issur of chatzi shiur on eating eitz ha'daas

I saw a diyun regarding whether there was an issur of chatzi shiur on the eitz ha'daas.  Rashi comments on  וַתִּתֵּן גַּם לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ וַיֹּאכַל (3:6) that גם – לרבות בהמה וחיה. Chavah fed the fruit to all the animals as well as Adam.  How big was this fruit?  If she broke off pieces to distribute, odds are there was less than the shiur left for Adam to eat.  Does the concept of shiur for issurim even apply when speaking about issurei ben Noach, or are they chayav for any amount?   

I don't think you need any fancy lomdus to answer this question.  When Hashem told Adam not to eat from eitz ha'daas the pasuk says  וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ (2:17)  The word  מִמֶּנּוּ in the pasuk seems extraneous.  Ibn Ezra comments: או טעמו: אפילו מעט ממנו  Black on white that the shiur here is any amount.

"Do you have family in Israel?"; Kayin and Hevel and inyana d'yoma; Joe Biden's worst lie yet

1)"Do you have family in Israel?"   

This is the first question I am always asked by my well meaning non-Jewish coworkers who see the war news and want to know if my family is safe.  This one question highlights the fundamental difference between the way the non-Jewish world looks at the news and events in the world and the way we look at them.  In their mind if a close relative is in danger that's one thing, but if not, then the concern is muted, you have less to be worried about, you are not losing sleep every night.

A family member in Israel recently (before the war) was talking about needing help for something, and they were not overly concerned because, in their words, "We are all family here."  If that was the feeling two weeks ago, kal v'chomer that is the feeling now, and it extends not just to those in Israel, but even to those of us living in chu"l.  

Even if you don't have a brother or sister in Israel, a parent or aunt or uncle, or even a first, second, or even third cousin, each and every one of us feels like we have family there; we are personally invested in everything that is happening in a way that only family is invested.

2) I was made aware of this Yalkut Shimoni thanks to a talk I saw by R' Oury Cherki.  

 וַיָּקׇם קַיִן אֶל הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ

The word וַיָּקׇם implies that Kayin was lying down or sitting down and then got up.  What was going on in this encounter?  The Yalkut writes:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֶבֶל הָיָה גִבּוֹר מִקַּיִן, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַיָּקָם אֶלָא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן תַּחְתָּיו אָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁנֵינוּ בָּעוֹלָם, מָה אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ וְאוֹמֵר לְאַבָּא, נִתְמַלֵּא עָלָיו רַחֲמִים, מִיַּד עָמַד עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ. מִן תַּמָן אִנּוּן אָמְרִין טָב לְבִישׁ לֹא תַּעֲבִיד וְכוּ׳.

I don't need to elaborate on the application to iyana d'yoma.  Hevel assumed Kayin had the same moral rule book that he did, which was a mistake.  

3) The biggest lie of all the big lies Joe Biden has told is his statement on Sunday that, "...A significant portion of Palestinian people do not share the views of Hamas and Hezbollah."

Is there a shred of evidence that would support such an assertion?  Did the Palestinian media last Saturday and Sunday condemn the atrocities that occurred?  Was social media filled with Arab voices declaring that Hamas did not act in their name?  Have the people of Gaza when polled declared themselves sick of Hamas' ruling their territory?  Do they teach their children in school to love peace?   

No.  These barbarians celebrated what happened.  These barbarians have held multiple demonstrations in support of Hamas.  

Ask yourself this: Has there been a SINGLE demonstration in the Arab world protesting against Hamas?

Just another one of Joe's lies.  One that we will pay the price for.

thoughts on the situation at hand - Gan Eden, the letter hey and human nature, Hashem's mourning, and what our job is

A friend asked me why I have not written anything about what is going on.  The answer in short is כּשׁם שׁמקבּלים שׂכר על הדרישׁה כך מקבּלים שׂכר על הפּרישׁה.  It is sometimes too challenging to not go negative, so better to spend the time doing other things.  Still, it's before shabbos, a new parsha, so here comes a disaster of a post.

Someone at work who asked about my family in Israel asked whether we could get a flight to bring my daughter, who lives in Yerushalayim, home.  The answer to that question, which I think I managed to explain in a way that even this gentile understood, is that my daughter IS home -- it is we who are displaced.  

That is the message that we in the diaspora need to absorb and internalize and teach to out young people.

Are we really doing that?

When you sign up for a cruise, you get a choice of a first class cabin with all the luxuries, or a second class berth, etc. down the line.  When you are in a lifeboat in an emergency, there is no first class.  You do the bare minimum for survival and try your best to get someplace better.  Galus is a lifeboat.  Sometimes the lifeboat is a leaky wreck, sometimes the lifeboat is comfortable, almost as good as a real ship.  But only a fool makes himself at home on the lifeboat.  

Things are difficult now, but that doesn't mean we should make ourselves at home in the lifeboat.  It means we need to work harder at repairing what needs to be fixed in our real home.  

I have a kashe on myself that I can't answer, but I'll share it with you just in case you want to think about the same kashe.

Rashi comments on  וַיִּקַּח ה׳ אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ (2:18) that ויקח – לקחו בדברים נאים ופתהו ליכנס.  Hashem had to entice and seduce Adam to get him to enter Gan Eden.

How does that make sense?  Gan Eden is the best place imaginable.  Why should Hashem have to seduce Adam to get him to go there?  

Good question, isn't it?  

 כִּי נִחַם ה׳ צִיּוֹן נִחַם כׇּל חׇרְבֹתֶיהָ וַיָּשֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ כְּעֵדֶן וְעַרְבָתָהּ כְּגַן ה׳ שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה יִמָּצֵא בָהּ תּוֹדָה וְקוֹל זִמְרָה.

And yet we expect Hashem to twist our arm to get us to even think about moving. 

This is not kashya.  It's teiuvta.  Game, set, match.  I don't have an answer.  

What saddens me is that so many people are not even bothered by the question.

At the end of the parsha we read וַיִּנָּחֶם ה׳ כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ.  The Midrash comments that אֵין עֲצִיבָה אֶלָא אֲבֵלוּת.  Netziv asks why Hashem was in aveilus here.  The mabul had not yet started, so what was He mourning over?  

Netziv answers:

אלא הענין, דבכל משך מאה ועשרים שנה מתו כמה צדיקים שהיו בעולם והמה מכונים בשם ׳לב הבריאה׳, כי הוא תכליתו,... והנה בכל דור ודור הצדיק נאסף אל עמיו וזרח צדיק אחר, אבל במשך מאה ועשרים שנה אלו מי שמת לא הניח תמורתו וממלא מקומו, משום הכי שייך לומר ויתעצב אל לבו שהתאבל על מות הצדיקים, שאין עוד אדם שיהא ראוי לקיים העולם לצוות לו.

People die all the time, even under tragic circumstances, and people are born every day too.  But sometimes a death is so tragic that it's like your heart has been ripped out.  Something irreplaceable has been taken.  That was this past week.

I think many people lost their naivete and had their illusions shattered as they discovered this past week just how horrible college campus hatred against Jews is, as they hear the deafening silence of corporate America so willing to stake a stand on so many issues except the slaughter of Jews, etc.

  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם.  Rashi comments לימדך כאן שהעולם הזה נברא בה״י. רמז שירדו למטה לראות שחת, כה״י זה שסתום מכל צדדין ופתוח מלמטה לרדת דרך שם  The world was created with the letter 'hey' because it has a big opening on the bottom for the evildoers to fall out of down to where they belong.  

Shem m'Shmuel asks: Why did Hashem not create the world with a letter that has a big opening on top so that the tzadikim could go up to shamayim?  The elevator goes in both directions, doesn't it?

What the pasuk is telling us is that olam ha'zeh by its very nature is cruel and barbaric, Tennyson's "nature red in tooth and claw."  Left unchecked, what comes out is the worst in man, not the best.  Don't be fooled and think that because we live in the year 2023/5754 things are any different.  Rashi in his ruach ha'kodesh had in mind most of what you read about Jews on Twitter when he wrote that comment.  

Of course there is a way up, but that way is למעלה מן הטבע.  Chazal darshen that בְּהִבָּרְאָם is the same letters as Avraham, for whom the world was created.  The 10 tests that Avraham faced proved that a human being can rise above his nature, the nature of olam ha'zeh, to reach amazing heights.

We have seen a lot of that this past week too.  Unbelievable heroism, unbelievable chessed.  Our nation lives למעלה מן הטבע, the very fact that we continue to exist is למעלה מן הטבע.

Even small things can restore your belief in the power of mankind in general to rise above its nature.  It is something you will rarely see if you spend too much time in the cesspool of online social media.  I was sitting outside at lunchtime one day this week in a small park near my office when a total stranger came over and said to me, "I hope if you have family in Israel that they are doing alright.  I just want to let you know that."

Don't completely lose hope.  There are still sane people left in the world out there.  

The Midrash writes (42:4, in Lech Lecha) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר אֲבִינָא אִם רָאִיתָ מַלְכֻיּוֹת מִתְגָּרוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּאֵלּוּ צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ  The Imrei Emes explained (not exactly in these words : ) that when there is war, your job is not to check every arutz station for updates all day, or monitor social media, or to discuss who is to blame, or to map out strategy of what the gvt should do next just in case you get the call to be Defense Minister tomorrow.  Instead of looking at all those things, רָאִיתָ..., instead of looking at every crumb of news and commentary about the fighting and what is going on, what you should look at is צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.  What can I learn, what can I daven for, what chessed can I do, to help bring mashiach closer.

Today happens to be my mother-in-law's yahrzeit.  Years ago she did a video interview, along with one of my wife's uncles, for the Chabad group that collects stories that have to do with the Rebbe, in which she recounts how the Rebbe's bracha brought a yeshu'a for one of her siblings as a baby.  Here is a link if you want the whole story, but I just want to focus on one detail.  When my wife's grandfather called the Rebbe to say his baby was basically at death's door, the Rebbe said to him, "You're a Rav.  The job of a Rav is to make sure the standards of kashrus are upheld, the standard of chinuch where you live is good.  You do you job, and Hashem will do His job.  The baby will be OK."  Today this aunt baruch Hashem has many, many children and grandchildren of her own.  

צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.  We each have a job to do.  Some folks are doing it on the front lines of Gaza.  Some have a job to do in the beis medrash.  Some do it in chessed programs.

Let's do our job, and Hashem will do His. 

why Adam needed Chavah to be complete, the nachash's challenge, and Chanoch the shoemaker

 1) "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado..."  Why not?  What was missing in his life?  He was living in Gan Eden with all his needs fulfilled!

What was missing is the ability to share with others, to give.  Without that, life has no purpose or meaning (R' Chaim Shmuelevitz).

According to Ramchal, Hashem created the world to be meitiv, to share his goodness with us, to give to us.  Humans are created b'tzelem Elokim.  We have an innate need to share, to give to others.  That is what gives our life meaning and purpose.

2) When the snake first approaches Chavah, the Torah relates:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹקים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃

The pasuk is a bit cryptic.  Targum translates אַ֚ף as  בְּקוּשְׁטָא, a statement of truth.  It's hard to know (see Mizrachi) whether Targum read the pasuk as a real question being posed by the snake, i.e. "Did G-d tell you...?" or as a statement of fact posed as a rhetorical question, i.e. "Is it not true...?"  Rashi understood that it was a question: אף כי אמר וגו׳ – שמא אמר לכם לא תאכלו מכל וגו׳ – ואף על פי שראה אותם אוכלים משאר הפרות, הרבה עליה דברים כדי שתשיבנו, ויבא לדבר באותו עץ.  The nachash saw Adam and Chavah eating and knew (see Sifsei Chachamim) that they were not prohibited from doing so but he asked anyway as a means of eliciting a response and thereby engaging Chavah in conversation.  

Radak reads the pasuk as a challenge by the snake.  The nachash told Chavah that G-d must despise humans, as He did not allow them to eat all of the fruits in the garden:

באמרו אף שמורה תוספת על הדברים שקדמו, נראה כי דברים אחרים קדמו בין חוה ובין הנחש, ודומה שאמרה חוה לנחש על הכבוד שעשה להם האל שהשכינם בגן עדן, אמר לה הנחש אני רואה שהקב״ה שונא אתכם אף על פי שהגדיל אתכם משאר היצורים שלא יעשה לכם מעלה כך וכך, וכל שכן שאמר אליכם שלא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן בזה תוכלו להכיר שהוא שונא אתכם ואינכם חשובים בעיניו כמו שאת אומרת, והכתוב הניח ראשי הדברים ולקח סופם, וכן הוא מנהג הכתוב במקומות רבות

Remember the cheit ha'meraglim?   בְּשִׂנְאַ֤ת ה׳ אֹתָ֔נוּ הוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם (Devarim 1:27).  Once again, just as Bnei Yisrael are prepared to enter Eretz Yisrael, a return to Eden, if you will, the same sin, the same fear that G-d has rejected them, rears its ugly head.  The aleph of alephs of the yetzer ha'ra, the first and best weapon of the nachash, is to tell us that we are rejects, that G-d, or our rebbeim, or our parents, or whoever, does not love us, does not want us.   

Netziv is a contrarian here and reads the pasuk not as questioning why Adam and Chavah were eating, as Rashi assumes, but rather questioning why they were NOT eating.  אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹקים – ״מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל״ (לעיל ב,טז), מכל מקום --לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן.  Netziv explains that Adam and Chavah were in a state of dveikus with Hashem, and when you are close to G-d, you don't have an appetite, you don't worry about what's for lunch.  Even if you could eat on Yom Kippur, is that really what's on your mind on the holiest of days?  In steps the nachash: על כן בא הנחש בפיתוי — שהרי לא בחנם נברא העולם ומלואו, ואין רצון ה׳ שלא תהיו נצרכים לתענוגי העולם, וא״כ אין ראוי להיות שקוע באהבת ה׳ ובדבקות שהוא מהביל ומפריע כל תענוג גשמי, והוא נגד רצון ה׳ שהרי אמר ״מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל״  Not only are you permitted to eat, argues the snake, but it's a mitzvah to eat, or why else would G-d have created a world and put you in it.  וכזה הוא פיתוי היצר בכל דור, כידוע, מתחילה משיא את הדבק בתורה ע״י איזה מצוה או דרך ארץ שהוא ישר באמת לשאר בני אדם, ואחר שמושכו מבית המדרש מוסיף והולך לפתות.  This is the argument the snake uses in every generation to draw us out into the world, to draw us away from the beit medrash, and once we are exposed to the tastes and temptations of the world, the slide down the slippery slope is almost inevitable.

3) The Midrash writes that Chanoch was a shoemaker, and with every stich he made on the shoes, he was m'yached yichudim.  Chasidim interpret this to mean that Chanoch's mind was on deep, Heavenly thoughts while he was stitching those shoes,while the aalei mussar (see Michtav m'Eliyahu in vol 1) interpret this to mean that by doing his work faithfully and avoiding gezel Chanoch was fulfilling the ratzon Hashem.  In the Mir yeshiva parsha sheet they quote a different hesber from Rav Shmuel Charkover, one that, as someone who goes to work every day, resonated with me.  R' Shmuel Charkover explained that with every stitch Chanoch made he said to himself, "I am not a shoemaker."  Next stitch, again, "I am not a shoemaker."  This was how he was m'yached yichudim.

People go through life thinking, "I am a <blank>," and that definition of who they are influences their whole approach to their avodas Hashem, to how they live.  Learn more than daf yomi?  "I'm a <blank>, not a masmid!"  Daven a little longer shacharis?  "I'm a <blank>, not a tzadik!"  Chanoch reminded himself constantly that his job was not his identity; it was just something he needed to do at that moment.  

marriage and peru u'revu: two mitzvos or one?

One of my kids asked me whether the "purpose" of the mitzvah of marriage is so that one can fulfill peru u'revu, or whether it is for the sake of the relationship.

I want to preface the sources below with two comments: 1) I don't like questions about the "purpose" of mitzvos.  Contemplating taamei ha'mitzvos seems to me to be a purely speculative exercise; what G-d's "purpose" is is probably beyond what any of us can fathom.  That being said, as the Rambam writes at the end of Hil Temunah, "Af al pi she she'kol chukei haTorah gezeiros heim... ra'uy l'hisbonen ba'hem."  I would rephrase any question of this type into a question as to what lessons we can derive from the mitzvah to enrich our appreciation of it.  2)The idea that marriage is only for the sake of peru u'revu came from some teacher (granted the possibility that the message was misunderstood).  However you interpret the sources, for all practical purposes I shudder at the thought of a marriage built around that purpose alone.  From a chinuch perspective, I think that is not the message anyone should be giving.  

My initial thoughts based on some sources:

1) As R' Soloveitchik pointed out in Lonely Man of Faith, there is dichotomy between what he called Adam I, the story of creation in Braishis ch 1, and Adam II, the story in Braishis ch 2.  Without going into all the differences between the stories and what it tells us about man's mission in the world, the dichotomy also expresses itself with respect to the creation of woman.  In ch 1, the Torah just tells us that man was created zachar and nekeiva and Hashem gave them a blessing and said peru u'revu.  In ch 2 we have the idea of eizer k'negdo, of woman being a helpmate, not just a partner in fulfilling periya v'rivya.  So already from creation, we see both of these elements at work.  

2) The Tur opens Even ha'Ezer:

יתברך שמו של הקב"ה שהוא חפץ בטוב בריותיו שידע שאין טוב לאדם להיות לבדו ועל כן עשה לו עזר כנגדו ועוד כי כוונת הבריאה באדם כדי לפרות ולרבות וזה אי אפשר בלא העזר ועל כן צוהו לדבק בעזר שעשה לו לכך חייב כל אדם לישא אשה כדי לפרות ולרבות

Here too we see two reasons for marriage: A) eizer k'negdo, to have a helpmate; B) to procreate.  These are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

3) As we once discussed, the Rambam and Rosh (Kesubos I:12) debate whether birchas eirusin is a birchas ha'mitzvah because there is an independent mitzvah to get married, or whether it is a birchas ha'shevach because there is no mitzvah per se to be married, only a mitzvah to have children.  If one assumes kiddushin in an independent mitzvah, it suggests that it has value even beyond peru u'revu.

4) There is a din (Eh"E 1:8) that even if one has fulfilled peru u'revu, one still has an obligation to be married.  At first glance this seems to indicate that there is an importance to marriage even outside the context of having children.  However, in truth this din 1) may be an eitzah tovah and not even a real takanah; 2) may simply be for the sake of avoiding hirhur.  On the other hand, Pitchei Teshuvah quotes a RI"F that suggests it may be a din d'oraysa.

5) In the new editions of the Minchas Chinuch in footnote #18 to the mitzvah of peru u'revu they quote that the M"C's son-in-law said that when the M'C was mesader kiddushin he would tell the chassan, since mitzvos tzerichos kavanah, to have in mind that his kinyan ishus was for the sake of being m'keyeim the mitzvah of peru u'revu.  Clearly he held that you cannot seperate the two kiyumim.  Anyone know of anyone out there who does this?  

cover up

I would imagine that those who recite the 13 ikkarim every day assume that just like "adam nifal k'fi p'ulosav" (as the Chinuch writes many places), so too, by  saying the words if the ikkarim again and again it will inculcate those beliefs.  However, in R' Baruch Sorotzkin's sefer on chumash he says the opposite -- reciting the words without first fully believing in the ikkarim inculcates the midah of sheker.  Interesting.

He has a very nice pshat in what it means that Adam discovering his nakedness after the sin of eitz ha'daas.  Why does the Torah single this out? B'shlama if the Torah had told me that after eating the eitz ha'daas Adam now understood quantum mechanics, neicha, but how big an IQ do you need to know you are naked?  

No one who is already wearing clothes says, "I'm naked and need something to cover myself up."  The person understands that they are their body, and the clothes are a separate covering, and so you don't need a covering to the covering.

Before the sin of eitz ha'daas Adam identified who he was as a neshoma.  The physical body was just a covering for the true self.  M'meila, there was no need for clothes because you don't need a covering on top of a covering.

After the sin of eitz ha'daas, Adam's perspective switched and he identified his true self as the guf.  If the guf is the self, then the guf needs a covering, and so he discovered his nakedness.

Ishbitzer on the name Chavah

This upcoming Monday is the yahrzeit of my MIL and the divrei torah should be l'iluy nishmasa.

The parsha tells us that Chavah was called by that name because she was "aim kol chai," the mother of humanity.  Why is Chavah given all the credit for being the mother of all future generations of humanity, but Adam gets no credit for being the father of humanity?  Why is there an "aim kol chai" but not an "av kol chai?"  

Ohr haChaim explains that Chavah was called by that name after she was given the punishment of "harbeh arbeh itzvoneich v'heironeich," of suffering pain during childbirth.  And it's not just during childbirth.  We know the difficulties involved in raising children fall primarily on the mother.  Who stays up nights when a child is sick?  Who does the child run to when they are crying, when they are hungry, when they are tired?  It's always the mother.  The title "aim kol chai" is earned the pain and suffering of raising children, and no one can equal a mother in that regard.

Beis Yaakov (Ishbitz - Braishis #67) gives a different explanation of why Chavah was given this name here, and it's one that you should definitely say over to your wife this Shabbos.  When woman is first created, Adam is told that she will be an "eizer k'negdo," a helpmate.  In other words, someone who could help Adam accomplish whatever he set out to accomplish.  

Left to his own devices, in a million years Adam would never have dreamed of eating the fruit of the eitz ha'daas.  That idea only came from Chavah.   Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the Ishbitzer's approach to that sin (and sin in general), suffice it to say that l'asid lavo that sin will be rectified and be revealed as having brought something powerful and great into the world.  

Adam now understood that his wife, "ishto," is much more than an "eizer," someone who can help him get where he wants to go.  

  והכיר בה שלא לעזר בלבד נתנה לו, אבל היא מנשאת אותו בדרכי השי"ת בדברים שהם למעלה מתפיסת שכלו.  

His wife is the one who can take him even to places and inspire him to do things that he never would have dreamed of by himself.  

  ועיקר החיים שופע לו ממנה, לכן אמר, כי היא היתה אם כל חי, היינו שממנה הכל

Therefore, Adam now names her Chavah, the "aim kol chai," because he recognizes her as the mother of all the chiyus in the world, including the chiyus that he attains himself by growing beyond what he perceives as his limits.

The job of a mother and a wife is not just to help you become all that you think you can be.  It's to help you become even more than you think you can be.

rain man

וְכֹ֣ל׀ שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכׇל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר ה׳ אלקים עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה (Braishis 2:5).

Rashi comments:

לפי שאדם אין לעבוד ואין מכיר בטובתן של גשמים. וכשבא אדם וידע שצורך הם לעולם, התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים

Hashem only brings rain after the creation of man, when there is someone who can appreciate the rain and pray for it (see Maharal in Gur Aryeh).

The gemara (Yevamos 63a) tells us that אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם. The word "adam" refers not to all mankind, but specifically to the Jewish people. Sefas Emes writes in light of this Chazal that when Rashi tells us that G-d delayed the creation of rain until there was an "adam" to ask for it, he means specifically the prayers of Klal Yisrael (I assume he means that Klal Yisrael existed at least in potential within Adam haRishon).

Rain is needed for all humanity, not just for the Jewish people. And there are plenty of people and nations who pray to G-d for rain when they need it. Our prayers, however, are different. Our need for rain is because "im ain kemach, ain Torah," without food to eat and our material needs being fulfilled, we would never be able to devote ourselves to any higher spiritual pursuit. Our Shimini Atzeres, where we ask for rain, goes hand in hand with a Simchas Torah.

the yetzer ha'ra also pushes a person to do mitzvos

The difference between the yetzer ha'tov and the yetzer ha'ra is NOT that the yetzer ha'tov pushes you to do mitzvos and the yetzer ha'ra pushes you to do aveiros.  

The yetzer ha'ra also pushes you to do mitzvos!  The problem is the mitzvos the yetzer ha'ra pushes you to do are really aveiros dressed up as noble causes.

Tiferes Shlomo:

כי כן דרך היצה"ר מסמא את עיני אדם לאמור כי בכל אשר הוא עושה עדיין לא חטא כלל ועודנו לא נתרחק כלל מהש"י ואדרבא הוא מתאמר בנפשו עוד לאמור כי מצוה הוא עושה כל הימים כמו שהשיא לחוה לאמר והייתם כאלהים לכן ההתחלת העבדות שיהיה האדם מכיר בעצמו כי חטא לה'. וצריך להיות תמיד פלס ומאזני משפט לפלס דרכיו אם יכונו באמת לה' ולא יעשה בנפשו שקר כמ"ש דוד המלך ע"ה ה' לי בעוזרי ואני אראה בשונאי. ר"ל ה' לי בעוזרי עי"כ אוכל לראות ולהכיר בשונאי לידע מי הוא האוהב אותי ומי הוא השונא המפתה אותי לדרך רעה כי היצה"ט ויצה"ר שניהם מפת' לדרך מצוה אך זה חלקו בחיים וזה אחריתו דרכי מות. לכן הודיעני דרך זו אלך. הורני ה' דרכיך. תעיתי כשה אובד בקש עבדך. ואל יהיה דבר זה קטן בעיני האדם לשום עינא פקיחא על נפשו בכל עניניו כי מצינו כן בצדיקים הגדולים שלא הכירו במעשיהם וחשבו למצוה והיה בהיפך כמו ענין מכירת יוסף כי עברו כ"ב שנים ולא ידעו כי עשו עולה עד שראו תפיסת אחיהם ואת בנימין. אז אמרו אבל אשמים אנחנו וכתיב מיד אחריו כי המליץ בינותם ע"י שהכירו שחטאו נעשה מליץ טוב עליהם. וכן היה רדיפת שאול לדוד כי סבור היה כי הוא מצוה להורגו. מעתה ק"ו ב"ב של ק"ו לאנשים פחותי ערך כמונו עורי לב שכלו ימיהם בהבל צריך להבין ולהשכיל בפתוי היצה"ר להנצל ממצודתו ודבריו הטובי' 

I saw quoted b'shem the Divrei Chaim of Sanz that our kavanos during Yom Kippur davening don't measure up to the kavanos l'shem shamayim that were going through Adam haRishon's head when he ate from the eitz hada'as.

So how do you tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys when the bad guys are also wearing white hats? 

I wish I had an easier answer other than tefilah, siyata d'Shemaya, and cheshbon ha'nefesh.

hearing but not seeing

The famous pasuk by by mattan Torah (Shmos 20:14) tells us that Klal Yisrael was "ro'im es ha'kolos," they not only heard the dvar Hashem but they were able to see the sound.  Rashi comments: רואים את הקולות – רואין את הנשמע, שאי איפשר לראות במקום אחר.

Similarly, when Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he tells them (45:12) "v'hiney eineichem ro'os...ki pi ha'midabeir aleichem."  Rashi splits the phrase in two: "eineichem ro'os" that I am mahul, and "ki pi ha'midbeir," that I am speaking lashon kodesh.  That pshat involves reading a lot of words between the lines.  The Tiferes Shlomo writes that the words of a tzadik like Yosef are like the words of mattan Torah.  "Eineichem ro'os" is like "ro'im es ha'kolos" -- you can not only hear, but you can see the dvar Hashem when it is spoken properly.  

In our parsha, Adam sins and then hides.  Hashem calls out to him, "Ayeka?" to which Adam responds, "Es kolcha shamati ba'gan va'ira ki eirom anochi." (3:10)  "I heard your voice," Adam tells Hashem -- because of his sin, he no longer is "ro'im es ha'kolos, he is no longer seeing, not just hearing, the dvar Hashem.

Chassidishe torah, right?  But then I saw the GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu:   וז״ש את קולך שמעתי בגן – ולא פנים אל פנים כבראשונה

"Es kolcha shamati ba'gan."  Where else other than "ba'gan" would he have heard Hashem's voice?  That's where Adam was, that was the whole geography of his existence.

Tiferes Shlomo writes that the gan here alludes to the 53 parshioyos of Torah.  After the sin, when the direct connection to the dvar Hashem was lost, Hashem's voice can still be heard in Torah.  From that, "va'ira ki eirom anochi," a person can come back to yiras shamayim.  

continuity

Today is the second yahrzeit of my MIL, Shulamis bas R' Dov Yehudah, so these words are l'iluy nishmasa.

After telling us in Zos HaBracha that Klal Yisrael finished mourning Moshe Rabeinu, the Torah continues וִיהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֗וּן מָלֵא֙ ר֣וּחַ חׇכְמָ֔ה כִּֽי־סָמַ֥ךְ מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־יָדָ֖יו עָלָ֑יו  This whole pasuk seems out of place.  Yehoshua's appointment and Moshe's laying his hands on his head was discussed back in parshas Pinchas.  Why stick it in again here?  

Ksav Sofer answers that the pasuk is a continuation of the previous idea of וַֽיִּתְּמ֔וּ יְמֵ֥י בְכִ֖י אֵ֥בֶל מֹשֶֽׁה׃.  How do you ever stop mourning the loss of a Moshe Rabeinu?  The truth is that if everything Moshe lived for and represented as gone, we would still be crying.  But everything was not lost.  "Ki samach Moshe es yadav alav" -- the legacy of Moshe lived on through Yehoshua.  When Klal Yisrael saw that, it was the consolation that they needed.

Last night I was zoche to make a siyum b'shutfus with my son and I quoted the Midrash (B"R parsha 63, at the beginning of Toldos) that says

 רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מִנַיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן יָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עָלָיו רַחֲמִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (משלי כ״ג:ט״ו): בְּנִי אִם חָכַם לִבֶּךָ יִשְׂמַח לִבִּי גַּם אָנִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לֵב אָבִיו שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא רַחֲמִים עָלָיו בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יִשְׂמַח לִבִּי גַּם אָנִי

When a person has children and grandchildren who are  יָגֵעַ בַּתּוֹרָה, that is the real tribute to their legacy and shows that their spirit carries on.   

The Midrash on our parsha, Braishis, comments on the pasuk in Mishlei וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו׳

דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאַךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאַךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם

Sefas Emes points out that the pasuk is written in the future tense - וָאֶהְיֶה - not the past tense, even though the world was created thousands of years ago.  

What Chazal are telling us is that process of creation was actually never completed -- it continues on through us.  "Kol mah she'talmid vasik asid l'hischadesh" is part of Torah, and becomes part of creation.  

If Hashem's behavior as creator is meant to serve as a model for us, then perhaps the lesson for our own lives is that the process of creation that we start does not end with us, but hopefully continues on into the future, expanded on and developed by children and grandchildren and future generations following in our footsteps.

Hashem never tunes out tefilos

The snake was given the punishment of "afar tochal kol y'mei chayecha," that he would always eat dirt.  Seems like a strange punishment.  Dirt is everywhere, so no matter where the snake goes, he never goes hungry.  There are plenty of people who would love such a punishment!

R' Yitzchok Vorke explained that when a person has a need, he turns to Hashem.  By ensuring the snake would never want for food, Hashem ensured the snake would never have the opportunity to turn to Him.  There is no greater punishment than this, than being completed disconnected from speaking to Hashem (see also Shem m'Shmuel on Zos haBracha 5667).

R' Yehuda Deri asks a simple question: why did Hashem need to give the nachash a perpetual lifetime supply of food just to not have to listen to his requests?  If Hashem didn't want to hear from the nachash and not have a relationship with him, all Hashem had to do is tune him out?

We see from here (as we've discussed in the past), that had the nachash turned to Hashem with a heartfelt prayer, then Hashem would be "unable" to tune it out.  There is nothing that stands in the way of tefilah, even the tefilah of the biggest rasha.

Chazal tell us that when Nevuchadnetzar witnessed Chanaya, Mishael, and Azaryah being saved from the furnace, he started to sing praises to Hashem that would have outshone and eclipsed even David HaMelech's praises in Tehillim had a malach not slapped him on the face to stop him.  Even though Nevuchadnetzar was a rasha, even though he was the one who threw Ch"M'vA into the furnace, nonetheless his "tehillim" were accepted by Hashem.

Euthyphro dilemma and Chavah's mistake

Something like 13 years ago I quoted a chakirah from the Shiurei Da’as (vol 2 "Bein Yisrael l'Amim): are the laws of the Torah that tell us good vs bad a giluy milsa to the way teva works, and punishment and reward are just natural outcomes, or is it the mitzvos themselves that make things good (=keeping the law) or bad (=violating it) and reward and punishment are decrees, not consequences. 















This is a very old issue that goes back to the ancient Greeks and is known as the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something holy (moral) because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is holy (or moral)? 
We once used this to explain the sin of Chavah.  When Chavah said the eitz ha'da'as was "tov lma'achal" when she was in effect saying was that really, the tree by its nature is something good to eat, but G-d imposed a decree upon us preventing us from eating it.  

I started thinking about the same issue again this year.  Chavah mistakenly thought she was not allowed to touch the eitz hada'as.  Rashi writes (3:4) that the nachash pushed Chavah into the tree to show her that nothing would happen if she touched it, and therefore, he argued that nothing would happen if she ate from it either.

The Sifsei Chachamim asks: this reasoning makes no sense.  Chavah was pushed into the tree against her will -- it was a case of ones.  Of course she would not be liable for that.  How can that be compared to willingly eating from the tree?

It must be that Chavah assumed that the prohibitions having to do with the tree were built into its nature.  G-d was simply revealing how teva works.  If come in contact with acid, even if someone pushed you into it, the claim of ones doesn't help -- the acid will burn you anyway.  Similarly, Chavah thought that by its nature the eitz hada'as was toxic.  When the nachash proved to her otherwise, her mental castle fell apart. 

making your own gan eden

This limud should be a zechus for a refulah shleimah for Shulamis bas Sarah Sosha.

Chazal (Shabbos 133) teach us that we have an obligation of "mah hu... af atah," of imitation Dei, of imitating G-d's behavior.  Just like G-d is rachum, we should show rachamanus; just like G-d visits the sick, buries the dead, etc. so should we do the same.  R' Yitzchak Isaac Sher in his Sichos Mussar (vol 1 p 62) quotes a klal gadol from the Alter of Slabodka that extends this principle even further: just as Hashem created gan eden for Adam haRishon, so too each one of us is obligated to create a gan eden for ourselves and our fellow man.  

That's a pretty tall order.  It's hard enough to make the world even a little better place; how can we even dream of making it into a paradise?  I don't have millions of dollars to build you a mansion, buy you a Ferrari, take care of your needs in luxury -- so how can I make a gan eden for you?

That's the mistake we all make -- we think gan eden is about luxury, about having more expensive "things," with no work to do and no other needs to take care of.  That's not gan eden -- there are people who have all that and who have a miserable life.  What made gan eden into gan eden is the fact that adam ha'rishon knew that everything that was created there was done for his sake -- because Hashem cared for him.  What people want more than anything else is to be cared for.  When Avraham Avinu opened his home to wayfarers in the desert it was gan eden!  Avraham did not necessarily have the most luxurious tent, but Avraham had a home where no matter who you were, you felt welcomed and cared for.  You can make someone a simple cup of coffee, but if you do it in the right way, if you do it as an expression of love, then in that moment you've given that person gan eden.

Let's move to the end of the parsha.  We read there how the bnei Elokim took the bnos ha'adam against their will, how licentiousness and debasement took hold in society.  Hashem decided that if things do not change, he will bring a mabul.  There was, however, one silver lining, and this is how the parsha ends, "u'Noach matzah chein b'einei Hashem."

The Berdichiver in Kedushas Levi says a tremendous yesod.  Let's say there is going to be a wild new year's eve party going on all night.  So you say to yourself, "Aha!  That's the yetzer ha'ra's party -- no way am I going."  You met the enemy -- the yetzer ha'ra -- and vanquished him.  Great job. 

But there is something even better you can do.  You can see that excitement of the party, the "hisla'havus" to stay up all night, and say to yourself, "Aha!  Now I know what I should be doing on Shavuos night."  When the tzadik sees wrongdoing, says the Berdichiver, he takes a lesson from it for avodas Hashem.  The wrong behavior becomes a force that can be redirected for good.

The bnei Elokim were immersed in their ta'avos for beauty, for "chein."  They found it in al the wrong places.  Noach took that same ta'avah, that same desire, that same love of "chein," and instead of simply quashing it, he redirected it.  "Noach matzah chein b'einei Hashem" -- Noach found his "chein" in avodas Hashem.  

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... 

tohu va'vohu is part of the process of creation

1. The opening of Braishis is the story of creation. Why then are we treated to the introduction of  “v’ha’aretz haysa tohu va’vohu,” a description of the pre-creation void?   B'shlama if you interpret the pesukim like Ramban, namely, that tohu va’vohu is some kind of building block matter necessary for all else to be created, then I guess it makes sense. But according to Rashi, who understands tohu va’vohu to simply be a void and chaos, why mention it? If you were to describe an artist at work, you would talk about the brushstrokes on the canvas, not the blank canvas that was there before he started to paint.  Why talk about what was there before G-d started making our world and the universe?

Sefas Emes explains that the Torah / G-d is teaching us about how to create, what creativity means.  The artist doesn't just sit down and produce a great work of art, a great piece of literature.  There are dozens of prior sketches that are first tested and discarded, dozens of drafts that don't make it further than the trash bin.  Hashem was "birei olamos u'machrivan."  At first there was tohu va'vohu.  This is not pre-creation -- this gufa is part of the process of creation.  Every act of creation, growth, advancement, always first starts with chaos and void.  

It's difficult as a parent when your kids are growing up and sometimes it seems like they have no idea what direction that are going in or what direction they want to go in and you wonder why they just can't get on with it and mature.  I was just telling my wife yesterday that this is the Sefas Emes -- you can't the "ye'hi ohr" without first having a little "tohu va'vohu."  And it doesn't just apply to kids either : )

2. The parsha tells us that Kayin named his son Chanoch and "va'yehi boneh ir vayikra shem ha'ir k'shem b'no Chanoch."  Kayin was a builder -- boneh=present tense -- of a city, and he named this city Chanoch, the same name as his son.  Kli Yakar reads this in a negative light.  Sometimes you have people who once they get a starter house are already planning on how to move up to a bigger house, and then once they get the bigger house they want an even bigger one.  Kayin kept building that city -- he couldn't stop.   He was never done; it was never past tense for him.  He was so captured and engrossed in physical land and space, in the size of his house, his city, that it became his life's sole focus. 

I prefer to put a more positive spin on it.  HaKsav vHaKabbalah notes that the name Chanoch comes from the word "chinuch" = education.  It's not by chance that Kayin took this name for his son and his city.  Kayin knew he was a sinner and knew he had weak points.  He needed to constantly remind himself, to educate himself, as to what the correct approach to life should be.  What better way to have a constant reminder of that than to name his son and his hometown Chanoch?  Maybe that's why Kayin is described as a builder, "boneh," in the present tense.  He was always building -- building himself.  Were he to stop, were he to not have that reminder, the building, himself, might collapse. 

We say in Neilah and in our slichos that we are saddened when we see, "b're'osi kol ir al tilah benuyah," every city built up, "v'ir Elokim mushpeles...," but the city of G-d so downtrodden.  The Shem m'Shmuel suggests that the word "ir" can be interpreted to mean hisorerus.  When it comes to outside pursuits, we are awake and eager, but when it comes to zeal and enthusiasm for Hashem, suddenly the air is out of the balloon.  I want to piggyback on his derush and apply it to Kayin.   "Va'yehi boneh ir"-- Kayim was constantly involved in building his hisore'rus.  He knew that he was living life on a slippery downward slope, and the only way not to fall back was to keep climbing.  

division of labor

Which is better – to do a mitzvah with zerizus, or to do it in a more mehudar fashion?  If you have a choice of doing netilas lulav with a kosher esrog first thing in the morning or doing it later in the day with a more mehudar esrog, which is better?  

Kayin brought his korban first, but Hevel brought the nicer offering, and we know which one G-d favored, right?

“Va’tosef la’ledes ES ACHIV es Hevel…” (4:2) Considering that we were just told that Adam and Chavah, the only people in the world, gave birth to a son named Kayin, isn’t it obvious that Hevel, born next, was his brother? Why does the Torah spell out “ES ACHIV?” 

I would guess the Torah is doing a little foreshadowing. The emphasis on “ACHIV” sets us up for the famous question, “Ha’shomer ACHI anochi?” - “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Netziv, however, has a little deeper pshat, but before we get to what he says about Hevel, we first need to revisit the birth of Kayin.

There is a marked difference between the description of Kayin’s birth, “Va’tahar va’teiled es Kayin,” (4:1) and the description of Sheis’ birth, “Va’teiled ben va’tikra es shmo Sheis.” In the latter case, the Torah tells us that there was a baby born, and then tells us that the baby was given a name. We find the same thing by Noach’s birth.   Not so when it comes to Kayin. Here, the Torah tells us that Kayin – not a baby -- was born, period. It is as if from the moment of birth, this was Kayin.  No other name was possible; that’s who he was.

The name Kayin comes from the same root as “kinyan,” something acquired. A kinyan has a purpose, a use and benefit for its owner. Adam had been given the punishment of having to work and toil in the field, and at first there was no one else in the world for him to share that burden with. When Adam and Chavah had a child, they saw it as a gift from Hashem to help them in their toil. Kayin was their kinyan. 

When the next child was born, he too might have been destined for the field, but mankind came up with a fantastic idea. Kayin would devote himself to taking care of the crops, and the extra set of hands of Hevel would be free to accomplish other things. After all, who is satisfied with just having food on his plate?  Where would we be without iphones and everything else? “Hevel havolim… hakol hevel” -- the words are probably still ringing in our ears from Sukkos. You have to be free from spending all day toiling in a field to have time to think about luxuries.  

We call that division of labor – you grow the crops, I’ll take care of something else.  Together we will split the results and the world will be a better place. The Torah calls it “achva.”  When Hevel was born, the concept of brotherhood, of shared responsibility, was born as well: "ES ACHIV es Hevel." 

The Midrash (B"R 22) writes that what triggered Hevel's murder was that Kayin and he decided to divide the world between them, with Kayin taking all the land and Hevel all portable goods.  Of course, you can't raise sheep or put up a house unless you do it on land.  And by the same token, you can't tend to land without clothes that come from sheep to keep you warm.  Kayin and Hevel lost sight of the fact that without cooperation, both were doomed to fail.

what did Hevel do wrong?

I have never found a good explanation as to what Hevel did wrong that elicited his being killed at the hands of Kayin.  It may be that the whole question is out of place, as a ba’al bechira has free reign to cause harm even without an overt decree against the victim (see here for a diyuk in next week's parsha to that effect and here, here, and here for more).  That answer, though, is far from satisfying. 

In the sefer “M’Shulchan R’ Eliyahu Baruch,” collected from the shiurim of R’ Eliyahu Baruch Finkel of the Mir, he notes that when Kayin was dejected and deflated by Hashem’s rejection of his korban, Hashem reacted by offering Kayin words of encouragement, demonstrating the midah of being nosei b’ol chaveiro, showing empathy for the plight of others.  This is one of the overlooked lessons of the parsha.  He then suggests an even bigger chiddush.  Hevel knew his brother was suffering, and yet Hevel said nothing and did nothing to alleviate Kayin’s pain.  Perhaps it was because of this indifference, this lack of empathy, that Hevel suffered death. 

(Of course I don't know where it says that lacking empathy means you are deserving of death.  Maybe it just means that Hevel didn't deserve any protection of hashgacha because of his moral failure.)

va'yar Elokim ki tov vs. tov l'ma'achal

1. When daughter #2 was preparing for seminary interviews last year (she is thank G-d learning in Israel this year) it was well known that a certain seminary liked to ask applicants the following question: if you could be a tree, what type of tree would you be?  I think questions like this are inane, but to play along I recommended that she answer the “eitz hada’as.”  My daughter did not have the gumption (i.e. chutzpa) to give that answer, and instead replied that she would choose any type of tree that grows.  (The interviewer still pressed her to pick a specific type of tree, which just reinforced my bad impression of the whole exercise.  Inane.)

2. The Shiurei Da’as has a chakirah (that we’ve discussed before) as to whether good and bad are inherent in nature and G-d is like a doctor who reveals what will lead to optimal health, or whether good and bad are functions of G-d’s will, and it is only his decree as king that makes it so.  (The question long predates the Shiurei Da’as, but R’ Bloch applies it nicely to explain a number of difficult Chazals.)   At the end of the day, it’s a combination and overlap of both.  The Shem m’Shmuel (Rosh haShana 5673) doesn’t formulate the chakirah so sharply, but he uses the idea to explain the root of Adam and Chavah’s sin.  He suggests that Chavah’s declaration that the fruit of the eitz ha’da’as was “tov l’ma’achal” itself was wrong because it bifurcated the command not to eat the fruit from the quality of the thing itself.  Chavah saw the tree as inherently good and desirable; it was off-limits s (in her view) only because of G-d’s seemingly arbitrary decree.  She failed to see G-d’s decree as a revelation that the something was inherently wrong with the tree no matter what her own feelings told her.  I would add that in the opening creation story of Braishis, it is G-d and G-d alone who decided and declared what is good: “Va’yar Elokim… ki tov.”  Chavah’s independent assessment and assertion that something was “tov” marks a radical change in attitude even before the fruit has been ingested.

Yet perhaps the word “tov” here is in reality a red herring.  R’ Ahron Lichtenstein distinguishes different uses of “tov” in his lecture "Being Frum and Being Good: On the Relationship Between Religion and Morality."  He uses Chavah’s declaration that the tree was “tov l’ma’achal” as an example of good in the pragmatic sense, with no moral value attached.  It’s like my saying it is “tov” for me to take my car to work instead of walking.  In contrast, when we speak of issurim or mitzvos, we are speaking of a moral assessment of what is good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, not just pragmatics.  If Chavah thought the fruit of the tree looked tasty and might have made a good snack were she hungry – no more than an aesthetic and/or pragmatic judgment call -- does that sense of  it being “tov” really diminish or contradict her appreciation of the moral “lo tov” of G-d’s command not to eat it?  Isn’t the Shem m’Shmuel conflating the two meanings of “tov?" 

On the other hand, lulei d’mistafina I wonder whether R’ Ahron’s reading of Chavah’s words is correct.  If Chavah truly believed the nachash‘s assertion that the eitz ha’da’as was the key to being like G-d, then might not her declaration that the tree was “tov l’ma’achal” in fact be a value statement?  Perhaps she not only thought it might be tasty, but thought the pursuit of knowledge was a moral obligation (see this Meshech Chochmah). 

3. Immediately after Adam’s cheit, the Torah writes (3:8) that Adam heard Hashem, “mis'haleich ba’gan l’ruach hayom,” and he hid.  Hashem then addressed Adam and ask why he was hiding.  The Seforno comments (d”h “l’ruach hayom”) that Hashem was going about doing the things that needed to be done on that day, just like he had done on the other days of creation and the day before the cheit.  Hashem did not come to visit the garden to confront Adam.  It was only after Adam became aware of Hashem and hid that Hashem addressed him and reacted to what had been done. 

Shem m’Shmuel explains that every punishment meted out by Hashem is an opportunity for rehabilitation.  Hashem did not originally address Adam because Adam had not earned the right to be rehabilitated.  It was only when Adam hid and showed an awareness that he had done wrong that Hashem addressed him and provide a punishment/tikun for his wrongdoing.  The first step to getting out of the pit of wrongdoing is to avoid remaining indifferent to the fact that wrongdoing has occurred.

absolute vs relative judgment

Before Yom Kippur our community had the privilege of hearing words of chizuk from R' Eli Mansour.  The thesis of his talk (I found a similar shiur he gave posted here if you want to hear it) was that there are two types of judgment on the yom ha'din: 1) absolute, or objective judgment; 2) relative, or what he calls comparative judgment.  Objective judgment means G-d pulls out the scorecard and weighs our merits vs. our demerits and gives us a grade.  I don't know about you, but to me, that's a scary thought.  Can any of us really be confident that we have more good deeds than bad on the books?  Fortunately, there is another judgment -- comparative judgment.  Instead of looking at how we are doing on an absolute scale, G-d looks at how we are doing relative to the society and environment we find ourselves in.  The student who gets a 65 on a test on an absolute scale is barely passing, but if everyone else in the class got a 40, he looks like a genius.  We live in such a sick, perverted society that when G-d looks at us, warts and all, we sparkle like diamonds compared with the rest of the world.  Because of that, hopefully we merited a chasima tovah.

I was reminded of the shiur when I saw this Ohr haChaim on the murder of Hevel.  Kayin offered the first korban, and taken by itself, that's certainly a positive.  But when you compare his paltry korban with the offering of his brother Hevel, then not only is the import of his gift minimized and lessened, but it almost seems to be an affront to G-d.  On Yom Kippur, relative judgment works in our favor.  When it came to Kayin's korban, relative judgment -- the inescapable comparison to Hevel -- worked against him, at least in his mind.  Kayin was consumed with jealousy.  As a result, he killed his brother Hevel.  Kayin had a simple cheshbon: better to commit one murder and suffer the consequences than to live with the constant risk of being judged as faulty and not-up-to snuff compared with others.

The Netziv takes note of the double-language, "Vayichar l'Kayin" and "vayipol panav."  When G-d speaks to Kayin, again, we have the double-language of "Lamah charah lach" and "lamah naflu panecha."  The Netziv suggests that Kayin was doubly troubled.  He was troubled by his own failure to offer an acceptable korban, but more than that, he was troubled by the fact that Hevel had offered a better korban and had outshone him.  In other words, Kayin felt disappointment in his own accomplishment when judged on an absolute scale, but he also felt the pain of falling short relative to his brother.  I would say that failure perhaps hurt even more.  

I'm afraid I'm going to part ways with the Netziv's reading of the next pesukim (see Ramban as well) and would like to suggest a different punch line to the story.  In response to Kayin's anger and depression, Hashem tells him, "Ha'lo im tei'tiv se'eis v'im lo tei'tiv la'pesach chatas roveitz..." (4:5).  Do good and you can overcome the yetzer ha'ra; do bad, and it will catch up with you.  Didn't Kayin know that?  Don't we all know that?  Peshita, mai kah mashma lan?  Maybe what Hashem was telling Kayin is that if *you* do good, then *you* will overcome the yetzer and be successful.  Forget about Hevel and what he's doing -- focus on yourself, on the *you*, on what you need to improve on.  It's not because of Hevel alone that your korban was rejected -- it's because you could and should have done better.  This is the mirror image of Rabbi Mansour's message.  Hashem is generous and will use comparative judgment when it's in our favor, and kinas sofrim tarbeh chochma as a motivation tool, but when a person is consumed with thinking about keeping up with the Joneses, even in spiritual matters, it can have debilitating effects and do more harm than good.  Hashem was telling Kayin to focus only on the absolute scale, on what he felt he could and should accomplish relative to his own abilities, and forget about the rest.  Score a 95 on the test and it doesn't matter what the other person got -- your good grade stands on it's own merits. 

It's interesting that earlier in the week I was planning on posting something entirely different on Braishis and then I sat down by the computer and this just popped out onto the screen.  Bl"n I have to get to the other topic...