anochi haster astir...

1. Chazal tell us that one cannot make a seudas Purim at night, as the pasuk tells us, "La'asos osam y'mei mishteh..." The Sefas Emes (5649) explains that a person cannot celebrate in spiritual darkness.  There are people who go through their whole lives in the spiritual equivalent of nightime -- there is no light of ruchniyus that shines in or that they let shine in.  "La'asos..." -- you have to banish that darkness with the light of Torah, banish the night and turn Purim into a day of simcha.  

2.  The hint to Esther in the Torah is the pasuk of "Anochi haster astir..."  Hester panim is not a chiddush of this pasuk alone and is sadly a feature of many eras of Jewish history, not just the story of the megillah.  The chiddush of Esther, explains the Ba'al ha'Techeiles, R' Gershon Henoch Leiner, is that we see that there is an "Anochi" behind it all.  In retrospect it was clear that from beginning to end, everything that happened the Purim story was yad Hashem.  Our challenge is to believe that "Anochi haster astir," to trust that Hashem is controlling every detail of what happens even when we don't see him.

3.  A nice Purim thought from my wife.

seeing the inside

Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told.  For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk.  Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: 

The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life.  He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha.

R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58).  He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome.  Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war.  Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. 

Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it.  You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash.  How then were you zocheh to such a long life?  How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem?

R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha.  You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside.  When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos.

Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about?  They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside.  

l'ha'alos ner tamid

Even though the Torah says that oil should be taken "l'ha'alos ner tamid," the reality is that the menorah was not always burning.  According to most Rishonim the mitzvah was to light the menorah at the end of the day with enough oil for it to burn just through the night.  Rashi therefore interprets "tamid" to mean not constantly, but consistently -- it should be lit every single night.  (The korban tamid, for example, was offered consistently every day, not constantly all day.)  Ramban disagrees and writes that while the other candles of the menorah were not lit during the day, the ner ma'aravi was re-lit in the morning and always remained burning.

A few months ago by Chanukah we discussed the apparent stirah between the Rambam's view (as interpreted by the Rogatchover) that the Chashmonaim lit just the ner ma'aravi and the gemara's din that all the neiros are m'akev for the menorah to be complete.  There are two dinim at work: 1) a chiyuv to light the menorah, which can be accomplished by lighting even one ner; 2) a chiyuv for the chetftza of the menorah to be lit, which is accomplished only if all the candles are kindled.  

Perhaps this explanation sheds light (no pun intended) on Rashi/Ramban on our pasuk.  According to Rashi, our parsha is talking about the chiyuv for the cheftza shel menorah to be lit.  Therefore, "tamid" must mean consistently, not constantly, as one ner tamid does not a menorah make.  Ramban, however, understood the parsha as speaking of the chovas ha'gavra of lighting, which can be fulfilled even by kindling one candle, and therefore he interprets "tamid" to mean constantly.

R' Shimon Sofer uses the symbolism of menorah as representing Torah to derech derush offer another explanation of "tamid."   It's not just when learning or sitting in shul that one should feel inspired by Torah, but rather Torah's impact should be felt throughout the day.  We need to behave and think at all times, "tamid," like people en-light-ened by the menorah, by Torah.  How does that happen?  Only if the Torah we study is "shemen zayis zach," pure and unadulterated -- 100% A+ quality of the real thing.  

The Chasam Sofer quotes the Hafla'ah who is medayek is the words "shem zayis" - -singular -- "zach."  How much oil could one olive produce?!  Yet that little bit was enough to keep the menorah lit. We sometimes excuse ourselves from trying to sparking the interest of others in Torah by saying the effort required would be too great and too demanding.  The Torah here is telling us that sometimes just a small drop of effort, of Torah, of love, is all it takes.

zecher to the machtzis ha'shekel -- 3 coins or 1 -- Rama vs GR"A

The Rama (O.C. 694) writes that the minhag is to give three machtzis ha'shekels (bad dikduk, I know) on Ta'anis Esther because the word terumah appears 3x in parshas shekalim.  However, GR"A in Ma'aseh Rav (282) writes that the minhag is to give only one machtzis ha'shekel.

Aside from trying to understand the nekudas ha'machlokes between them, it's very hard to understand the Rama.  The reason we read parshas shekalim is to remember the annual donation of machtzis ha'shekel given to the mikdash to pay for korbanos tzibur expenses.  We once a year do something to remember this once a year donation. The additional shelakim alluded to in parshas shekalim were one-in-history donations used in constructing the mishkan.  Why do we need an annual remembrance for that?

My son pointed out that the GR"A in S"A on this Rama points you to Tos in Megillah (21) which says that on ta'aneisim we give tzedaka at mincha time.  My son suggested that the GR"A is perhaps not just explaining to us when the machtzis ha'shekel is given, but is defining for us the geder ha'din, what machtzis ha'shekel is -- it's not a zecher, but a din in hilchos tzedaka, just like tzedaka given on any ta'anis.  Therefore, the shiur is machtzis ha'shekel, not 3x a machtzis shekel.  The Rama understood that it is a zecher.

I'm not yet convinced that the GR"A there is doing anything more than explaining why the machtzis ha'shekel is given on ta'anis esther afternoon -- why not give it sometime close to when we read the parsha?   I would formulate the issue a little differently.  The GR"A sees our machtzis ha'shekel as a zecher to the machtzis ha'shekel of the mikdash.  The Rama perhaps sees giving machtzis ha'shekel as part and parcel of our kiyum of parshas shekalim.  By way of analogy, RYBS and others understood that our eating matzah on pesach night is not just a kiyum in achilas matzah, but is a kiyum in sipur as well -- it's part of how we tell the story.  So too here, perhaps Rama means that reading parshas shekalim also entails donating 3 machtzis shekalim --- davka 3, because 3 are alluded to in the parsha, and our giving is in some way an extension of the mitzvah of reading the parsha.  (I don't know if my explanation is any less dachuk, but I have no other ideas yet.) I found that R' Yisachar Shlomo Teichtel hy"d, who these days is better known as the author of Eim haBanim Smeicha, discusses this topic in his shu"t, Mishne Sachir.  (O.C. 34).  He quotes what appears to be two contradictory gemaras: On the one hand, the gemara (Meg 13) quotes Reish Lakish as teaching that the shekalim that Klal Yisrael gave in the midbar served to nullify the money Haman paid to bribe Achashveirosh.  We proved with our pocketbooks that we are dedicated to good before he even had the idea of showing his financial dedication to evil.   On the other hand, Chazal tell us (Meg 16) that Haman chanced upon Mordechai teaching hilchos kemitza of the korban mincha and remarked that the small offering of kemitza outweighed all the thousands he had poured into doing evil (Meg 16).  So which was it -- was it the shekalim donated to the Mishkan, or was it the actual offerings of the Mikdash, e.g. kemitza -- which foiled Haman's plans?

In a simplified nutshell, these two views represent the roots of the GR"A vs Rama.  According to Reish Lakish's view, the "kesef ha'kipurim" donated to the mishkan served as a kaparah not just for that generation, but for future generations as well -- for Mordechai and Esther's time, for our time, for all time.  Therefore, according to Rama we make a zecher even for the machtzis ha'shekel donated for the building of the mishkan.  However, if Haman's downfall was brought about by hilchos kemitza, it is the korbanos themselves, purchased with the single machtzis ha'shekel given annually, which is what saved us, and therefore, as GR"A writes, it is this single machtzis ha'shekel that we make a remembrance for.

Rav Kook on "na'aseh v'nishma"

What's so special about "na'aseh v'nishma?"  When Nancy Pelosi said, "You have to pass this bill to see what's in it," her mindless lemming followers did exactly that.  "Na'aseh v'nishma!" -- we'll learn the details after we accept it as law.  Is this really the secret about which Hashem said, "mi gilah raz zeh l'banay," who revealed this great secret to my children?!  Is this the secret which Bnei Yisrael is praised for discovering?!

There is another gemara that uses almost identical language, but in this case the revelation/discovery of the secret led to condemnation instead of praise.  The gemara (B"M 85) writes that Eliyahu haNavi revealed to Rebbi that R' Chiya and his children had a amazing koach ha'tefilah.  Next fast day due to lack of rain Rebbi knew exactly to appoint as shat"z -- R' Chiya.  Sure enough, when R' Chiya said "mashiv ha'ruach u'morid ha'geshem" it immediately started to rain.  Upstairs in shamayim they realized something is up, and if R' Chiya continues and gets to "mechayei meisim" there are going to be big consequences.  "Man gali razya b'alma?" says the gemara -- same expression that Hashem used with respect to "na'aseh v'nishma."  Who let the cat out of the bag and revealed the secret?  Yet here the gemara says Eliyahu was punished and was forced to interrupt R' Chiya's davening lest he finish and bring mashiach too early.  Why is it that when Bnei Yisrael intuited the angelic secret of "na'aseh v'nishma" (whatever that means) and revealed it in the world, it's a great thing, but when Rebbi revealed the secret he had learned from Eliyahu, it's something that the world cannot tolerate? 

Mindless obedience is demanded by dictators, cults, and Democrat congressmen (I repeat myself) like Nancy Pelosi.  It's not a chiddush and is not what na'aseh v'nishma is all about.  To understand what it is about, let's look at two different skills:

Daughter #3 plays guitar.  Had you handed her a guitar when she was starting out and asked her to play a song, she would have been confounded.  First came learning a few basic chords on a smaller size instrument that allowed for her to learn how to position her hands and fingers.   Then came an upgrade to a better, full size guitar.  Then came more chords and a few basic songs.  Now she can play a small repertoire, but is still learning.  That's how it works with all subjects, all fields of study.

Compare that with a spider web -- Charolette's web.  A spider doesn't go to spider school and start with learning how to make a basic web and then progress to bigger, more complex webs, getting promoted from one spider web class to the next.  A spider is born knowing how to spin webs, period -- it's part of what a spider is.

Rav Kook explains that "na'aseh v'nishma" means that Torah is to Klal Yisrael what spinning a web is to a spider.  We can "do" Torah and do mitzvos without having any prerequisites -- it's built into who we are.  It's not something we absorb from the outside through training, through learning, but rather is part of our essence, much as a malach fulfills Hashem's will because a malach's essence is serving as a shliach.  This is the angelic "secret" which Klal Yisrael intuited. 

My wife was recently reading Herman Wouk's (can you believe b'li ayin ha'ra that he is still alive?) The Language G-d Talks and she pointed out an interesting passage where he mentions his engaging Richard Feynman (to my 5T/Far Rockaway neighbors -- can you believe he grew up on Cornaga?) in a discussion of Talmud.  Feynman was a great physicist, but had no use for religion.  Nonetheless, he immediately took to the Talmudic analysis.  How can someone with no background do that?  Wouk writes (p. 157):

Because we are alike.  Alike in the joy of following and grasping ling strings of tight logic -- alike in the zest for the toughest mental challenges, in the rejection of flawed answers, in the glory when the elusive true answer dawns -- do you have a Talmudic mind?  Sure call it that, because if you say 'Yiddishe kop,' Jewish head, you'll enrage the geneticists and get called racist by fools.  Of course it's cultural, it's an inheritance from grandfathers, great-grandfathers, forefathers, all the way back to Babylon, and they all studied the Talmud, and that's why you're Feynman, I assure you.

In other words, na'aseh v'nishma -- it's built into who we are. 
 
We can now understand why the case of R' Chiya's tefilah is different.  Just as na'aseh v'nishma defines our essence as a people, each individual tzadik has something unique that defines their individual essence as well.  That is their "raz," the secret of who they are -- it is their identity alone and does not belong to the world as a whole, which may not be ready for it or capable of accepting it.     

eagle's wings, football, etc.

Everyone is interested in eagles this week.  "Va'esa eschem al kanfei nesahrim..."  Why eagles wings?  Tehilim 103:5 tells us that Hashem is "tischadesh ka'nesher n'u'raychi," He renews our youth like an eagle.  Rashi explains that an eagle's feathers molt every year and are replaced by new feathers.  Our parsha is telling us that Hashem gave us the power to constantly renew ourselves.  Even when we fall, we can start over again and come back.  A nice idea from the Koznitzer Magid.

About those other Eagles...  I want to thank Colin Kaepernick, and really the whole NFL.  I used to often listen to sports radio in my car and haphazardly follow what was going on in that world.  Thanks to the SJW of the NFL and their protests against America, the country that gives them the chance to make millions playing a game, thanks to the antics of Colin, e.g. raising money for a foundation celebrating a cop killer, I went cold turkey and from preseason to superbowl, I gave up not only the NFL, but all sports.  I don't know if I could have done it without you Colin, so I want to express my hakaras ha'tov to you for making me see what a disgrace you and some (not all) of your fellow players are.  

Someone emailed me last week that it was almost time for me to write my yearly protest against the opulence of the Pesach hotels.  It's not just Pesach.  Who orders a "Hail Miriam" (I am not making up the name) package for a few hundred bucks for their superbowl half time party?   How is this kosher?  OK, so you want to watch the game, neicha, I understand.  But do you have to make it into an event, a celebration, mishteh v'simcha v'Yom Tov?  But that's what Judaism in America has turned into.  Super glatt, chalav yisrael, all the chumros, but missing the essential underlying values.  (And if anyone reading this ordered that package, you know I'm just complaining because you didn't invite me : )

Something positive to end on:

a spiritual revolution

1. There is a glaring redundancy in the first pasuk of Yisro.  "VaYishma Yisro... es kol asher asah Elokim l'Moshe u'l'Yisrael amo," Yisro heard whatever G-d had done for the Jewish people.  The pasuk continues and ends, "Ki hotzi Hashem es Yisrael m'Mitzrayim."  Isn't it clear from the beginning of the pasuk that Yisro had heard about this?  Isn't yetzi'as Mitzratim obviously part of "kol asher asah Elokim l'Moshe u'l'Yisrael?" 

It could be that this is the question that was bothering Rashi and caused Rashi to say that Yisro heard about the splitting of Yam Suf and/or the war with Amalek.  It had to be something other than yetzi'as Mitzrayim that Yisro heard about otherwise the whole phrase is redundant.

The Sefas Emes offers an explanation that caught my attention because of something I heard on a tour of the old city given by R' Simcha Hochbaum that we took 2 weeks ago when we were in Yerushalayim.  R' Hochbaum made the point (and I hope I am paraphrasing him correctly) that so many of the yeshivos and seminaries we and/or our children (depends on your age : ) go to learn in only came into existence post-1967.  That's not just because now there is more geographical space, a bigger city of Yerushalayim, a more developed area, for these yeshivos and seminaries to take root it in.  It's because the unification of Yerushalayim released this pent up spiritual energy that had been held in check so long as the city was divided and in foreign hands.  Having Yerushalayim in our hands, whole again, did not just change the physical map of Eretz Yisrael -- it changed the spiritual map as well. 

Says the Sefas Emes, so long as the Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt, spirituality was locked up and held in check.  Chazal tell us that no one -- not a single slave, no matter what nation they were from -- escaped Egypt.  It was like a black hole that sucked everything in.  "VaYishma Yisro," suddenly a person like Yisro, after years of worshipping every avodah zarah under the sun, wakes up and is able to hear that there is a true G-d.  How did that happen?  The pasuk answers, "Ki hotzi Hashem es Yisrael m'Mitzrayim."  Because the Jewish people were taken out, the black hole's pull was broken.  Because the Jewish people were taken out, all that ruchniyus that was pent up was suddenly free, and it had an effect not only on us, but on the whole world as well.

Same idea, different context. 

2. In the haftarah we read that Yishayahu heard the malachim saying "kadosh kadosh..." and he responds, "oy li ki nidmeisi ki ish tmei sefasayim anochi u'b'toch am tmei sefasayim anochi yosheiv."  What does that first phrase, "oy li ki nidmeisi," mean?   I congratulate you if you knew without looking at Rashi that the word "nidmeisi" here can mean death.  I don't have Artscroll at home, but I checked on Shabbos in shul and they translate something like "Woe is me for I might die."  Yishayahu heard the angels and he thinks that's the end for him.  How can a person who is "tamei sefasayim" live through that?

If I were doing the translating I would go with the second interpretation of Radak.  "Nidmeisi" here is like "va'yidom Aharon" -- to be silent.  Yishayahu heard the angels and did nothing -- he didn't say anything.  When he came out of his shock, he bemoaned the fact that he had not responded in kind, he bemoaned the fact that his tamei lips (according to Rashi, why the stress on the lips)? were unworthy of uttering such holy praise. 

(I am not suggesting that Rashi is wrong or a mistranslation.  I am just saying that given the choice of one or the other, from a literary perspective I would go with Radak.)

dissatisfaction is sometimes a good thing

We've passed through the parsha of "v'lo sham'u el Moshe," the parsha of "mi Hashem asher eshma b'kolo," and we've reached "va'yishma Yiso" -- finally someone willing to listen.  On deck of course is "na'aseh v'nishma," telling us that listening isn't everything after all; doing is far more important.

Chazal tell us that Yisro worshipped every avodah zarah in the world.  At first blush this sounds terrible.  It's one thing to be deluded and led astray once, but to repeat the same mistake again, and again, and again...  The Maharal looks at it differently.  Chazal are speaking to the gadlus of Yisro.  Here is a man who never rested in his search for truth -- a man who was never satisfied.  Yisro went from avodah zarah to avodah zarah not because he didn't like the people in that "shul" or he thought there was a better kiddush at the place down the block.  He did it because each avodah zarah he tried left him feeling lacking, feeling that the truth was elsewhere.  Eventually, he found the truth of yahadus, but until then he spent his life running away from one falsehood after another.

Achieving kedusha and dveikus is very hard.  The loftier the goal, the more elusive it is.  The Sochotchover helps us out with a yesod: be like Yisro and start by running away from the things that you know are wrong and false.  If you do that, Hashem will take care of getting you to where you want to go.

To me this is reminiscent of the Rambam's negative theology.  The Rambam writes that you can never really describe G-d; he transcends anything one might say about Him.  The best one can do is to describe what G-d is not, e.g. He is not unkind, He is not unjust, etc. and in that way, come to some understanding, some connection to Him. 

Michelangelo was asked (not really - the story is a myth) how he was able to sculpt the famous statue of David.   He replied that he just chopped away all the marble that was not-David and m'meila he was left with a work of art.  (BTW, you have less than 2 weeks to see the Michelangelo exhibit at the Met that everyone is raving about.  Not only do you get Torah on this blog, but you get weekend museum tips as well : ) 

Yisro spent a lifetime chopping away -- he chopped away this avodah zarah and that avodah zarah, he ran away from one false belief after another, until he was left with a connection to Hashem.

"What did Yisro see that caused him to come to Klal Yisrael?" asks Rashi.  According to one view it was the splitting of Yam Suf that was Yisro's motivation.  What's so special about the splitting of Yam Suf more than the makos in Egypt or any other miracles?  The Shem m'Shmuel (5674) quotes the Midrash that the Yam split in the merit of Yosef running away from Eishes Potifar.  "Ha'Yam ra'ah va'yanos" -- the Yam ran to its banks as well, midah k'neged midah.  Chazal tell us that even maidservants experience nevuah at Yam Suf.    Yisro saw that to connect to the infinite, you don't need to be a guru or meditate for decades on a mountain.  You can attain great heights even if all you know how to do is run away from what you know is wrong, something he had a lifetime of experience doing.  (See the Shem m'Shmuel's hesber of the other shitos of what Yisro heard along similar lines.) 

Another gemara (Sanhedrin 106): Pharoah had three advisors: Yisro, Iyov, Bilam.  Bilam advised Pharoah to kill Jewish children.  Iyov was silent.  Yisro ran away.  The gemara continues that his descendants sat in the lishkas ha'gazis teaching Torah with the Sanhedrin.  Hashem takes the energy used running from... and converts it into energy that brings a person to... 

What drew Moshe to Yisro's house?  "...Va'yivrach Moshe mipnei Pharoah va'yeishev b'Eretz Midyan."  (2:16)   Did Moshe recognize in Yisro someone like himself, someone who had run away from the evil of Egypt?  Or did Yisro recognize in Moshe's flight a journey similar to his own?   Either way, the stories of running are strikingly parallel.

In last week's parsha we read how Pharoah discovered the people had fled, "Va'yugad l'melech Mitzrayim ki barach ha'am..." (14:5) and he decided to give chase.  Strange -- the people had run away??  Pharaoh himself had gone in the middle of the night to find Moshe and Aharon to throw Klal Yisrael out as fast as possible!  

L'havdil, no parent is like Pharoah, but sometimes a kid comes back from yeshiva or seminary, and the parent has been waiting with the acceptance letter from Columbia or Penn u'k'domeh tacked to the refrigerator, and lo and behold their kid has flipped out and frummed out.  What does the parent think?  OK, so I'll give him/her some time -- it's a passing fad.  Over the summer they will adjust to America, they will meet up again with friends, they will daven again in our shul instead of yeshiva, and by fall, poof, back to normal.  What the parent doesn't realize is "ki borei'ach hu!"  Their son, even he stayed for shanah bet, has just really just gotten a taste of R' Chaim, of Ketzos, or R' Akiva Eiger; their daughter has not even made it through all of volume 1 of Michtav.  They have by no idea what a Torah life is realty about, but what they have learned is that there are a lot of things in our society that a person should run away from.  As the Sochotchover tells us, once you start running and know what you should be running from, Hashem will take care of the rest.

R Yisachar Dov Englander, a Rosh Kollel of Belz in London, suggests that that's what Pharoah discovered.  Sometimes you are in a bad situation, but change is hard, and even if you decide to move on, you sometimes have one eye looking back over your shoulder.  That's how Pharoah though Klal Yisrael would leave Egypt.  OK, so they would go for three days, but after that, they would come back.  How could they not?   That's the parent thinking that the black hat is nice, but let's be real -- the kid has to miss watching the game on Sunday, right?  He'll snap out of it eventually.  When Pharoah saw "ki borei'ach hu" -- they were running, they couldn't wait to leave, had no regrets, missed none of it -- then he knew they were gone for good unless he would act.  Even if you don't know where you are going -- "nevuchim heim ba'midbar" -- running away from wrong, like the Shem m'Shmuel tells us, chopping away the not-David parts of who you are, will get you to the right destination.

ad asher ko"h (=25) beirchani Hashem

My wife gets a mazal tov this Shabbos because she will have reached the milestone of having tolerated me for 25 years, which is quite an accomplishment.  "... Ad asher ko"h (=25) beirchani Hashem" (Yehoshua 17:14).  Time just flies.  I didn't posted anything last week because we went to Eretz Yisrael, the first time we have each been there since back  in pre-marriage days.  I hope to write something about that once I wake up from jetlag and have some time...

The gemara (Yevamos 63) tells a story: R' Yosi met Eliyahu haNavi and asked him what it means that woman was created to be an "eizer."  How?  Eliyahu answered that a man harvests wheat -- does he eat wheat?  A man harvests flax -- does he wear flax?  Of course not.  His wife turns wheat to bread; his wife turns the flax to a nice linen garment. 

R' Yitzchak Zilberstein asks: there are mishnayos in Kesubos that talk about the obligations a wife has to spin cloth, to cook, etc. for her husband.  Didn't R' Yosi know those sugyos?  What is the big mystery here that he needed Eliyahu haNavi to explain?

R' Zilberstein asked this to his brother-in-law, R' Chaim Kanievsky, who answered by reminding him of the behavior of their mother-in-law, Rebbetzin Elyashiv.  R' Elyashiv used to wake up at some ridiculous hour of the morning (actually, it was still night) to start learning, and every day his Rebbetzin would wake up then to make him a cup of coffee.  As the years passed and the Rebbetzin grew older, her children tried to convince her to just leave a thermos of coffee and R' Elyashiv could help himself -- she didn't need to get out of bed at 2:00 in the morning just to make the coffee.  She wouldn't give in.  Ain hachi nami, she told them, that if it was just about the coffee, she could leave a thermos.  But, she explained, what do you think R' Elyashiv is thinking when his alarm goes off at 2:00AM?  He's not a malach -- he's thinking, "Wouldn't it be nice to spend a few more minutes in a warm bed?"  Now, imagine him lying there in bed knowing that I am getting out of bed to make him a coffee so he can start learning -- do you think he will sleep in those few extra minutes knowing that I'm up for him? 

That's what Eliyahu haNavi was telling R' Yosi.  Mistama they had tailors and takeout in the times of Chazal.  If it was just about having food and clothes, about the obligations listed in those sugyos in Kesubos, that would not make a wife into an eizer.  That would make her into a live-in tailor and cook.  Leaving a thermos would fulfill the Kesubos requirements.  What makes a wife into an eizer is sharing in a sense of mission with her spouse, sharing in struggles, aspirations, and goals, be it in learning or so many other things.  For that, you wake up at 2:00AM to be there -- the thermos is not enough.  It's not just any food or any clothes that Eliyahu was talking about -- it's the wheat her husband grows that his wife bakes, it's the flax he plants that she fashions into clothes.  It's the shared sense of enterprise and accomplishment that makes a wife into an eizer (and the same is true vice versa). 

My wife of course deserves my thanks for fulfilling Eliyahu's words k'peshuto and making sure I have food to eat and bills get paid on time.  But far more than that is the thanks she deserves for being my eizer all these years, in sharing in the struggles, the aspirations, the goals which we work so hard together to try to achieve. 

Mesech Chochma on the "matarah Elokit" of yetzi'as Mitzrayim

The gemara (Sanhedrin 111) links "v'lakachti eschem li l'am" with "v'hei'veisi eschem el ha'aretz" and teaches that just as only Yehoshua and Kaleiv, 2 out of 600,000 of those who left Egypt, made it to Eretz Yisrael ("...v'hei'veisi"), so too, only 2 out of 600,000 actually left Egypt ("v'lakachti") -- the rest died in makas choshech.  Meschech Chochma writes that Chazal are trying to tell us that quantity does not matter to G-d.  All the makos and all the miracles done for Klal Yisrael in the desert were worth it if even just 2 out of 600,000 people would achieve the "matarah Elokit," the Divine purpose and end goal.  He adds that therefore one should not grow despondent when seeing how the masses remain unresponsive to the dvar Hashem.  That's just the way things work -- it is a few individuals who are truly inspired and committed, but in their merit, G-d protects our entire nation.

R' Moshe Tzuriel in his Derishat Tzion calls attention to the Meshech Chochma's phrase "ha'matarah ha'Elokit."  What indeed was the purpose and end goal of yetzi'as Mitzrayim?  Wasn't it mattah Torah?  Didn't the entire nation, all 600,000+, not just 2 people, merit standing at Sinai and hearing the dibros?   Clearly that's not the "matarah" the Meshech Chochma was speaking of.  The Torah is a blueprint, but what good is a blueprint, a plan, which is never brought to fruition?  The end goal, the "matarah," was building a nation in Eretz Yisrael.

To put what I think R' Tzuriel is saying a little more starkly, yesh lachkor: is the purpose/matarah of Klal Yisrael to learn and keep Torah, and having Eretz Yisrael is just a means to that end, or is the goal/matarah to build a nation, which means having our own country, and the Torah is a means, an instruction book, on how to go about doing that? 

"Eretz Yisrael einena davar chitzoni, kinyan chitzoni la'umah, rak b'tor emtza'i l'matarah shel ha'hisagdut ha'kelalit v'hachzakat kiyuma ha'chomi oh afilu ha'ruchani..."  (First sentence in Rav Kook's Orot)

Without "v'hei'veisi," the goal remains incomplete and the "matarah" is not achieved.

Torah needs a context of shared experience

Although Moshe takes his wife and child(ren - see Ramban) along when he departs Midyan to go back to Mitzrayim, it is not clear that they actually completed the journey with him.  "Vashav artzah Mitzrayim" (4:20) -- HE returned -- singular, implying Moshe alone came back.  We know from Parshas Yisro that Moshe's family rejoined him at that point in time, meaning that at some point they separated.  Ibn Ezra writes that Moshe sent his family back after stopping at the inn to mal his son.   Ramban suggests that Moshe's family might have came back to Mitzrayim, but Moshe may have sent them back to Midyan because Tziporah missed her father. 

Ramban quotes a Midrash:  Yisro asked Moshe where he is bringing his wife and kids.  Moshe replied that he is taking them back to Mitzrayim.  Yisro then asked: the people stuck in Mitzrayim want to get out -- why would you bring your wife and kids into such place!?  Moshe answered: eventually those enslaved will be freed and come to Har Sinai to hear "Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim," I am G-d who took you out of Egypt.  If my sons don't go back, they will not be privileged to hear those words.  After hearing that answer, Yisro consented for them to leave.

Why did Moshe think that if he doesn't take his family back to Mitzrayim they would not hear "Anochi Hashem Elokecha...?"  According to some views Yisro and Moshe's family rejoined him post-yetzi'as Mitzrayim before mattan Torah.  Not being in Egypt did not preclude them being present at mattan Torah.  Even according to the view that Yisro and Moshe's family rejoined him later, there seems to be no logical or logistical reason they could not have come earlier to be present at mattan Torah.  Why did Moshe think that it was impossible?

I think what Chazal are telling us is that the same words "Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha..." carried a far deeper more significant meaning for the person who had been enslaved in Egypt and was redeemed by G-d than they did for the person who had not been there.  Moshe was telling Yisro that if his children do not taste the bitterness of exile and experience the joy of redemption, they will miss that depth.  Yes, they might be there to hear the words, but those words will not mean the same thing to them. 

When we hear words of Torah, it's not just a text.  It's a description of our shared experience, and it's that shared experience that gives it context and meaning. 

our unique definition of freedom

Why is Hashem so insistent that Moshe Rabeinu be the one to go to Mitzrayim and lead Bnei Yisrael to redemption?  Moshe's argument that Aharon be the one to go seems to make a lot of sense: Aharon had been with the people in Mitzrayim, unlike Moshe who had to flee and was out of contact with them; Aharon was a great communicator; Aharon was a "rodef shalom" and had the personality for the job.  Why did G-d reject the obvious choice and demand the Moshe himself go?

On Jan 1 we had the pleasure of hearing a shiur from Rav Aharon Kahn in which he explained that the choice of Moshe was necessary as it served to define our unique concept of freedom.  In America, by way of analogy, we a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution.  Tzvey dinim, if you will.  The Declaration of Independence states our grievances with King George and says we are free.  But freedom in the Declaration has no boundaries -- there is no system of law, there is no framework of a government.  It was only years later that the colonies came together to create the Constitution and establish a framework of law so that they could function together as a nation.  The concept of freedom and the concept law, with its restrictions, are two totally separate ideas. 

Moshe was a man of din, Aharon of rachamim, peshara.  Moshe therefore was inevitably going to be the one to bring down the Torah to Klal Yisrael.  Moshe Rabeinu, G-d insisted, must therefore also be the man to lead Klal Yisrael out of Egypt.  Unlike the American system, the secular system, where freedom and law stand apart, in Judaism freedom and law are inextricably linked. 

"V'zeh lecha ha'os ki anochi shilachticha -- ta'avdun es ha'Elokim al ha'har ha'zeh."  The meforshim are all bothered: how could mattan Torah, which would only happen weeks after yetzi'as Mitzrayim, serve as a sign for the people to believe Moshe?  Rav Kahn suggested that Hashem was not giving Moshe a sign to present to Klal Yisrael.  He was giving Moshe a sign, an explanation, for himself personally.  "LECHA ha'os" -- like in the parsha of tefillin, where Chazal darshen "lecha l'os -- v'lo l'acheirim" with respect to tefillin shel yad -- "ki anochi shilachtiCHA," why YOU, and not Aharon or anyone else is being sent.  The reason is "ta'avdun es ha'Elokim al ha'har ha'zeh," because you Moshe are the vehicle through which mattan Torah will take place.  Therefore, you must also be the vehicle by which geulah from Mitzrayim takes place.  The two must go hand in hand.

There is no break between our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  We go from being avadim of Pharoah to being servants of Hashem, bound to his law.  "Ain lecha ben chorin elah ha'osek baTorah."  This is our unique approach -- freedom and law are intertwined.

This is the argument on Pesach night between the rasha and the chacham.  The rasha argues, "Mah ha'avodah ha'zos lachem?"  It's the holiday of freedom -- why are you bothering me with all these halachic details?  Freedom means I can do what I want.  But the chacham's approach is "ain maftirin achar ha'pesach afikoman" -- freedom means halacha.  Freedom means law. 

education is not about having a good job

Rabbi Dr Aaron Twerski writes in Crain's that the success some hareidim achieve in the business world proves that the education in hareidi schools is more than adequate to  meet the needs of the secular world.

One can debate how many B&H Photo-like successes stories it takes to outweigh the many sad stories of hareidim who remain unemployed and unemployable due to lack of basic skills.  However, I think R' Twerski's piece suffers from a more basic error: Education does not mean having a good job. There may be some correlation between the two, but they certainly are not identical.

If the entire purpose of education was to allow one to succeed in business, I would say we should end school at about sixth grade, or certainly by the end of elementary school.  (Some of you, like me, may be old enough to remember Robert Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.)  We should abolish algebra and trigonometry from the curriculum (it would certainly spare me my daughter's constant whining, "Why do we have to learn this?!")  We should forget about challenging students to read Hamlet or Lear, to learn about other parts of the world, to discover something of past history, or to study other living creatures. 

None of the above will help them run a business.  None of the above are required to succeed at most professions.  It will help them, however, appreciate their humanity, their past, the world around them.  In other words, it will make them educated.

R' Twerski, this is what is lacking in the hareidi school system.   
 
 

the bracha of self awareness

Ya'akov's final charge to his children concludes, "V'zos asher dibeir lahem avihem vayivarch osam..." (49:28)  This is the blessings that he gave them. 

Blessings?  Reuvain was told that he is impetuous.  Shimon and Levi were told that they were guilty of murder, that they angered too quickly and plotted to do wrong.  What kind of blessings are these?  Ibn Ezra (48:1) writes in fact that what Ya'akov told his children was not a bracha -- it was a nevuah of their future.  Afterwards, "vayivarech osam..." he gave them some blessing that is not recorded, but what was said until that point was prophecy (see also Ohr haChaim 49:28).

Ralbag disagrees and says that yes, even what was said to Reuvain, Shimon, and Levi is a bracha.  It's a bracha to know you are impetuous.  It's a bracha to know you anger easily.  It's a bracha to know you are aggressive.  When a person recognizes their own personality traits -- and I deliberately say traits and not flaws -- then they can control and channel those traits properly.  It doesn't have to be a flaw if you are aware of it and manage it properly.  The bracha Ya'akov gave his children is the bracha of self-awareness.

bracha on shul talis

The M"B paskens in 14:11 that if a person takes a shul talis to get an aliya or daven for the amud he is obligated to say a bracha on the talis.  The logic here is that the shul talis is jointly owned by everyone in the shul.  Therefore, just like you would say a bracha on your own talis, you should say a bracha on the shul talis.

Maybe I am wrong, but my impression is that most people do not recite a bracha when they take a shul talis to daven for the amud.  Maybe the reason why is because if you fast forward to the M"B in 18:5, there he paskens that anyone who davens for the amud, even someone who says kadish, needs to put on a talis; however, since he is just wearing the talis for kavod tzibur and not as a garment, no bracha is recited.

I am not sure how you get these two M"B's to fit together.  In 14:11 M"B applies the sevara of the garment being worn only l'kavod tzibur only to a talis borrowed from another individual.  It sounds like the concern is that since you are borrowing the talis only for the purpose of kavod tzibur, the person lending it is not really makneh it to you for use as a garment.  However, if the talis belongs to you, or is the shul talis, i.e. it belongs to everyone, then even if you put it purely l'kavod tzibur, a bracha is required.  Yet this seems to fly in the face of the psak in 18:5.

ha'od avi chai?

"Ani Yosef -- Ha'od avi chai?" 

Surely Yosef was aware that his father was still alive, as he had been told so already numerous times by his brothers.  Yehudah had just finished arguing that Binyamin must be allowed to return home lest his absence cause Ya'akov's death.  So what was Yosef asking?

Rashi in Parshas VaYeishev (37:2) tells us that Ya'akov and Yosef shared many similarities.  Not only were their life stories similar, but, says Rashi, they even looked alike.

Yosef therefore wondered: granted that when he left home he was still young and had no beard, but even so, how could his brothers fail to recognize him?  He was the spitting image of their father -- how could they stand before him, eat with him, meet with him multiple times, and fail to see that it was him? 

Perhaps, worried Yosef, a little too much of Egypt had rubbed off on him.  Perhaps that resemblance to Ya'akov, which was as much a product of a spiritual resemblance as much as physical looks, had been lost. 

Yosef's first question therefore was "Is my father still alive?" -- do you see his image alive within me?  Do I still resemble my father?   Or have I become just another Egyptian?

"V'lo yachlu echav la'anos oso ki nivhalu mi'PANAV."  Suddenly the brothers saw the truth -- the face they were looking at, the face of Yosef, was the face of Ya'akov Avinu.  Despite all that had happened, their brother Yosef had not lost that resemblance, physical and spiritual, to their father Ya'akov.

Isn't this the question we all need to ask ourselves?  When we look in the mirror, do we see our parents and grandparents reflected there?  "Ha'od avi chai?"  Or do we see a foreign face, someone with foreign values and a foreign lifestyle, someone who looks nothing like the past that he/she came from?

(Based on R' Chaim Charlap's Mayan Chaim here)

chanukah without a menorah?

You would think that if the whole celebration of Chanukah is about the Chashmonaim being able to light the menorah in the beis hamikdash, then the way we should celebrate is by lighting a menorah in our homes.  Yet that is not the halacha.  "Ner ish u'beiso" is the mitzvah -- just one candle per night per house.  Not only that, but the achronim discuss whether or not you even need to use a menorah to hold however many candles you light -- maybe you can even just stick your candles in the windowsill or doorway all by themselves, with no kli to hold them, and light that way.  One light, no menorah -- how is this at all like what the Chashmonaim did?

Can I be yotzei writing about the parsha by quoting a Rogatchover in Tzofnas Pa'aneiach?  : )  The Rambam writes in Hil Temidim u'Musafim 10:13:

נר מערבי שכבה אין מדליקין אותו אחר דשונו אלא ממזבח אבל שאר הנרות כל נר שכבה מהן מדליקו מנר חבירו:

In case you missed the Rambam's point, the Raavad makes note:

 א"א נראה מדבריו שהוא עכוב לנר מערבי שלא להדליקו אלא ממזבח העולה

The Rambam tells us that the ner ma'aravi, unlike all the other lamps in the menorah, must -- an absolute requirement -- be lit only using the fire of the mizbeyach.

Read the Rambam in Hil Chanukah 3:2 carefully and you will see that he doesn't say that when the Chashmonaim found an untainted jug of oil they lit the menorah.  What he says is that they lit "neiros ha'ma'aracha," they lit the fire on the mizbeyach.   The Rogatchover writes that Rambam stresses this point because the Chashmonaim did not actually light the whole menorah -- what they lit for 8 days was only that single ner ma'aravi, which must be kindled with mizbeyach fire.

But what about the din (Menachos 28) that the 7 neiros of the menorah are me'akeiv each other, i.e. you need to light them all to be yotzei lighting the menorah?

Apparently the Rogatchover understood (see his Shu"t #251 and see R Wahrman's Sheiris Yosef vol 1 #24 who develops this theme) that there are 2 dinim in play here: 1) a mitzvah of hadlakah, which can be fulfilled even by lighting the single ner ma'aravi from the mizbeyach; 2) a mitzvah for the cheftza of the menorah to be lit, which is accomplished when all the candles that are part of the menorah are kindled (the choice of Brisker language here is mine and is inexact.) 

Rav Wahrman brings a brilliant proof to the Rogatchover's idea.  The gemara debates whether it is permissible to use one Chanukah candle to light another one -- madlikin m'ner l'ner.  One proof the gemara tries to bring is from the fact that the lamps of the menorah were lit from the ner ma'aravi.  At first glance the analogy from menorah to Chanukah candles makes no sense.  Once one lights one Chanukah light, the essential mitzvah has been done -- lighting additional lights is a secondary hidur.  However, until all the branches of the menorah have been lit, the essential mitzvah of lighting menorah is incomplete.  How are these two cases comparable?  

It must be that lighting the ner ma'aravi is a complete kiyum in and of itself, even if the rest of the menorah lights are not lit.

Based on this idea we can answer the question of the Tos Yeshanim (Yoma 24b).  The gemara says that the hadlakah of the menorah in the mikdash can be done even by a zar.  Tos Yeshanim asks: so why then does Parshas Beha'alosecha, which opens with the mitzvah of lighting the menorah, address itself specifically to Aharon?  According to the Rambam, the answer is simple: Parshas Beha'aloscha is speaking about the ner ma'aravi ("el mul pnei ha'menorah...") which must be lit from the mizbeyach, which only a kohen has access to; the gemara is speaking about the second din of lighting the menorah as a whole. 

Coming back to our original questions, R' Wahrman quotes his rebbe, R' Leizer Silver, who explained based on this Rogatchover that Chanukah commemorates lighting the single ner ma'aravi, and therefore, Chazal instituted that the base mitzvah consist of ner ish u'beiso, one simple candle.  Lighting the whole menorah is a hidur, a secondary kiyum -- even using a menorah is secondary -- but what is essential is simply lighting just one candle.

This has already been a long post, but I do want to make just one point about R' Shteinman zt"l.  There has been so much written this week about him, but what I found most incredible is a video clip of him sitting at his desk, surrounded by little school age kids, and him testing them on mishnayos.  This was one of the gedolei ha'dor, someone who had the problems of Klal Yisrael on his shoulders, someone consulted by leaders, other Roshei Yeshiva, etc.  Can you imagine a big politician stopping by an elementary school to test children on their math skills, or something like that?  Unheard of.  R' Shteinman, despite  a schedule crammed with meetings with bigwigs who sought his advise and counsel, never lost sight of the importance of simple people and simple things like inspiring Jewish children to learn Torah.  That's gadlus. 

v'kisinu es damo -- the cover-up

1. Rashi in last weeks parsha comments on the words "vayichbkeyhu... vayishakeyhu" (33:4) that even though it was out of character for Eisav to express love for Ya'akov, in this case the hugs and kisses were sincere as he was truly moved.  Yet two weeks ago in Parshas VaYeitzei the Torah uses nearly the identical phrase of "va'yichabek lo va'yinashek lo..." (29:3) in describing Lavan's greeting of Ya'akov and there Rashi writes that Lavan was insincere and was trying to pat down Ya'akov to find out if he had any jewels on him.  Why in one case does Rashi interpret the hugs and kisses as sincere expressions of love and in the other case as a selfishly motivated act?

HaKsav vHaKabbalah explains that in describing what Lavan did, the Torah separates the verb from it's object: "va'yinasek" = verb, "lo" = object.  There was a disconnect between what Lavan was doing and what he felt about Ya'akov.  In describing Eisav's actions, the Torah lumps subject, verb, and object into one word: "vayichakeyhu."  The person taking action -- Eisav -- was 100% invested into the action of giving those hugs and kisses.  There was no disconnect between them and his true self, his true emotions.

R' Yisrael Resiman brilliantly connects this to our parsha.  "V'lo yachlu dabro l'shalom..."  Of course, had the brothers wants to, they could have spoken nicely to Yosef and about Yosef.  But they wouldn't have meant it.   It would just be words.  They couldn't speak in the manner of "dabro," subject+verb+object in one, where your true self is invested 100%in what you say and every word reflects your true feelings.   

2. Speaking of the Ksav vHaKabbalah, here's another nice one: Yehudah says, "Mah betzah ki na'harog es achinu v'kisinu es damo."  (37:26)  Why should we kill Yosef and have to cover up his blood?  It's an incomprehensible statement.  Is this the way the shivtei K-h speak?  This is like a line from a Mafia movie.  Yehudah is only worried about having to do a cover-up once the crime is committed -- aside from that, no problem?

HaKsav vHaKabbalah explains that the word kisinu here does not mean cover-up.  It is like the word ksus, a garment.  Yehudah was giving mussar to his brothers!  If Yosef is killed, he told them, then we will wear the guilt of that deed like a badge of shame for all of our lives. 

The kabbalists speak of the body being a levush for the neshoma.  A person can take his holy neshoma and dress it in a body that does all kind of crimes and misdeeds.  When Yaakov stole his father's brachos dressed up like Eisav, what that meant is that even when the precious neshoma of a Jew finds itself in the kesus, the levush, of Eisav, his inside remains pure and blessed.

When Eishes Potifar tries to seduce Yosef, the Torah tells us, "Vatispiseihu b'bigdo," she grabbed his clothing (39:12).  The Sefas Emes explains that the yetzer ha'ra has the power to sink its hook into our external levush=begged=kesus. The yetzer can't really get at who we are deep down, but he can nip at our externals and try to change our behavior and our outer personality.  (It's a great strategy because how many of us are in touch with or even think about who we are deep down?   Life is about switching from one role to another, one levush to the next, without taking the time to pay attention to what's underneath.)  So what does Yosef do?  "Va'ya'azov bigdo b'yadah," he abandons that outer shell.  He retreats into himself and digs down to his root core.  (My wife has a creative take on these pesukim here.)  Once you do that, the yetzer no longer has a hold.

historic

Are you tired of winning yet?  I'm not. 

It is lovely to hear and read the protests by the usual Jew haters and self-hating Jews whose moral and intellectual compass is almost always 180 degrees off the mark. 

Despite all his faults, aren't you glad you chose

 

 

And not

 

 

 

In case you are too lazy to look it up, here is a link to the White House contact page where you can express your hakaras ha'tov.

 

Kima'ah Kima'ah -- baby steps. 

 

Since it's 19 Kislev, at the risk of sacrilege, let me end with this:

 

 

Keep up the winning Mr. Trump!

 

 



a place in the beis medrash

I came across an interesting Avos d"R' Nosson by way of this shiur from Dr/Reb Michal Tukachinsky. 

חופר גומץ בו יפול וגו' – זו דינה בת לאה
שהיו אחיה ובית אביה יושבים ושונים בבית המדרש,
ויצאה לראות בבנות הארץ שנאמר: ותצא דינה בת לאה (בראשית ל"ד א')
מי הוא נחש שנשכה? זה שכם בן חמור (אבות דר' נתן נוסחא ב פ"ג)

Chazal describe how Ya'akov and his sons were learning in the beis medrash, but Dinah went out and was poreitz geder, which is why she was taken by Shechem.  It is possible that Chazal here are suggesting that Ya'akov and sons are at least partially to blame here for ignoring their sister while she wandered off.  They were in their own world oblivious to her until it was too late.

That alone is an interesting idea, but I think there is another message especially relevant to our time in this Chazal.   How is a Dinah situation to be avoided?  One approach is that if the problem is "poreitz geder," then the solution must be to build a better, bigger, stronger geder.  And this is exactly what most girls' education boils down to (trust me -- I have 3 girls.)

But there is another way.  Ya'akov and his sons were not in danger from Shechem because they were busy in the beis medrash.  There is no temptation for them to go out.  It's only Dinah who is not part of that world who lands in trouble.  The solution would therefore seem to be to help her find a place within it. 

Does that mean Beis Ya'akov should start teaching R' Chaim's and Ketzos?  Lav davka.  You don't need that to have a place in the walls of the beis medrash.  For you men out there, you don't know what you are missing if you have never read/heard a sichah from Yemima Mizrachi.  Here is a woman (and there are others like her) teaching torah on the parsha that inspires hundreds of women who come to hear her every week.  It's musar, chassidus, hashkafa, pshat -- all of that is part of torah too.

So why don't we have more Yemina Mizrachi's, more Michal Tukachinsky's?  Because we have become so afraid of the dreaded threat of "feminism" in the form of JOFA and the like that we've overcompensated and gone to the opposite extreme.  We've kicked women out of the figurative beis medrash and become obsessed with walls.  Walls don't inspire.  Walls don't feed the intellect or the heart.  Perhaps a different strategy is needed.