש להם עמל, על דרך אומרו (תהלים עג) עמל הוא בעיני אלא אדרבא כאדם המרויח וכאדם המשתעשע בשעשועים לרוב חשקם בתורה
Mitzvos should not been seen as a burden or bother -- amal -- but rather as a pleasure to do.
R' Ya'akov Neiman in his Darkei Musar quotes a famous mashal (I'll write it over anyway : )of the Dubno Magid which the Kotzker said must have been given b'ruach hakodesh. V'lo oso karasa Ya'akov, ki yagata bi Yisrael (Yeshaya 43:22). Hashem criticizes Klal Yisrael for not calling to him, for being weary of him. The mashal: the was a royal officer who was travelling through some town, and when he got off the train he went ahead to his hotel and left his bags to be brought later. Later that day the bellhop, huffing and puffing and sweating from the exertion, knocked on the hotel door and told him that he had brought the suitcases. Without even looking, the officer replied that he was confused and had brought someone else's bags. "How do you know?" the bellhop asked. "You didn't even look at them!' "Because," answered the officer, "My bags were light -- you obviously have been struggling with whatever you brought, and so I know they are not mine."
Hashem tells Klal Yisrael, "OSI lo karasa," whatever frumkeit you have been killing yourself over and struggling with, it's not MY frumkeit, that's not MY Torah and mitzvos, "ki yagata bi Yisrael," because whatever it is you think you are doing is an unbearable and painful burden. Those suitcases you've been struggling with, says Hashem, are not my suitcases. When you are schlepping my suitcases, "v'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael," they are no bother at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
