influence

R' Yehoshua ben Kavsui said: My whole life I read the pasuk "V'hiza hatahor al ha'tamei" (19:19) as teaching that one person who is tahor may sprinkle [parah adumah ashes & water] on only one person who is tamei. Then I learned at the gathering of Yavneh... that one tahor may sprinkle even on a group of t'mei'im. (Dmai 3:4)

I saw a nice thought derech derush on this Yerushalmi. R' Yehoshua thought that his influence as an individual was limited in scope -- at best, he could have an impact on only one other individual at a time. Yavneh taught him otherwise. The remnants of the Chachamim left in Yavneh had an impact on all of Klal Yisrael; they preserved and taught Torah to the entire nation. R' Yehoshua realized that each one of us as individuals can also have an impact on the masses. (I have to bl"n look up where I saw this again.)

the parsha of emunah

Why did Bnei Yisrael wait until after 40 years to sing shirah about the waters of the be'er? R' Leibele Eiger writes that the theme of our parsha is emunah. One must have faith even when things look bleak, even in the face of the incomprehensible. "Chukah chakakti, gezeirah gazarti -- ain lecha reshus l'harher achareha." What can look bleaker than the tumah of death itself, the focus of the parsha of parah adumah? Our parsha contains the death of Miriam and the death of Aharon, the loss of the be'er and the loss of the ananei hakavod. We read how Moshe is denied the opportunity to enter Eretz Yisrael. Yet, despite all these setbacks, the fact is that the be'er returned, the ananei hakavod returned, and there was a tzintzenes haman tucked away in safekeeping for all eternity. What appeared to be a complete loss was just that -- just appearances. That's what Bnei Yisrael sang shira for. The appearance of the be'er at the start of the journey in the midbar was miraculous, but the return of the be'er even after it seemed to vanish provided the knowledge that chasdei Hashem would be eternally present.

adam ki yamus and yishuv hada'as

The Rambam codifies l'halacha (Talmud Torah 3:13) the famous derasha on our parsha on "Adam ki yamus b'ohel," that a person has to kill himself learning in order to succeed.

אמרו חכמים דרך רמז, "זאת, התורה, אדם, כי ימות באוהל" (במדבר יט,יד)--אין התורה מתקיימת, אלא במי שממית עצמו באוהלי החכמה. וכך אמר שלמה בחכמתו, "התרפית, ביום צרה--צר כוחך" (משלי כד,י); ועוד אמר, "אף חכמתי, עמדה לי" (קוהלת ב,ט)--חכמה שלמדתי באף, עמדה לי.

Rav Shach asks an interesting question. One of the ingredients necessary to acquire Torah is "yishuv ha'da'as." Chazal tell us, "Shamytza ba'ei tzilusa" -- learning demands a clear head. How can you have yishuv ha'da'as while at the same time killing yourself? How can you have yishuv hada'as while subsisting on pas b'melach?

The Slabodka mussar answer would probably be that the kashe gufa is itself the teirutz -- Chazal want a person to develop the skill to have yishuv ha'da'as despite the hardships.

My son suggested that there is a difference between interenal and external pressure. The Rambam is speaking of personal commitment, similar to his psak elsewhere that poverty, age, illness, etc. are not excuses for not learning. When Chazal speak of yishuv hada'as they mean freedom from outside interference.

Rav Shach (intro to Avi Ezri, Hil. Nashim) answers that unlike other disciplines, Torah is not acquired only through brains alone -- it must come as a gift from Hashem, and Hashem rewards those who invest self sacrifice and maximum effort in their learning. The appreciation that one has been given a gift directly from Hashem is the blessing of yishuv hada'as Chazal had in mind.

One final note: Someone who sees a person killing himself to learn might think why bother -- why choose to kill yourself when you can enjoy life. The answer is that such a life is itself misa, as the Rambam tells us in Hil Rotzeiach (7:1):

וחיי בעלי חכמה ומבקשיה בלא תלמוד כמיתה חשובה

It's only through the misa of adam ki yamus b'ohel that one can truly live.

R' Chaim's psak on Torah/work -- RSHB"Y vs. R' Yishmael

My son pointed out to me in interesting line in the Birchas Shmuel at the end of Kiddushin which discusses the parameters of the mitzvah of talmud Torah. The gemara (Brachos 35) records a machlokes between R' Yishmael and RSHB"Y whether one must learn at all times or whether one is permitted to take time off for planting, plowing, harvesting, etc. R' Baruch Ber writes that he asked R' Chaim how we pasken and R' Chaim answered that we pasken like RSHB"Y. The proof: The Rambam (Shemita 13:13 ) writes that anyone who desires can emulate sheivet Levi and devote themselves completely to talmud Torah to the exclusion of all other pursuits.

ולא שבט לוי בלבד, אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להיבדל לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את ה', והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלוהים, ופרק מעל צווארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר ביקשו בני האדם--הרי זה נתקדש קודש קודשים, ויהיה ה' חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים

This seems a bit difficult,as the Rambam himself in Hil Talmud Torah (1:12) describes how a "ba'al umnos" should split his time between his learning and his profession:

כיצד: היה בעל אומנות--יהיה עוסק במלאכה שלוש שעות ביום, ובתורה תשע

Later in Hil Talmud Torah (ch 3) the Rambam extols the value of work:

מעלה גדולה היא למי שהוא מתפרנס ממעשה ידיו, ומידת חסידים הראשונים היא

The gemara itself concludes that many people tried to emulate the path of RSHB"Y and failed. It seems clear that for the masses, R' Yishmael's approach is correct. What was R' Baruch Ber's safeik? Was he perhaps wondering whether there is a heter to follow RSHB"Y? Were that the case it would turn the whole machlokes on its head -- R' Yishmael and RSHB"Y are not arguing about whether there is a heter to work, but whether there is a heter not to work! This would be quite a chiddush -- maybe its just me, but I never read the sugya that way.

Interestingly, R' Ahron Soloveitchik writes that there really isn't any machlokes RSHB"Y and R' Yishmael in the first place. Elsewhere (Menachos 99) the two Tanaim seem seem to reverse positions. To reconcile the sugyos R' Ahron suggests that everyone agrees that for the masses, a balance between talmud Torah and secular pursuits is needed, but Torah-only is OK for the elite. The Tanaim offered different advice depending on whom they were speaking to. I guess R' Aharon did not hear from R' Chaim the psak R' Baruch Ber refers to, because if there is no machlokes, there can't be a question of psak.

Kavata itim (II)

Commenting on Ya'akov's vision of the angels going up and down a ladder, the Midrash (M.R. is in P' Emor) explains that Ya'akov saw the sar of Bavel going up the ladder only to then fall back down; he saw the sar of Madai climbing up only to fall back down; he saw the sar of Yavan climbing up only to fall back down. Ya'akov got nervous when he saw Edom climb up and not come down, but Hashem reassured him that Edom too shall fall. Hashem then said to Ya'akov that it was his time to climb. Ya'akov refused! Hashem promised that Ya'akov would not fall like those other nations, but, says the Midrash, Ya'akov did not believe and did not climb. Everyone asks: Ya'akov Avinu, the bechir ha'Avos, lacked emunah?

Perhaps the Midrash can be explained based on the yesod of the Koznitzer Maggid we discussed yesterday. The rungs of the ladder represent the unfolding of history step by step through the hanhagas hateva (see Sefas Emes, VaYeitzei 5662 - "V'chein hasulam romeiz al hanhagas hateva..."). Each empire had its moment in history and then vanished. Ya'akov wanted nothing to do with the ladder of hanhagas hateva even with the promise of never falling. Ya'akov instead wanted, "Hinei Hashem nitzvav alav," a direct connection only with Hashem, a world run by hanhagas haTorah alone. (Sefas Emes -- "HaTorah etzem Elokus mamash v'hu bechinas haneshomo cheilek Eloka mi'ma'al...")

When you live within the hanhagas hateva, you need emunah to see Hashem behind the veil of hester panim. When you live with the hanhagas haTorah, you don't need blind faith because you see Hashem standing right there alongside you. It's not the Ya'akov didn't have emunah -- the Midrash means that Ya'akov didn't need emunah because he chose a higher calling.

Last week we learned from R' Tzadok that the Meraglim were the greatest of neshomos. They accurately saw the "inevitable" churban habayis and galus from Eretz Yisrael; that's why they cried the night of 9 Av. So what did they get wrong? Because that vision encompassed only events as they would unfold if the hanhagas hateva played itself out. Had Bnei Yisrael adopted the perspective of the hanhagas haTorah, the galus could have been avoided.

There is a tremendous danger in this limited vision of hanhagas hateva alone. The Shem m'Shmuel asks: If Korach was able to see b'ruach hakodesh many years into the future that his descendent would be the great Shmuel haNavi, how could he not see that his own children would do teshuvah on the same day as his rebellion and not suffer his fate? The answer is that teshuvah is incomprehensible using the framework of hanhagas hateva. As the Rishonim ask, if I knock down a house and do teshuvah, will the house rebuild itself? Teshuvah works only because there is a hanhagas haTorah that effects the world as well. Korach's great ability was seeing how the future that would play out based on the rules of the game in hanhagas hateva. His entire argument with Moshe was based on what made sense using the rational rules of this world. What he failed to see that there was a higher order that played by different rules entirely.

kavata itim laTorah?

My son did his siyum, my daughter had her graduation, so this week was my turn -- on Shabbos I made a siyum on Bavli. Some divrei Torah:

First a comment on On ben Peles. The gemara (Sanhedrin 109) darshens every detail of his name: On - he observed aninus for participating in Korach's rebellion; Peles - pila'os, wonders were done so he could escape, Reuvain - ra'ah v'heivin, he saw what was going on and understood he had to back out. Yet, the very next line of the sugya tells us that it was On ben Peles' wife that talked him out of the rebellion and kept him home safe. Some are puzzled by this gemara: does On deserve the credit for his havana, or does his wife deserve the credit? I don't think the question gets off the ground. Looking for the sibah and the mesovev in a husband/wife relationship is impossible; the two go together, ha b'ha talya. Like every siyum before this one, I may have been the one reading the hadran, but it was ha b'ha talya on my wife's encouragement and support.

On to the topic of the title of the post: The Midrash comments on the pasuk, “V’ha’aretz hayesa tohu va’vohu v’choshech al pnei tehom,” that “tohu” refers to Madei, “vohu” refers to Bavel, “choshech” refers to Yavan, and “tehom” is Edom. These are the four kingdoms that brought us our four periods of galus. How can a pasuk describing the pre-creation universe be referring to kingdoms that would not exist until hundreds and thousands of years later? Maharal answers that the Midrash is teaching us that galus was built into the bri'ah from day one. The material world, the universe, is inherently imperfect, and the four galiyos are a product of that imperfection. It just took time for history to unfold along its inevitable course to get there.

The only problem with this Maharal is that we know it isn’t true.

We learned at the end of Shlach in Rashi that had Bnei Yisrael had observed one Shabbos (or according to other versions 2 Shabbosos) they would have had immediate geulah. Had Bnei Yisrael not sent the spies they might have entered Eretz Yisrael right away with Moshe and had geulah. Had they not worshiped the eigel they might have had geulah. We can go on and on with other examples, rolling the clock right back to Adam haRishon who would have merited immediate geulah had he not eaten from the eitz hada’as. So how can the Midrash tells us that the galiyos of Bavel, Madai, Yavan, and Edom were built into the fabric of creation from day one and were destined to be when at any one of many points in history we could have made a choice that circumvented the need for galus entirely?

The Koznitzer Maggid addresses this question in a piece printed in the back of the Maharal's Be’er haGolah. He explains that there are two different systems which Hashem put in place to run the universe. The first system is the hanhagas hateva, the natural order. We call the study of this system biology, history, sociology, etc. However, there is also another system Hashem put in place -- the hanhaga Tori'it. There is only one force that controls natural and historical events in this system -- fidelity (or lack of fidelity) to Torah.

Galus was built into the system of hanhagas hateva, the natural order of creation, and was destined to unfold if that system would play itself out. However, had the right choices been made, the universe history might have unfolded through the system of hanhaga l'ma'alah min hateva, the hanhagas haTorah, and there would be no need for galus.

Now comes the knock your socks off part of the Koznitzer Maggid: After 120+ years, question #1 they will ask you in shamayim is, "Kavata itim la'Torah?" The Koznitzer Magid explains that question as follows: Did you let "itim" = time, history, control you, meaning you went along with the flow of hanhagas hateva? Or were you "kove'a itim," did you fix and control time, did you take charge of history and cause it to unfold along a different path, a path directed by the power of hanhagas haTorah alone?

Limud haTorah can change a person's personal destiny; it can also change the destiny of Klal Yisrael.
More to come bl"n if I get some more time.

what the meraglim got wrong

How do we explain the mistake of the Meraglim? How could such chashuv people, "kulam anashim," have been so mistaken in their calculations and speak badly about Eretz Yisrael? R' Tzadok HaKohen says an amazing pshat in Likueti Ma'amarim (p.85 -- link). The Meraglim were telling the truth! The Meraglim had great neshomos and were therefore able to sense the future. They saw that life in Eretz Yisrael would eventually lead to a churban, would end in a tragic and painful to galus. Midrashim already in Parshas Braishis predict 4 galiyos; Midrashim tell us the galiyos were revealed to Avraham; 9 Av was revealed already to Ya'akov. The "bechiya l'doros" of the Mergalim was a cry in advance of what they knew was inevitably coming.

So what did they get wrong?

Because "b'shuv Hashem es shivas Tziyon hayinu k'cholmim" means that all that sorrow and pain is just a passing dream and not reality. It may look real, it may even feel real as it occurs, but it is not eternal truth. (R' Tzadok here is echoing a torah of the Ishbitzer in Sefer Braishin in which he distinguishes between emes and emes l'amito. The Meraglim spoke truth, but it was not the emes l'amito, eternal truth of Torah.)

shalheves oleh m'eileha

Chazal interpret the word, "B'ha'alosecha," as a hint that the menorah should be lit so that "shalheves oleh m'eileha," the flame should rise of its own accord from the wick. We usually think of this halacha as chiyuvi, as a requirement for us to do something. The same wicks the Mishna tells us that we cannot use on Shabbos because the flame sputters also cannot be used to light the menorah in the Mikdash (Shabbos 22) because we would not be producing a flame that can remain lit of its own accord. Yet, there is actually a shlili element to this din, a negation of a premis. The gemara (Yom 24) tells us that even a zar is permitted to light the menorah; a kohen is not required. Why? Tosfos Yeshanim explains because the flame is a "shalheves oleh m'eileha," and is therefore not considered the product of the person who does the lighting. The Kozhiglover (Eretz Tzvi, P' Be'ha'aloshecha) explains that even though halacha usually does not usually seperate cause and effect in this way, e.g. the halacha is that "isho m'shum chitzav," an arsonist is considered to have done an act of mazik even though it was the fire which caused the damage, here the special gezeiras hakasuv of "Be'he'alosecha" negates the usual rule and the flame as treated as an entity in its own right, disconnected from the zar who lit it. (The Kozhiglover was the last R"Y of Yeshivas Chachamei Lublin before WWII and was a genius in lomdus as well as wellspring of machshava in the style of his Rebbe, the Sochatchover. This hesber is a bit different than that of R' Chaim Brisker, which we once discussed before.)

My daughter complained shortly after her graduation last night that I posted about my son's siyum but not her finishing 8th grade, so this post is for her. "Be'ha'alosecha" is more than the story of "raising" candles -- it's the story of raising children. We have a chiyuv to raise our kids to become like a "shalheves oleh m'eileha" -- a flame that does not need a shamash or match held next to it to keep it from burning out, but rather one which burns brightly on its own. That's a big challenge and a long process, but congrats to daughter #2 for passing one more hurdle on the road to independence.

a cause for celebration

The very presence of the guest speaker at my son's yeshiva's annual gala siyum (held yesterday) brought warm memories to my mind. R' Ahron Kahn, a brilliant lamdan and orator, also happens to have been my Rebbe and served as the kohen at my son's pidyon haben just over seventeen years ago. How time flies! At the pidyon, following the traditional custom, Rav Kahn asked, "B'Mai ba'is tefi?" what would I rather have -- my one month old son, or my five silver dollars. I took the baby and parted with the five shekalim. Even with the inflated price of silver these days, I still think I got the better end of the deal : )

I cannot do justice to Rav Kahn's remarks, but I want to relate one point he made about the perspective required for the proper chinuch of one's children. The Rambam (Deyos perek 3) writes that all of one's actions must be done l'shem shamayim, for Hashem's sake alone. The Rambam gives an example: Having a child merely to serve as an apprentice, to carry on the family business, is not a proper aim -- there has to be a l'shem shamayim in rearing children as well. We would expect the Rambam to conclude that therefore we should have in mind that our children become ovdei Hashem, shomrei mitzvos, etc. However, the Rambam says much more than that:

וישים על ליבו שיהיה לו בן, אוליי יהיה חכם וגדול בישראל

The Rambam writes that when we have a child, we must think of that child as having the potential to be a gadol b'yisrael.

What the Rambam is telling us is that when we dream of what our children might become, when we try to inspire our children and encourage them to dream of what they might become, don't hold back -- dream big. The first step to becoming a "chacham v'gadol b'yisrael" is to want and desire to become a "chacham v'gadol b'yisrael." To raise a child l'shem shamayim means to dream that dream, to pass on that dream to our children.

The hanhala of the yeshiva, the Menahel and Rosh Yeshiva in particular, deserve hakaras hatov for not only daring to dream big dreams, but for making those dreams into a reality. Yesterday over 100 boys from the local Far Rockaway and Five Towns area finished Mes. Kiddushin -- over 100! The siyum has become not a celebration reserved for a few yechidei segulah, exceptional students outside the "norm", but rather has become a celebration in which dozens and dozens of boys can enjoy a feeling of achievement. And they deserve it. Our community is blessed with a wealth of gashmiyus (I lost count if there are five or six pizza stores in a one mile radius), but these boys prove that it is blessed with a wealth of ruchniyus as well.

Not only is the siyum a celebration for the boys, for their families, but I think it's important to note that community Rabbonim attended, Roshei Yeshiva from other local yeshivos attended as well. The concept of community seems sadly to have nearly vanished from our Jewish societal lexicon. Sometimes we need a reminder that though we may not all attend the same yeshiva or daven in the same shul, we can all share the same goals, the same dreams of growth l'shem shamayim for our children and our community, and celebrate together.

There are those who may look down on the emphasis on bekiyus that these siyumim celebrate. Of what value is breadth of knowledge without depth? Proof to the contrary can be found in the very masechta the boys finished. The gemara (Kiddush 10b) records the challenge made to one of the Tanaim: "Baki atah b'kol chadrei Torah v'lidrsoh b'kal v'chomer ei atah yodeia?!" - "You are an expert in all areas of Torah and do not know how to properly darshen a kal v'chomer?!" At first glance this seems difficult to understand. A kal v'chomer is a logical inference -- what does being a baki have to do with the ability to think logically? R' Elchanan (Koveitz Shiurim) quotes R' Chaim Brisker as explaining that while an inference may be logically compelling when seen in the narrow context of one sugya, it may prove totally erroneous when measured against the larger background of kol haTorah kulah. Truth in Torah can be arrived at only if one has a grasp on the breadth of Torah as a whole. If Rav Chaim Brisker, the exemplar par excellance in yeshivos of analytical thinking, championed the value of bekiyus, is there anyone among us who can question its value?

However, as emphasized by my son's Rebbe this year, as emphasized by the Menahel at the siyum, bekiyus has little value without constant review. Without chazarah, knowledge quickly fades. But have no fear -- tacked to the door of the beis medrash on the very day of the siyum was a chart setting the pace for a daf by daf review of the masechta so that come the fall, once again a sizable number of bachurim will participate in completing the masechta for yet a second time. We should all look forward to celebrating their accomplishment.

aleph - beis

The Midrash tells us that the letter aleph complained for hundreds of years that it was shortchanged when Hashem created the world, as it was the second letter, beis, which was chosen to open the story of creation, Braishis. The aleph received its due, however, at mattan Torah, as the aseres hadibros start with the letter aleph, Anochi...

Letters obviously don't have an ego and don't get jealous or upset. What are Chazal trying to teach us?

Aleph represents the full sense of Hashem's presence, the alufo shel olam. Creation masked Hashem's presence, hence the story begins with a beis.

Mattan Torah restored the aleph to its rightful place, as Torah is the key to finding Hashem's presence even within the physical. The ma'amaros of creation, devoid of spiritual content, were transformed into the dibros of mattan Torah, which infused the world with spiritual meaning and potential.

earning Hashem's favoritism

Chazal (Brachos 20) explain that Hashem shows favoritism towards Bnei Yisrael, "Yisa Hashem panav eilecha v'yasem lecha shalom," because we go the extra mile for Him -- even though birchas hamazon need only be recited if one is satiated, we recite it even after eating a k'zayis. Why is shalom in particular the reward for saying birchas mazon even on a k'zayis? And why are we rewarded davka for this particular case of going the extra mile and not some other case where we go above and beyond the d'orasya level in doing a mitzvah?

Chasam Sofer has a simple answer: One can only have peace when people are satisfied with what they have. If everyone always wants more than the k'zayis they have been doled out -- never happy until fully satiated -- there will always be jealousy and fighting. (On a related note, I saw a beautiful vort in the name of R' Dovid Povarski. The Nesi'im each brought the same items as gifts to the Mishkan, but each with a different intention. Just ask your teenage daughter if she would wear the same dress as a friend to an event -- lo yitachein! So how did each Nasi end up bringing exactly what the other ones brought? Because they paid absolutely no mind on what others were doing -- their eyes were only on their own world.)

The Ishbitzer goes a step further. Why can one be happy even with a k'zayis? Because it's not physical bread alone which satiates, but it is the "motza pi Hashem" found in the bread. If that pnimiyus is the ikar and the physical loaf is tafeil, then one can be happy with any amount. If you choose to look beyond the superficial and focus on the pnimiyus within, then Hashem will look beyond your superficial shortcoming and bless you with shalom (=shleimus) in turn.

how soon we forget!

Daughter #2 told me that in one of her classes today (Social Studies) the teacher asked if anyone knew what today was. One kid volunteered that it was "Yom.. something," but that was about it (except for Daughter #2, who knew).

Daughter #3 had an assembly today.... devoted to the topic of shemiras halashon.

My son came home from yeshiva and also had no idea what today was -- "Why didn't you tell me?"

Im eskacheich Yerushalayim...! Should I be disappointed in what I'm getting for my thousands of dollars of tuition? Is learning about one of the most significant events in Jewish history in the past 50 years something that is important only if you go to a certain type of yeshiva but not a different type? Is Yerushalayim -- its history, its meaning, its recapture -- something we take so for granted that we don't need to speak about it anymore?

We all know Hashem works midah k'neged midah. Do you need to be an oracle to see a connection between our lukewarm response to Yom Yerushalayim and the plans of the EU, Obama, and others to turn back the clock to before 1967?

When will our nation wake up???

better than words alone

pidyon haben and ma'ariv -- which mitzvah comes first?

R' Shlomo Hyman (Ch R' Shlomo, Kiddushin siman 3) writes that he once attended a pidyon haben where a fellow Rabbi suggested that since it was close to ma'ariv time they should first daven ma'ariv and only then do the pidyon -- tadir v'she'aino tadir - tadir kodem. R' Shlomo Hyman disagreed. If someone comes to collect a debt at ma'ariv time, you can't put off paying just because the mitzvah of ma'ariv is more tadir than the mitzvah of paying a debt. (He takes this as a given, but doesn't explain why it is true. I think what he means is that you only apply precedence rules like tadir when it comes to issur v'heter, not to dinei mamonos. For example, no one would say that you should pay Reuvain before Shimon because Reuvain borrows money more often is therefore a tadir debtor!) Pidyon haben is not just a mitzvah, but it is a debt that must be paid to the kohen. When this sevara was told to R' Chaim Brisker he approved of the psak.

the desire for degalim

The Midrash writes that at mattan Torah Bnei Yisrael saw Malachim descending in precise order, in camps of degalim, and Bnei Yisrael desired the same for themselves. Moshe, however, complained to Hashem that to set up degalim would be an impossible task. No matter where he would tell a tribe to camp, they would argue why davka that spot and not somewhere else. If he would say camp in the east, they would inevitably (so Moshe thought) argue that they belonged in the west, and vica versa. Hashem replied not to worry, as the Shevatim already knew where to go. When Ya'akov's coffin was carried from Mitzrayim by the Shevatim, each Sheivet stood on a different side. They would accept the same pattern here.

Here we see a perfect example of the paradoxical nature of man so often stressed by the ba'alei mussar. Bnei Yisrael wanted to have degalim like angels, yet at the same time Moshe saw that they would bicker like children over whatever plan he would have to carry that out. We can reach for the greatest heights while at the same time being plagued by the basest desires and temptations. Why? Because as great as our intellectual achievement and ambition, at the end of the day we remain tied to our own base humanity. We unfortunately see this again and again in our day and age when people who contribute time and effort to building mosdos and doing great things are featured on the front pages of newspapers being led away in handcuffs.

So much for the hava amina of the Midrash. What are we to make of its conclusion? So what if years earlier the brothers arranged themselves in a certain pattern when they carried Ya'akov's bier -- why should the Shevatim in the desert accept the same arrangement? Ya'akov's funeral was an extraordinary circumstance, a one time event -- why would what was done then set precedent for what should be done generations later? I think the simplest answer is that precedent, even when adopted under extraordinary circumstances, is very hard to break. Once something is done even once, even is a unique circumstance, change becomes more difficult than simply accepting what was done.as the norm.

Any better answers? I've seen a few, but nothing that has grabbed me yet.

blinders

For you members of the tribe who have been pulling the lever for Democrats because your grandparents did it, your parents did it, and now you do it, if this weekend of Obama hasn't opened your eyes, I don't know what will. As an American I consider the man a disaster -- high unemployment, the wrecking of the health care system, a foreign policy that emboldens our enemies, and worse -- the man is ruining the country. As a Jewish American, I the man's anti-Israel policy (as if anything else should have been expected from a talmid of Rev. Wright) is the final straw. Those of you in NY who voted in Chuck Schumer, a supporter of every left-wing cause out there, because he is good for our community as well -- where's the Senator to speak on your behalf? Those of you in Midwood and Flatbush who pull the lever for Anthony Weiner, outspoken defender of taking away healthcare as you know it -- where is your friend on Congress to remind the President that the Palestinians are not friends of democracy? Bottom line: if the choice is backing the leader of their party or backing you, you are going under the bus. But something tells me in a year from now we will still have 75% of our brothers and sisters acting like lemmings, pulling the lever that brings the most anti-Jewish and anti-Israel president since Carter back into power. No one can outdo the Jewish people in their love for leftist liberal causes, even if it means cutting their own throat in the process.

Witness the sad case of Alan Dershowitz. In 2008 he wrote an op-ed piece describing why, as a supporter of Israel, he preferred Obama to McCain. He felt Obama would support Israel no less than any Republican president. A year later in 2009 Alan Dershowitz wrote far more defensively, "Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch." In other words, many American supporters of Israel were naive rubes who willfully ignored all the evidence before their eyes and voted a man with no sympathy for Israel or the Jewish people into office. Dershowitz still didn't see the picture fully, and he went on to criticize aspects of Obama's policy without wholesale condemnation of the man's approach. But Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor; he may be a slow learner, but at least he eventually gets it. He commented that the the most recent Obama speech that it, "...Dealt a serious blow to the peace process and damaged the global image of the United States." The man is finally waking up -- at this rate in a few years Dershowitz will be leading tea party rallies in Harvard square!

Here's the problem -- we don't have a few years for the Dershowitzs and those even less intelligent to wake up. It took less than three years from the time Hitler was elected Reich Chancellor until the Nurenberg laws were passed. How long until Iran has atomic bomb capability and rockets capable of reaching Israel? How long do you think it would take a Palestinian state alongside Israel to mount a full scale terrorist war?

Back to our regular program shortly... I just had to get that out of my system. We live in depressing times.

Rashb"i and the value of individualism

מעשה בתלמיד אחד של ר"ש בן יוחאי שיצא חוצה לארץ ובא עשיר והיו התלמידים רואין אותו ומקנאין בו והיו מבקשים הן לצאת לחוצה לארץ וידע ר"ש והוציאן לבקעה אחת של פגי מדון ונתפלל ואמר בקעה בקעה מלאי דינרי זהב התחילה מושכת דינרי זהב לפניהן אמר להם אם זהב אתם מבקשים הרי זהב טלו לכם אלא היו יודעין כל מי שהוא נוטל עכשיו חלקו של עוה"ב הוא נוטל שאין מתן שכר התורה אלא לעוה"ב הוי ותשחק ליום אחרון

The Midrash (Shmos, 52:4) tells the story of a student of R' Shimon bar Yochai who left the yeshiva and returned quite wealthy. The other students were jealous and wanted to follow his example. Rashb"i took them out to Meiron (there are different girsa'os as to the place name) and miraculously caused a valley to fill with gold. He told them they could take what they want, but their portion in Gan Eden would be reduced as a result.

One might read this as a going "off the derech" tale -- a guy leaves yeshiva and a few months later is seen driving a Rolls, wearing a Rolex, coming out of a fancy restaurant after eating his filet mignon. But that's not really what this story is about. The student is still referred to as "talmid.. Rashb"i" and the tale centers around his returning to the yeshiva, to his old chevra, not his leaving. Rash"i does not direct his message to the returning talmid, who seems to have been accepted back, but rather to the other students.

R' Eliya Lopian (Lev Eliyahu, P' Pekudei) writes that there was nothing nefarious about the talmid's actions or intentions. Quite the contrary, being a "talmid of Rashb"i" it stands to reason that this ben yeshiva would use his riches for tzedaka, for chessed, to support the yeshiva. This is the guy wearing a suit and black hat you see pictured in the yeshiva's advertisement for its annual dinner, the guy who is alumnus of the decade because he has torah u'gedulah b'makom echad, he can bankroll the yeshiva while being kove'a itim, he enjoys his wealth but still keeps a kesher with his makom Torah.

Don't we all want to be that guy? Shouldn't we want to be that guy?

Rashb"i's answer is that our being that guy, becoming someone we are not, involves a sacrifice that just isn't worth it. The gold that filled the valley of Meiron is the schar we earn from overcoming our individual difficulties and tests. Sure, the rich talmid earns schar for the good works he can sponsor, but those rewards are not a substitute for what we might attain following our own path. There is tremendous schar for learning b'dochak, for histapkus b'mu'at -- there won't be a dinner to honor people who live these ideals day in and day out, they will likely pass under the radar of public attention. Yet, they too have riches. Their valley of gold awaits collection in a better world than ours.

lishma on a communal level

"Im teilchu imi b'keri," for which the punishments of the tochacha are given, refers to the abandonment of Torah and mitzvos. The preceding wrongdoing, "Im lo tishme'u li," must be some other defect. The Netzi"v explains that the key word in the phrase is "li" -- the pasuk doesn't mean mitzvos are not being done; it means mitzvos are being done for reasons other than their being Hashem's command. But so what -- Mitoch she'lo lishma ba lishma? We accept a lack of lishma as an important stepping-stone toward eventually doing things for the right reasons. Why is it deserving of such harsh punishment here?

The Netziv answers that while on an individual level mitoch she'lo lishma ba lishma, the same is not true on a communal level. Society cannot institutionalize a b'dieved -- it has to be built on ideals.

I think this is an important principle in general, not just with respect to lishma. A yeshiva, a shul, a community organization should at least on the books have as its mission statement nothing short of excellence.

where your feet may take you

אמר דוד רבש"ע בכל יום ויום הייתי מחשב ואומר למקום פלוני ולבית דירה פלונית אני הולך והיו רגלי מביאות אותי לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות הה"ד ואשיבה רגלי אל עדותיך

The Midrash at the opening of our parsha tells us that David haMelech would awaken each morning and think about going various places, but his feet would always carry him to the Beis Medrash. It's hard to imagine David haMelech waking up, thinking that maybe it's a good day to go to the Mets game (OK, maybe the Yankees) but then finding that when he got off the #7 train his feet took him willy-nilly to the Beis Medrash. I hope we have a better impression of David haMelech than that!

I think Chazal here are addressing the biggest challenge, aside from parnasa, that faces those who dedicate their life to learning Torah. Most of us who are not learning spend our working day either providing a service or making something -- hopefully the service we provide is useful and what we make provides some benefit to others. At the end of the day a doctor can go home and can feel good about his job -- he spent the day helping the sick. A social worker can go home and feel good because he/she helped the poor or needy. A construction worker can look at a building or bridge and feel accomplished that he/she helped bring it about. A lawyer... OK, I'll quit while I'm ahead (lawyer joke). What can the guy who spends his day learning say for himself? He's 25 years old, he has two kids, he can barely make ends meet, and he comes home at the end of a long day and after 10 hours of struggling he can say that maybe he understands pshat in a Tosfos in Bava Kamma -- it just doesn't give you that warm and fuzzy feeling. I can guarantee you that if not his parents, then his friends, maybe a neighbor, maybe an acquaintance ,has at least once asked this guy, "Nu, so when are you going to do something productive?" meaning, do a job like the rest of us and contribute to society. And the truth is that if his parents, his friends, his neighbors, have never asked this question, the guy, assuming he is a thoughtful, reflective guy, has undoubtedly asked the question to himself on more than one occasion.

Right after birchas haTorah every morning we recite a list of mitzvos that provide reward in this world as well as the next -- gemilus chassadim, kibud av, hachnasas kallah, etc. The common denominator between these mitzvos is that they are all about service, about contributing to the public welfare, the common good. But there seems to be one exception to the rule, and the exception is actually the most important mitzvah on the list -- "v'talmud Torah k'neged kulam." How does that fit?

If you read yesterday's post you know the answer, but R' Elchanan spells it out -- learning Torah brings G-d's presence into the world, and there is no greater public good than that. Without talmud Torah the world literally could not exist.

David haMelech woke up every morning and thought about going to a "beis dirah" -- making the world into a dirah ba'tachtonim for Hashem's presence, making the world a makom for the Mekomo shel Olam, contributing to tikun ha'olam and society as a whole. How do you do that? Maybe join the Peace Corps, build a hospital, help in a homeless shelter? All good ideas, but David heMelech had an even better idea -- his feet took him to the Beis Medrash. The chiddush of the Midrash is not that David haMelech went to the Beis Medrash instead of some other place -- pshita, lai ka mashma lan, would we have thought otherwise? The chiddush is that David haMelech's Torah study -- Torah study in general -- has meaning in the context of our broader ambition and goal of making the world a better place.

The Midrash does not mean David's thoughts were a b'dieved that he overcame through his feet. Quite the contrary -- David haMelech's thoughts were intentional and deliberate. By focusing on the aspiration to do great things for others, to make the world a better makom and better dirah, his feet had the necessary motivation to carry him to Torah study.

The mitzvah of "V'halacha b'derachav" is all about helping those around us by imitating G-d. "Mah hu rachum...;" "Mah hu mevaker cholim..." etc. To that list of "vhalachta" behaviors we can add another -- "Im b'chukosai teileichu..." This "halicha b'derachav" brings bracha to the world as much as anything else.

bechukosai -- laws ingrained in nature

Parshas Bechukosai does not begin, as so many other parshiyos do, with "Vayidaber Hashem el Moshe leimor," or "Vayomer Hashem." Why is that? Because, explains the Ishbitzer, the ideal of "Bechukosai teileichu" is not one which can be commanded or achieved through effort. One must be zoche to it. A person lives in a perpetual state of "im b'chukosai," existential doubt as to where he really stands viz a viz G-d's expectations. When you read social commentary, isn't it amazing about how certain people are in their positions? I don't think it's just a facade for writing or debating; I think it's how they really feel. We've lost sight of that little word, "im."

Why the word "bechokosai" -- We aren't dealing with esoteric halachos here whose reason is unknown? The Midrash explains the derivation of the word chok as used here:
חקים שבהם חקקתי את השמים והארץ
The moral order of Torah, the idea of bracha for doing good and tochacha for failing to do good, is not superimposed on top of the bri'ah, but is inherent within it. The rules of Torah are engraved into the fabric of the natural world (see Nefesh haChaim). We once explained that this is the meaning of the Midrash that Hashem created the sea on the condition that it splits when Bnei Yisrael needed it to.

The Midrash continues that unlike a King who commands others but lives above the law, Hashem himself fulfills the mitzvos even before we do:
גוזר גזירה הוא מקיימה תחלה
If mitzvos existed only for some utilitarian purpose -- for a healthy lifestyle, to have an ordered society, etc. -- it would make no sense for G-d himself to observe them. G-d can not be healthy or ill; G-d has no society he needs to live in or perfect. Why does G-d do mitzvos? We know that G-d sustains the world, he is mechadesh... ma'aseh braishis every moment. Since mitzvos are part of the world's natural order, they are kept even by G-d himself. It follows that a person who keeps mitzvos fulfill this same role of sustaining the world (see Netziv on the parsha's opening).