Seeing what’s in front of you

By On · Add Comment

During the famine in Canaan, Yakov sent his sons to Egypt, and they were captured and imprisoned. Unbeknownst to them, their captor was actually their long lost brother Yosef. In prison, they discussed their situation:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל-אָחִיו, אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל-אָחִינוּ, אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ צָרַת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְחַנְנוֹ אֵלֵינוּ, וְלֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ; עַל-כֵּן בָּאָה אֵלֵינוּ, הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת – The brothers lamented to each other, “We are guilty for what we did to our brother! We saw his suffering, when he pleaded with us, and we ignored him! We have brought this on ourselves!” (42:21)

But on reviewing the entire episode, no reference is made to Yosef talking to them once their decision was made to get rid of him.

R’ Shlomo Freifeld suggests a beautifully simple truism as a resolution.

When a person doesn’t want to see something, they are literally blind to it. To the brothers eyes, their minds were made up – he was gone. Of course he begged and cried; but did they notice? Not at all – and the Torah records that he didn’t make a sound, because they were the actors in that story. To their eye, he didn’t make a noise.

It was only in hindsight, sitting in jail, that they could take stock and relive their terrible ordeal. They saw events with no bias, and realised their folly. They couldn’t see the forest for all the trees.

Personal choice – the choice of person

By On · Add Comment

When Rivka was pregnant, she suffered greatly:

וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים, בְּקִרְבָּהּ, וַתֹּאמֶר אִם-כֵּן, לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-ה.
(25:19-20)

Chazal classically understand that each time she walked past a holy place, one child would agitate, and each time she walked by a place of idolatry, the other would agitate.

Not knowing it was twins, she could not understand what she was going through:

לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי – (Literally) “Why is this happening to me?”

But her resolution is quite odd:

וַתֵּלֶךְ, לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-ה וַיֹּאמֶר ה לָהּ, שְׁנֵי גֹיִים בְּבִטְנך – She went to a prophet, and he said to her, “There are two nations within you”.

After leaning she is pregnant with twins, she is no longer distressed by what bothered her earlier. This is quite odd, as seemingly, the fact she was expecting twins does not address that pain she was experiencing, that it resolved her issue. How are we to understand the dialogue here?

R’ Chaim Brown suggests a fascinating resolution.

When Moshe reviews the Torah in his final speech to the people, he tells them:

רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָֽה – See how I place before you Good and Evil.

The obvious meaning is that there is a choice between two archetypes: good and evil, and we are implored to choose wisely.

But there is a different suggestion. אָנֹכִי means the first person, the self, “I”. What kind of אָנֹכִי do you want to be? – I am giving you a choice of what kind of אָנֹכִי to be.

Tying this to Rivka’s problem, R’ Brown frames her problem and resolution in a different light.

לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי – where is the אָנֹכִי in this child? Does he want to go to holy places, or serve idols? This child has no אָנֹכִי – he is confused!

And the prophet replied to her:

שְׁנֵי גֹיִים בְּבִטְנֵך – It is not one confused child, it was two distinct אָנֹכִי archetypes. With this, she was comforted.

Everything Has It’s Time And Place

By On · Add Comment

Avraham and Hashem spoke many times. We find that after the instruction to leave his birthplace, something happens that never happened before:

וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם, עַל-פָּנָיו; וַיְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ אֱלֹהִים, לֵאמֹר – Avraham fell on his face, and God spoke to him. (17:3)

Hashem tells him what truly lies ahead for Avraham, and tells him that the symbol of the covenant will be the mitzva of circumcision.

Avraham falls over, as if he is recoiling, as though he were burned. This is unique to this command – Avraham doesn’t fall over at any other time Hashem speaks to him. So what changed now, that it never happened before?

R’ Chaim Soloveitchik explains that until the command to circumcise was delivered, the fact he hadn’t done it yet didn’t render him ערל – the term used for an uncircumcised person. The beginning of the communication requiring it was when it was expected – it suddenly became a deficiency, and literally could not stand God’s presence in this state.

R’ Shlomo Farhi explains that this rubs both ways.

What is expected of all Jews is nothing less that absolute, perfect dedication and diligent mitzva performance. But everything is a long way away from anything less that that, so improvements can be gradual. So long as a person is not ready to take on more, the fact they haven’t yet done so is no problem at all – it’s perfectly reasonable in fact!

But equally, the moment they are ready for more and are content to stay out, suddenly a new burden is cast upon them – וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם, עַל-פָּנָיו.

There’s nothing wrong with someone not ready for more. But sometimes more is expected, and the challenge must be taken.

Responsibility, Independence and growth – beyond your comfort zone

By On · Add Comment

Avraham’s true ascent to greatness begins when Hashem calls on him:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ – Hashem said to Avram; “Go – לְךָ – from your land; from your birthplace; the home of your ancestors; to the land which I will show you. (12:1)

The instruction is an odd one, without delving into the nuances of the structure of order things to leave. לֶךְ-לְךָ is taken at face value to mean “Go, for you” – ie it is in his interests to follow.

The Kli Yakar takes issue with this, and says that לְךָ is not “for you”, but “to you” – “you” is the destination, by way of הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ. He is told to leave where he is to become who who he will be – independent and great. This is לְךָ.

Avraham was not the first to recognise Hashem, nor was he the only righteous person of his day. But he was the first who taught and lived accordingly – he is not noted for his great faith, but for his great kindness and warmth.

This was what made him remarkable. There was a synthesis between what he believed and how he lived.

Recognition of Hashem is very little without recognition of the soul – the spark of God within us all. There needs to be a fusion of these two components to meet the responsibility incumbent on us to be a לְךָ – independent, quality people.

Shabbos, Rest, and Chasing Perfection

By On · Add Comment

Before the first Shabbos, where Hashem stopped creating things, the concluding overview sums up how Hashem related to His handiwork, finally complete:

וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, וְהִנֵּה-טוֹב מְאֹד; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי – And God saw all that He had done, and it was very good. With an evening and a morning, the sixth day. (1:31)

The Ramban teaches that everything in the universe, כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה including the less pleasant things in life, is brought together into what Hashem calls טוֹב מְאֹד – excellent. Ultimately – everything is for the best. With a greater perspective, everything turns out for the best.

The Netziv further adds that this was not just true of that moment – that unique point in existence where Hashem created things – from then on, all potential futures were dormant, awaiting their moment. Developing the Ramban’s concept, all latent potential is positive.

Rabeinu Bachye notes how at the conclusion of every other day, the Torah describes it as כי טוב – it was “good”. But on the final day, where all the different aspects of existence had been formed and came together, it became something else; טוֹב מְאֹד – “very” good. The creation itself was truly greater than sum of its parts; like a sophisticated machine, all the various levers, gears and cogs came together to become something utterly incredible.

The Kli Yakar points out the contrast between calling the first five days כי, and the conclusion of events is called וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד. The Kli Yakar explains that כי is a term of clarification – that there is a deliberation weighing towards טוב with the other days. But when everything comes together, it is וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד – it is clear and absolutely good.

The Sforno explains that the conclusion of creation achieved a balance, an equilibrium; existence was literally “at rest” – precisely the definition of Shabbos, which is itself the state of perfection. With the acceptance and absorption of the imperfections in the world, which the Torah calls טוֹב מְאֹד – then וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי – the sixth day – with the definite article, begins. Existence becomes whole, complete, and it is truly Shabbos. On such a sixth day – הַשִּׁשִּׁי – “the” perfect sixth day, Shabbos commences.

Indeed, the Torah continues;

וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-צְבָאָם – And the heavens and earth were completed…

The incorporation of the negative into the positive is truly the epitome of perfection.

It’s for the Best

By On · Add Comment

Upon meeting Pharoh for the first time, Yakov and Pharoh have this conversation:

וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה, אֶל-יַעֲקֹב: כַּמָּה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי, שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה: מְעַט וְרָעִים, הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי, וְלֹא הִשִּׂיגוּ אֶת-יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אֲבֹתַי, בִּימֵי מְגוּרֵיהֶם – And Pharaoh said to Yakov, “How many have been the days, the years of your life?” And Yakov said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my sojournings are one hundred thirty years. The days of the years of my life have been few and miserable, and they have not reached the days of the years of the lives of my forefathers, in the days of their journeys.” (47:8-9)

Yakov lived a tremendously difficult life. He had fled his family to live in hiding from his brother; been cheated and overworked by his father in law; been denied marriage to the love of his youth, been betrayed by his firstborn son; seen the rape of his daughter; seen his sons bickering result in Yosef’s disappearance and presumed death for 22 years; and seen Rachel die in childbirth. This was not the future he had sought to create for the Jewish people.

Mishlei 3:2 advises that תורתי אל תשכח….. כי אורך ימים ושנות חיים – my son, don’t forget the Torah… Because it lengthens days and years of life. Life is lived through peace, wholeness and Torah – pain and suffering are not true living. It therefore stands to reason that Yakov says מְעַט וְרָעִים, הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי – “The days of the years of my life have been few and miserable,”.

However, the opening of Parshas Vayechi, which addresses the conclusion of Yakov’s life, states:

וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה; וַיְהִי יְמֵי-יַעֲקֹב, שְׁנֵי חַיָּיו–שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וְאַרְבָּעִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה – And Yakov lived in Egypt for seventeen years, and Yakov’s days; the years of his life; were a hundred and forty seven years. (47:28)

The Torah asserts that at this juncture, just 17 years after “few and miserable”, that וַיְחִי – Yakov truly lived, “living” being the thing he had lacked his whole life, what with all his suffering.

This marks a significant change. Before reuniting his family, he felt his life had been a failure. Now they were together, living in harmony, fulfilling Yakov’s ambitions for creating a nation, יְמֵי-יַעֲקֹב, שְׁנֵי חַיָּיו – Yakov’s days and years became years of life, to the extent that שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וְאַרְבָּעִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה – he could look back, and his entire life had been worth it in the end, having achieved the harmony he sought his whole life.

The Midrash and Gemara in Shabbos say that a real exile begins in chains and handcuffs; Yakov was spared this in his exile because of his merits. The Nesivos Shalom explains how the brothers could attempt to murder Yosef and then sell him, whilst seeming incredibly evil, was actually their bodies expressing what Hashem wanted, that they eventually wind up in Egypt. The people Yosef was sold to we’re traditionally salesmen of foul scented products, but Yosef was “fortunate” that they were carrying sweet smelling spices on that day.

But it was not just “fortune”, and it was the same with Yakov

There had to be an exile to Egypt. Everything had been calculated precisely. Yakov recognised at the end of his life, that every event in his life had led him to where he was.

Having recognised that all his negative experiences brought him to where he was, he was finally content, satisfied and fulfilled.

Learning A Lesson

By On · Add Comment

We find that Yosef’s brothers harboured animosity to him almost from the beginning:

וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת דִּבָּתָם רָעָה אֶל אֲבִיהֶם – And Yosef brought evil tales to their father. (37:2)

Rashi explains he brought three issues he brought to his fathers attention. The first was that Leah’s sons allegedly mistreated Bilhah and Zilpah’s sons for being “slaves”, the second was that he suspected them of illicit, adulterous relationships, and the third was that they ate limbs of live animals.

Rashi notes how Yosef suffered in each of these three areas later on in his life. Having accused his brothers of taunting and mistreating “slaves”, he was sold into slavery himself. Having accused his brothers of forbidden relationships, he was challenged by Potiphar’s wife in this area. For accusing them of eating live animals; when he was sold, they slaughtered a goat and dipped his coat into it, which they then presented to their father, implying his death. They then ate it.

R Ezra Hartman points out an issue with this. Regarding the adultery and slavery, Yosef was the subject of the challenges – they happened to him, presumably to learn that he was wrong in these areas. However, the blood his coat was dipped in did not directly involve Yosef at all. Given that these occurrences appear to be lessons, what was Yosef supposed to learn from it if it didn’t happen to him?

R Chaim Shmulevitz explains that sometimes, people cannot concede that they were wrong. It hurts too much to admit to someone else they were right all along. Yosef saw how he was wrong, and was forced to accept that what he had reported to his father was not true, and had to suffer in silence and indignity. His humiliation at seeing he was wrong was the lesson to be learnt.

Money and Power – Worthy of Respect?

By On · Add Comment

We find that Yosef has two vivid dreams, that had trappings of prophecy:

וַיַּחֲלֹם יוֹסֵף חֲלוֹם, וַיַּגֵּד לְאֶחָיו; וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד, שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ. וַיֹּאמֶר, אֲלֵיהֶם: שִׁמְעוּ-נָא, הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר חָלָמְתִּי. וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ מְאַלְּמִים אֲלֻמִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה, וְהִנֵּה קָמָה אֲלֻמָּתִי, וְגַם-נִצָּבָה; וְהִנֵּה תְסֻבֶּינָה אֲלֻמֹּתֵיכֶם, וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִי. וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אֶחָיו, הֲמָלֹךְ תִּמְלֹךְ עָלֵינוּ, אִם-מָשׁוֹל תִּמְשֹׁל בָּנוּ; וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ, עַל-חֲלֹמֹתָיו וְעַל-דְּבָרָיו. וַיַּחֲלֹם עוֹד חֲלוֹם אַחֵר, וַיְסַפֵּר אֹתוֹ לְאֶחָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה חָלַמְתִּי חֲלוֹם עוֹד, וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ וְאַחַד עָשָׂר כּוֹכָבִים, מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי. וַיְסַפֵּר אֶל-אָבִיו, וְאֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיִּגְעַר-בּוֹ אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מָה הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר חָלָמְתָּ: הֲבוֹא נָבוֹא, אֲנִי וְאִמְּךָ וְאַחֶיךָ, לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת לְךָ, אָרְצָה. וַיְקַנְאוּ-בוֹ, אֶחָיו …

And Yosef dreamt a dream, and told it to his brothers, and they continued to hate him. And he said to them, “Listen to this dream I dreamt! We were binding bundles in the field, and my bundle arose, and also stood upright, and then your bundles encircled and prostrated themselves to my bundle.” So his brothers said to him, “Will you reign over us, or will you govern us!?” And they continued to hate him for his dreams and for his words.

And he dreamed another dream, and he related it to his brothers, and he said, “I have dreamed another dream; the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me.” And he told [it] to his father and to his brothers; and his father told him off and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will we come; I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” And his brothers envied him… (37:5-11)

The dreams were not empty visions – they were prophecies.

The Beis Halevi explains how the bundled grain dream related to the physical; Yosef’s incredible future rise to governor of Egypt, future owner of all the grain stores in the empire, and subsequently, his vast amounts of wealth. The dream about the stars and heavenly bodies correlated to spirituality – Yosef is called Yosef HaTzaddik, the righteous, the foundation of the universe.

R Ezra Hartman explains how this differentiated his brothers reactions to each dream. Wealth is external to a person; it does not define him, is not a part of him. This is related very subtly, where they did not bow to him, but to his bundle – אֲלֻמֹּתֵיכֶם, וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִי. Perhaps this is why they hated him, that they misunderstood him and though that somehow great wealth would mean he ought to rule them – אִם-מָשׁוֹל תִּמְשֹׁל בָּנוּ. The dream about the bundles engendered hatred – וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ.

But with the stars, they did not bow to a representation of Yosef, but rather, כּוֹכָבִים, מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי – they bowed to him, himself. This dream about the stars, hinting to his holiness and the spiritual attainments he would achieve, engendered jealousy – וַיְקַנְאוּ-בוֹ, אֶחָיו.

It seems that the dream about wealth did not engender jealousy, only hatred, perhaps as described above. The dreams about spirituality were not something to hate him for – they could use their jealousy as a motivational tool. But regarding his immense wealth, there was nothing to be jealous of – wealth doesn’t make someone better, hence their retort.

There was no such retort to the dream about spirituality. Bettering oneself is the only currency that counts, and they knew it.

Wrestling in the dark

By On · Add Comment

We find that Yakov while crossing a river at night, Yakov remains behind the rest of his family, and is accosted by Eisav’s guardian angel, which has many forms – Satan, the angel of death, the evil inclination etc:

וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב, לְבַדּוֹ; וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ, עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר. וַיַּרְא, כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ, וַיִּגַּע, בְּכַף-יְרֵכוֹ; וַתֵּקַע כַּף-יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב, בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ. וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי, כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר; וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ, כִּי אִם-בֵּרַכְתָּנִי. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, מַה-שְּׁמֶךָ; וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב. וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב לא יֵאָמֵר עוֹד שִׁמְךָ–כִּי, אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי-שָׂרִיתָ עִם-אֱלֹהִים וְעִם-אֲנָשִׁים, וַתּוּכָל. וַיִּשְׁאַל יַעֲקֹב, וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּידָה-נָּא שְׁמֶךָ, וַיֹּאמֶר, לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ, שָׁם. – And Yakov was left alone, and a man grappled with him until daybreak. And when he saw that he could not overcome him, he struck his hip, and dislocated his hip, as he grappled with him. And he said, “Let me go, because dawn is breaking!” – but Yakov said “I will not let you go, until you bless me”. So he said to him, “What is your name?”, and he replied, “Yakov”. And he said, “No longer shall your name be Yakov, for your name is Yisrael, because you have mastery with God and men, and you have prevailed”. And Yakov asked, and said, “Now tell me your name?”‘ and he replied, “Why is it you ask for my name?”‘ and he blessed him there. (32:25-30)

Rashi explains how the word וַיֵּאָבֵק – to wrestle/grapple, comes from the word אבק, dust, called so for the dust that is kicked up when moving and grappling for leverage. There is a Midrash that the dust kicked up from this epic struggle, reached all the way to Hashem’s throne.

R Tzvi Meir Silberberg explains how this relates to all of our struggles. People think that Judaism is about results, an end product. Not so. It was the not the victory that went up to Heaven; that remained with Yakov. But the struggle, the dust kicked up, went straight up to Hashem.

No one is born perfect. We are human, and we struggle. It is the human condition, and it’s what we are here for.

It is apt that this struggle occurs at night, which is darkness, the uncertain, the unknown. When confronted with light, which is truth and reality, the night is dispelled. This angel has to leave at sunrise, to sing in front of Hashem.

The Gemara in Suka teaches how at the end of days, Hashem will slaughter the Satan, and the righteous will cry because they will see it as a mountain, and they don’t understand how they overcame it, but the evil will cry because it will be as if it were a hair, and lament their lack of control and discipline to resist it. The Yetzer Hara is subjective.

The Steipler compares this to someone who hasn’t seen their family in a long time, and is certain that when they meet, they will all be happy, and never argue or fight again. It will never last. The imagination stage is always better that the reality, because when reality hits, the illusions disappear.

The angel had to leave when confronted with reality, and Yakov asks for his name. He asks for his name. The angel seems to refuse a real answer, “Why is it you ask for my name?”.
R’ Leib Chasman explains that this is the essence of what it is – nothing. It cannot be defined, because it’s almost a reflection of ourselves. There is no answer to what is, just what we make it into.

The Perfect Favour

By On · Add Comment

We find an argument takes place between Rachel and Leah, apparently over whose tent Yakov is to sleep in.

וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן בִּימֵי קְצִיר-חִטִּים, וַיִּמְצָא דוּדָאִים בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּבֵא אֹתָם, אֶל-לֵאָה אִמּוֹ; וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל, אֶל-לֵאָה, תְּנִי-נָא לִי, מִדּוּדָאֵי בְּנֵךְ. וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ, הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת-אִישִׁי, וְלָקַחַת, גַּם אֶת-דּוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל, לָכֵן יִשְׁכַּב עִמָּךְ הַלַּיְלָה, תַּחַת, דּוּדָאֵי בְנֵךְ. וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, בָּעֶרֶב, וַתֵּצֵא לֵאָה לִקְרָאתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלַי תָּבוֹא, כִּי שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ בְּדוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא – Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found flowers in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s flowers.” And she said to her, “Is it not enough that you have taken my husband, that [you wish] to take my son’s flowers too?” So Rachel said, “Fine, he shall sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s flowers.” Yakov came from the field in the evening, and Leah came to meet him, and she said, “You shall come to me, because I have hired you with my son’s flowers,” and he slept with her on that night. (30:14-16)

The pasuk then discusses Leah’s children’s births, after which:

וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-רָחֵל; וַיִּשְׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ אֱלֹהִים, וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת-רַחְמָהּ – And Hashem remembered Rachel, and Hashem listened to her,and opened her womb. (30:22)

Rashi explains that what Hashem remembered was Rachel’s kindness to Leah, where the night Rachel was to be married, Yakov provided codes to know he had not been tricked, and Leah would it have know them, and would otherwise have been found out. Rachel passed on the codes, and Leah was not discovered until the next day.

But years had since passed – why does Hashem remember and repay Rachel’s kindness here?

R’ Ezra Hartman explains that in this episode, the Torah teaches us how to treat our fellow man. What was Leah thinking when she accused Rachel of taking her husband? Rachel was the sole facilitator that enabled Leah to have been a member of Yakov’s family – without the codes, Leah would have been left in the cold.

But Rachel does not say this.

R’ Ezra Hartman explains that sometimes, people like to rub in the fact that they’ve done someone a favour, that the other person owes them something. With a real favour, true kindness, the recipient is not aware that they are being done a favour. Rachel mentioned the codes in passing, for example, “Yakov likes to be told X and Y”. Leah was unaware of what Rachel had done for her, hence her question. She actually had no idea.

Rachel did not say a word about what had happened years earlier, and just talked about the flowers. It is very appropriate therefore, that at the perfect moment to silence Leah, her silence was rewarded, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-רָחֵל – And Hashem remembered Rachel – specifically here, as the Seforno says, Hashem remembered her through the flowers.

Hashem repaid her her incredible kindness at the moment she showed she still stood by it.

Yitzchak’s wells

By On · Add Comment

A fair portion of Parshas Toldos deals with Yitzchaks growth into an influential businessman, and some of the dealings he had. He becomes so wealthy, the locals ask him to leave, as they feel his assets would pose a strategic threat were they to be attacked. The Torah details how he owned his fathers wells, which the locals had filled up, and how he had them redug, and then excavated new ones, called Eisek, Sitna and Rechovos. It is not so apparent what function this portion serves.

וַיִּגְדַּל, הָאִישׁ; וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וְגָדֵל, עַד כִּי-גָדַל מְאֹד. וַיְהִי-לוֹ מִקְנֵה-צֹאן וּמִקְנֵה בָקָר, וַעֲבֻדָּה רַבָּה; וַיְקַנְאוּ אֹתוֹ, פְּלִשְׁתִּים. וְכָל-הַבְּאֵרֹת, אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ עַבְדֵי אָבִיו, בִּימֵי, אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו–סִתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וַיְמַלְאוּם עָפָר. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, אֶל-יִצְחָק: לֵךְ, מֵעִמָּנוּ, כִּי-עָצַמְתָּ מִמֶּנּוּ, מְאֹד. וַיֵּלֶךְ מִשָּׁם, יִצְחָק; וַיִּחַן בְּנַחַל-גְּרָר, וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם. וַיָּשָׁב יִצְחָק וַיַּחְפֹּר אֶת-בְּאֵרֹת הַמַּיִם, אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו, וַיְסַתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים, אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם; וַיִּקְרָא לָהֶן, שֵׁמוֹת, כַּשֵּׁמֹת, אֲשֶׁר-קָרָא לָהֶן אָבִיו. וַיַּחְפְּרוּ עַבְדֵי-יִצְחָק, בַּנָּחַל; וַיִּמְצְאוּ-שָׁם–בְּאֵר, מַיִם חַיִּים. וַיָּרִיבוּ רֹעֵי גְרָר, עִם-רֹעֵי יִצְחָק לֵאמֹר–לָנוּ הַמָּיִם; וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַבְּאֵר עֵשֶׂק, כִּי הִתְעַשְּׂקוּ עִמּוֹ. וַיַּחְפְּרוּ בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת, וַיָּרִיבוּ גַּם-עָלֶיהָ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ, שִׂטְנָה. וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם, וַיַּחְפֹּר בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת, וְלֹא רָבוּ, עָלֶיהָ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ, רְחֹבוֹת, וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי-עַתָּה הִרְחִיב יְהוָה לָנוּ, וּפָרִינוּ בָאָרֶץ. – (26:13-22)

It is curious how the Torah discusses this at length, without it being clear at all what it is we are meant to learn from here, or what significance these events bore.

R’ Ezra Hartman explains that this portion of the Torah tells us what our aspirations should be.

וַיָּשָׁב יִצְחָק וַיַּחְפֹּר אֶת-בְּאֵרֹת הַמַּיִם, אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו, וַיְסַתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים, אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם; וַיִּקְרָא לָהֶן, שֵׁמוֹת, כַּשֵּׁמֹת, אֲשֶׁר-קָרָא לָהֶן אָבִיו – and Yitzchak returned, and dug the wells that had been dug in the days of his father Avraham, that the Phillistines had filled, after his father Avraham’s death. He called them the names his father had called them.

The Torah tells us that if our fathers are worth emulating, we absolutely should. We should have an eye on family heritage and tradition – Yitzchak pursued and reclaimed his fathers assets, and called them the name his father did. But we should not aspire to be someone else – we should aim higher, to exceed where our ancestors reached.

The Ramban and Kli Yakar discuss the details of the three wells that Yitzchak had excavated. The Ramban discusses how the three wells are veiled references to the three Temples, the Batei Mikdash.

וַיָּרִיבוּ רֹעֵי גְרָר, עִם-רֹעֵי יִצְחָק לֵאמֹר–לָנוּ הַמָּיִם; וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַבְּאֵר עֵשֶׂק, כִּי הִתְעַשְּׂקוּ עִמּוֹ – And the shepherds of Gerar quarreled with Yitzchak’s shepherds, saying, “The water is ours”; so he named the well Esek, because they had contended with him.

This is the first Beis HaMikdash. There is a strong parallel, in that the Torah emphasises two factions, that argued. The era of the first Beis HaMikdash was defined by two factions, the Malchei Yisrael against the Malchei Yehuda – the kingdom of Israel against Judea, arguing over who deserved to be king.

וַיַּחְפְּרוּ בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת, וַיָּרִיבוּ גַּם-עָלֶיהָ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ, שִׂטְנָה – And they dug another well, and they fought about it too; so he named it Sitnah.

This is the second, which was defined by hatred between everyone. This is worse than the first. The Torah emphasises how the first was fought by the shepherds, which is a metaphor for the leaders, which is who fought for the first Temple. This time around, “they” just fought. No one in particular, a heavy hint to baseless hatred. Further, they failed to listen to the lesson of the first – וַיָּרִיבוּ גַּם-עָלֶיהָ – they fought about this one too.

The third however had no such strife – וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם, וַיַּחְפֹּר בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת, וְלֹא רָבוּ, עָלֶיהָ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ, רְחֹבוֹת, וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי-עַתָּה הִרְחִיב יְהוָה לָנוּ, וּפָרִינוּ בָאָרֶץ – And he moved away from there, and he dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he named it Rechovos, and he said, “For now the Lord has made room for us, and we will be fruitful in the land.”

The third is defined by peace. The word for peace is שלום, from the root שלם, whole. With peace, there is wholeness, harmony and space, and there is expansion.

True conflict

By On · Add Comment

Avraham’s ultimate test was Akeidas Yitzchak, but the test runs much deeper than it appears at face value. It seems the basic difficulty was that he had to sacrifice his son, although Hashem had said that this very same son would be his heir, and the future of Avraham’s covenant.

The Ran explains that there is much more to it, and points out a major subtlety, that adds a whole new dimension into what was required of Avraham. Hashem says: קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת-יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ-לְךָ, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה – Please take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitzchak, and go, for yourself, to the land of Moriah, and sacrifice him,max a burnt offering. (22:2).

The Ran point out that Hashem said קַח-נָא – “please take”. This was a request. It was not a command, it was not an instruction; sacrificing his son was something Hashem desired, but did not demand. It is quite possible that if Avraham had refused, he would not have violated Hashem word, as Hashem had not issued an instruction.

This enhances our view of the difficulty this task posed. Hashem did not require it, and Avraham did not “need” to go through with it. It would just please Hashem were he to go through with it, it ideas his choice. He was not compelled to do it at all.

The Slonimer Rebbe adds a further subtle reference to the turmoil he faced. The pasuk says
that as Avraham approached the place, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם–מֵרָחֹק – Avraham lifted his eyes, and saw הַמָּקוֹם from a distance. (22:4)

Classically, this means that he literally “saw the place”. But הַמָּקוֹם is also a name of Hashem – He is “The Place”, He is everywhere, the Omnipresent.

In this context, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם–מֵרָחֹק means that Avraham looked around, and felt a distance between himself and Hashem. Avraham was doing what he felt he ought to do, when he knew that what he was doing did not feel right. It tore him apart – he’d spent his whole life fighting idol worship and sacrifice, and yet here he was, about to sacrifice his son, throwing away his entire future, and Hashem had not even demanded it. וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם–מֵרָחֹק – Avraham looked around, and felt a distance between himself and Hashem.

We read this on Rosh Hashana, and perhaps, apart from the obvious merit this story brings, perhaps we can also relate to this on a personal level. Things aren’t always clear cut what we have to do, what’s right. We don’t always “feel it”, but sometimes, we have to persevere with what we have to do, and we will come out better for having done so.

Leaving your past behind

By On · Add Comment

The parsha opens with:

ויאמר ד׳ אל אברם לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל הארץ אשר אראך – And Hashem said to Avraham, “Go for yourself, from your land, your homeland, and the house of your father, to the land which I will show you”.

This pasuk is loaded with inferences. Rashi points out that Hashem was telling Avraham that this journey would be לך – for his own benefit and growth, which seems difficult to understand. Did Avraham need a personal gain to do what Hashem had instructed?

Further, the pasuk uses an expression of leaving from, rather than exiting to, which seems odd, if the actual goal was to arrive at the land Hashem would show him.

Lastly, the requirement to go “from your land, your birthplace, and the house of your father, to the land which I will show you”, seems redundant – the goal is אל הארץ אשר אראך, the land he would be shown. Why include where he was leaving from at all?

Avraham is commanded to go first from his country, then his homeland, and lastly, his father’s house. Shouldn’t the sequence be reversed? When travelling internationally, you leave the house first, then the area and then the country. So why is the command in this order?

The Nesivos Shalom explains that Hashem was telling Avraham to leave his negative traits which he acquired in these locations. Our environment is instrumental to developing who we are as people. The more localised the environment, the greater the affect it can have.

As such, a home environment is more persuasive than a homeland, which in turn is more influential than a country. The command is brought to greater light; Hashem was telling Avraham to leave, abandon even, the negative influence he picked up from his country, homeland and father’s house. The order is listing in ascending difficulty.

This further bring to light that לך לך means “Go fro yourself”. Avaham understood that ultimate happiness is becoming close to Hashem, echoing the Mesilas Yesharim, that the supreme joy in this world is the joy of serving Hashem; acknowledging one’s purpose in life and fulfilling it. Hashem told him that in order to grow further, he needed to totally separate himself from the negative culture he’d lived his whole life in – מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך.

It’s not enough for a person to try to be the best they can be, where they are. To reach full potential, he also has to remove himself from the bad midos of his environment because they still have an affect on him.

Once Avraham abandoned his past, he could achieve אל הארץ אשר אראך.

This further answers why the command was to “go” from somewhere, not just to somewhere. He had to leave where he was to get where he was going.

Why circumcise, and What is man’s mission in life?

By On · Add Comment

Avraham enters into a covenant with Hashem, that his descendants will be many, they will be great, and they will inherit the land. The sign of the covenant, is circumcision, the bris milah.

At the beginning of the parsha of milah, the pasuk says:

וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי-אֵל שַׁדַּי–הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי, וֶהְיֵה תָמִים – And Hashem appeared to Avraham, and said to him; “I am The Omnipotent, be before me, and be perfect”. (17:1)

The Beis HaLevi explains that people who deny fundamental precepts of Judaism, or even Hashem, can sarcastically ask that “if God can do everything, why do we have to do anything? Let Him have made the world perfect!”. They feel that the existence of imperfection disproves God. In the context of milah, the question is the same, that “if God wanted you circumcised, why didn’t He make you that way?”.

The Beis HaLevi points out that the name Hashem appears to Avraham with is אֵל שַׁדַּי. Chazal teach that this means the Omnipotent, that Hashem could have kept creating and building from Creation, but said דַּי – “enough”. Had Hashem not chosen to stop, creation would manifest itself perfectly, where all living things would give birth to adult offspring, food would not need processing or cooking, etc.

But Hashem said “enough”. Creation is not meant for us to enjoy in perfection, as the Torah tells us at the onset of Shabbos, the transition from Creation to existence, כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת – for on that day did Hashem refrain from all His work, which He made to be done. (2:3). The point of existence is לַעֲשׂוֹת – to be done by man. Our instruction of וֶהְיֵה תָמִים, to be perfect, is our own responsibility.

Circumcision, and everything else in life, do not come naturally. They require input of effort and hard work, but it is the end goal of being here – to be perfect.

What was the point of the flood?

By On · Add Comment

The entire incident of the Flood seems perplexing. Humanity had started populating the world, and initially fulfilled Gods mission, until suddenly, things came to a bottleneck, and society degenerated to a point where God decided to “start over” from Noach. But why?

The Malbim observes that the Torah writes:

צֵא, מִן-הַתֵּבָה–אַתָּה… כָּל-הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר-אִתְּךָ מִכָּל-בָּשָׂר, בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ–הוצא (הַיְצֵא) אִתָּךְ; וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל-הָאָרֶץ – Leave the Ark – you… Every living creature with you. Every creature, bird, animal and insect that creeps on the earth, should leave with you, and they will multiply and infest the earth. (8:16-17)

Malbim explains that the salvation of life on earth was through Noach, and the psukim say as much, by emphasising כָּל-הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר-אִתְּךָ – he was the instrument through which they were saved, because they were “with him”.

The Malbim explains the undercurrent in the sequence of events that led to the Flood, and what it repaired. When Adam was created, he had the potential of all Creation within him. Every possible characteristic and outcome was seeded within him, including those of animals. The way he behaved; nature reacted. We see this somewhat today, to a small degree, in how pets reflect characteristics of their owners.

The generation of the Flood squandered and destroyed their potential to be good, and had no positive characteristics. Nature reacted accordingly, and animals became evil too, with all species mingling with others, to a point where the Torah (6:12) writes כִּי-הִשְׁחִית כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֶת-דַּרְכּוֹ, עַל-הָאָרֶץ – that every living creature had lost its way.

Noach reclaimed decency, and “humanity” – in the true sense of the word, by being honest and good. He reclaimed the potential to be good. He was the sole being that had not corrupted itself, and as such existence was perpetuated solely for his sake. This is why he was chosen of all men – existence owed itself to him.

צֵא, מִן-הַתֵּבָה–אַתָּה… כָּל-הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר-אִתְּךָ מִכָּל-בָּשָׂר, בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ–הוצא (הַיְצֵא) אִתָּךְ; וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל-הָאָרֶץ – Leave the Ark – you… Every living creature with you. Every creature, bird, animal and insect that creeps on the earth, should leave with you, and they will multiply and infest the earth. (8:16-17)

Nature owed Noach a debt – it was preserved through him. In the beginning of the very next chapter, God permits man to eat meat for the very first time – as a direct result of this.

To be Complete

By On · Add Comment

Commentators like to find the connection between two seforim. I’d like to write about a common theme that we find in Parshas Vayechi and Sefer Shemos.

The Ramban, in his introduction to Exodus, explains that the book of Exodus is known as the ‘Book of Redemption’. Theis name speaks for itself since here the Torah explains in great detail how the nation of Israel was redeemed from Egypt. The Ramban points out that we can understand why it is called so until Parshas Mishpatim because this is the story of the redemption and the receiving of the Torah with all its laws could also be considered an integral part of the Redemption.

However, the latter part of Exodus discusses the building of the Mishkan. What connection does that have with the Redemption?

The Ramban explains that the book of Exodus reveals to us the full extent of the Redemption. Redemption of the body is incomplete until there is redemption of the soul too. The nation of Israel only reached an elevated status through attaining spiritual heights. That was only achieved once the Mishkan was built and the Shechina came to rest. Hence Exodus bears the name ‘Book of Redemption’ meaning it was a complete redemption materially and spiritually.

In Parshas Vayechi we find a similar concept.  The Ksav Sofer asks “Why did Yaakov say that in the future everyone should bless their children to be like Efraim and Menashe?

He explains that they symbolize the two perfect ways of serving Hashem. Efraim was the grandson who learned Torah all day and night with his grandfather. His whole essence was Torah, which is the most important way of becoming closer to Hashem.  On the other hand, Menashe helped Joseph with the administration of Egypt. A Jew also has to know how to relate to people, how to behave socially. Judaism is a religion that has a bearing on every aspect of life. Menashe excelled in that department.

Yakov blessed us that all our offspring should excel in both aspects of Judaism, in both the spiritual realm and in the material physical sense. The connection with the book of Exodus is now plain to see. It shows how important it is for a Jew to apply Judaism both materially and spiritually – to be a great all-rounder!

Mitzvah Multitasking

By On · Add Comment

כט ויֶּאְסֹר יוֹסֵף מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וַיַּעַל לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו גֹּשְׁנָה וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל צַוָּארָיו עוֹד

“Yosef harnessed his chariot and went up to greet Yisrael his father… and he (Yosef) fell on his neck (Yaakov) and he wept on his neck excessively” (Vayigash 46:29)

In regard to the above Pasuk, Rashi quotes a Midrash that says, “only Yosef fell on Yaakov’s neck, but Yaakov didn’t fall on Yosef’s, for Yaakov was reciting Kriyas Shema”. The question we have for Yaakov is: ‘Why are you saying Shema now? Wait two minutes, kiss your son who you thought was dead for 22 years and then say Shema? Or, why didn’t you say Shema earlier?

The Maharal in his Sefer ‘Gur Aryeh’ says that when Yaakov saw that his son, Yosef, had become a king he was truly able to comprehend the completion of Hashem’s plan and how everything happens for the good with His Divine Intervention – even though we may not be able to see it immediately. Yaakov understood that in the end Hashem always gives a reward to those that fear and love Him. Yaakov Avinu was at the spiritual level that when something good happened he didn’t forget Hashem just because ‘he doesn’t need him anymore’, rather he used the gift to further attach himself to Hashem. Sadly, on average, when we see that when we need something we turn to Hashem, but when we are actually given what we prayed for, or everything is going well, do we continue to need and turn to Hashem?

In this case, Yaakov was filled with such love and gratitude towards Hashem,  that he needed to attach himself even more to Hashem through this love, so he said Shema – accepting the Ol Malchus Shamayim Veahavaso.

Hagoan Rav Chaim doesn’t like this Vort and says that Yaakov was commanded by Hashem to go down to Egypt. Therefore the ‘going down’ in itself was a Mitzvah from Hashem. Shema is also a Mitzvah, but we have a rule, Osek B’Mitzvah Patur MinHamitzva (when doing one mitzvah one is exempt from doing another mitzvah [not always applicable, consult with your rav]). The entire time that Yaakov was travelling down to Egypt he was patur from saying Shema. The first moment he saw Yosef he was on the outskirts of Egypt. When Yosef ran to him he was already inside Egypt and no longer patur from Shema. Yaakov needed to say Shema specifically then and there because he was supposed to have said it earlier, but was patur. Now that Yaakov was no longer patur he had to say Shema.

To Honor Hashem

By On · Add Comment

There are many questions on this Dvar Torah simply because this is one of the most confusing pieces in all of Tanach. So if you have any questions I would suggest you try to fast for a year, get the Ben Ish Chai to come to you in a dream and ask him. :)

39:11-19 “And it was on this day and he (Yosef) came into the house to do his work…. And she (the wife of Potifar) grabbed him by his clothes saying lay with me!”

(Sota 36b) Yosef who was mekadesh Hashem secretly received a letter of Hashem’s name added upon his own (Y-eh-osaif). How was Yosef Mekadesh Hashem? For it says, “and it was on this day and he came into the house to do his work,” Rav Yochanan says both Yosef and the wife of Potifar had in mind to do an averah (immorality), but since Yosef was able to stop himself from sinning he was Mekadesh Hashem’s name. This line of Rav Yochanan is an argument between Rav and Shmuel. One says he came to do his regular work and one says to do his needs (immorality). “She grabbed his clothes saying lay with me!” At that moment the image of Yaakov Avinu appeared to him (in the window) and said, “Yosef, in the future your brothers names are going to be written on the Afod with you in between them. Is it your will to erase your name and write the ‘Haroeh Zonos’?” Ad Kan Divrei Hagemarah

The Maharsha asks, what in the world is going on in this Gemarah? Yosef, according to Rav Yochanan (and either Rav or Shmuel) apparently succumbed to his desires, was saved miraculously by his father’s image, and for this he was Mekadesh Hashem in which he got an additional letter added on to his name? What did Yosef do that was great? It sounds (Chalila) just the opposite – that he went in to have immorality with Ashes Potifar. It’s good that he was able to stop himself, but this is called being Mekadesh Hashem?

The Ben Ish Chai adds by asking what the big deal was with Yosef overcoming his evil inclination. We have seen time and time again how many Tanaaim, Amoraim, Rishonim and even Achronim were willing or did give up their lives rather to succumb to lewdness. For example the Yetzer Harah once decided to test Masya Ben Cheresh (a Tana), so he (the Yetzer) dressed up as a beautiful woman and stood in front of Masya. Wherever Masya turned the woman would appear, so having no other choice he blinded himself with an iron prod (Hashem then sent Raphael to heal him after promising to no longer test him with taavas isha). A little extreme, but we see and have seen, how one can fight against the Yetzer Hara, so what was so great about Yosef?

Answers the Ben Ish Chai with a chidush. A normal human being will have a constant conflict his entire life with his Yetzer Hara. Sometimes he wins, but sometimes he doesn’t. It is a back and forth battle until the day of his death. The reason for this is because when that person wins a battle, it means he is pushing his Yetzer away for the time being, but the Yetzer will return and fight even harder next time. This is all because if one does defeat his Yetzer, it is done by pushing it away, but rarely does he get rid of the Yetzer for good. For example if a person has a Tayva (Desire) to look at inappropriate images, and uses all of his power to stop himself, what will he do? He’ll run away from the images, or do something else to get his mind off the images for the time being. The problem with this is that the desire for doing that sin still remains inside him, he just stopped it for the time being. (Obviously this doesn’t have to be true by every single person or by every single sin.)

Yosef on the other hand was not so. Yosef wanted to get rid of his Yetzer Hara for good, so he fought in a different manner. He brought himself to the point where the sin was right in front of him, where the tayva would be the greatest, and yet he was able to stop himself. Yosef knew the only way he could completely stop the Yetzer from ever trying to fight with him, would be to prove to the Yetzer that even if the sin was in his face he still wouldn’t do it. By using his father’s image (according to this view Yosef himself thought of Yaakov to assist him in his fight against the Yetzer) he was able to control himself even at the time of the maasa itself, and say to the Yetzer, “you have nothing on me!” All the other stories consist of Tzaddikim who are able to push off the Yetzer, but there still remains a slight spark of desire in them, and therefore the battle rages on and on until his death. Yosef took on the Yetzer head on and came out successful. Yosef did this because he was afraid that if he were to leave a spark of desire in him, he may not have succeeded throughout his Galus in Mitzrayim. Thus he took on the Yetzer with all his strength and literally proved to the Yetzer that there is nothing he can do to make him sin. (Please don’t try this at home!) This says the Ben Ish Chai is why Yosef was Mekadesh Sham Shamayim to the point where he got a letter of Hashem’s name inserted into his own.

True Modesty

By On · Add Comment

In (37,21),   “Reuven heard and saved him from their hands.

“כא וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ

The Medrash writes on this : “Had Reuven known that the Torah wrote about him “Reuven heard and saved…” , he would have immediately taken Yosef on his shoulders and returned him to his father.”

We must understand  what is the pshat in the Medrash of why would Reuven suddenly return Yosef?

Also, how does the Passuk write that Reuven “saved” Yosef when he threw Yosef into a pit with snakes and scorpions?

The Toras Nesanel explains beautifully: The Mephorshim explain that the brothers had sentenced Yosef to death because he was a morid bemalchus; i.e. he had rebelled against the kingdom of Yehuda and had claimed that he was the one destined to be king, as they said to him “do you think you can rule over us?”  They assumed that Yosef was a dreamer, and that he wanted to have the kingdom instead of Yehuda.

The Gemara in Brachos 62a writes: כל הצנוע בבית הכסא נצול משלשה דברים מן הנחשים ומן העקרבים ומן המזיקין ויש אומרים אף חלומותיו מיושבים עליו

“One who is modest when he goes to the bathroom, he gets 3 rewards: He is saved from snakes and scorpions and demons, and additionally his dreams are destined to be true.”

With this all becomes clear;  Reuven was unsure of whether Yosef was dreaming to rebel against Yehuda, or whether his dreams were really the truth, and Yosef really would be king.

This would depend on whether Yosef was modest in the bathroom or not as the Gemara states.

In order to test whether he was modest or not, Reuven threw Yosef into a pit with snakes and scorpions and waited to see whether he would be injured or would be saved:

If he would be saved, then this is a sign that Yosef was modest as the Gemara states. In which case he receives the other reward that his dreams are true and so doesn’t deserve to die in the first place as he isn’t rebelling against Yehuda; for he dreamt the truth.That was the intention in Reuvens actions, if Yosef wouldn’t be harmed, this proves he is innocent. In this way he saved Yosef.

And now the Medrash can be understood. Had Reuven known that the Torah wrote about him that he “had saved Yosef” by throwing him into the pit, then that proves that he wouldn’t be injured by the snakes, in which case his dreams are also true, in which case he is completely innocent, therefore he would have immediately returned Yosef to his father.

Good Shabbos.

‘Gender’ally Speaking

By On · Add Comment

יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה כו’ והוא נער כו’ (לז:ב) – “Yosef, at the age of seventeen years… But he was a youth etc.” (Vayeishev 37:2). Rashi cites the Medrash (בר”ר פ”ד ז’) that Yosef would practice “youth-like” activities, including beautifying his eyes and fixing his hair. Rav Schwab has a very nice explanation of Yosef’s behavior in his sefer. We will attempt another.

The Alshich HaKadosh in Parshas Vayishlach (34:1) writes a very elemental idea. ”ותצא דינה בת לאה כו’” – “Dina, the daughter of Leah, went out etc.” Rashi says that the passuk specifically calls her the daughter of Leah and not of Yaakov Avinu, for Leah also was a יצאנית – a woman who “goes out,” and “like mother like daughter.” The Alshich asks, however, that the cases are not similar. Leah went out to greet her husband, which presumably should not categorize her derogatorily as a יצאנית, unlike Dina who seems to unfortunately fit the bill. Which intrinsically begs the question of how Dina could be a יצאנית, a deprecating description for a girl of her stature? “כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה” – “Every honorable princess dwelling within etc.” (Tehillim 45:14). It is honorable and proper for a Jewish girl to keep to her privacy!

Says the Alshich, we know (גמ’ ברכות ס.) that Leah was pregnant with what was supposed to be a male. Yet since that baby was to be the eleventh born to Yaakov Avinu, even if Rachel were to be blessed with finally having a child (to be number twelve), both Bilah and Zilpa, the “Shfachos,” would have more of the Shevatim (two each) than Rachel. Leah therefore davened for Rachel, and Hashem turned Leah’s unborn male child into Dina. It is therefore no wonder, concludes the Alshich, that Dina was a יצאנית. Since her roots were of male origin, she possessed this male characteristic to be one who “goes out;” which is not a depreciating characteristic for men.

The Alshich, however, is learning the story according to the Gemara Brachos (60a), namely that what took place after Leah’s tefilos was that the male fetus became the female Dina (this view is also held by: ירושלמי ברכות פ”ט הל”ג (סו:), בר”ר ע”ב ו’, ותנחומא ויצא ח’). There is another opinion in Chazal, that of the Targum Yonasan (30:21, also shared by רבי צדוק בגמ’ נדה לא. לפי המהרש”א ח”א שם בשם פענח רזי) who learns that Rachel herself was pregnant with Dina at the same time that Leah was pregnant with Yosef. According to this opinion, Yosef and Dina switched places due to Leah’s tefilos, with Yosef going to Rachel and Dina going to Leah.

The Chida (ראש דוד, הובא בספר “תורת החיד”א” וישלח אות ס”ט) learns the story like the Targum Yonasan, that the babies switched wombs, yet says the exact same idea as the Alshich to explain the יצאני tendencies of Dina. Yet instead of learning that the roots of one’s own neshama being of a different gender can thereby effect one’s tendencies, like the Alshich, the Chida has to understand (and so he writes, according to how he learns the story) that Dina obtained male tendencies by entering a womb once occupied by the male Yosef.

What we are about to say is NOT “pshat,” and only possibly “drush.” Now, the advantage of learning in accordance with the Chida is that in the say way that the Chida says that Dina’s being in a womb formerly occupied by a male influenced her in a masculine way, so too did Yosef’s being in a “female womb” influence him in a feminine way. This would explain why Yosef had the tendency of beautifying himself. It would also shed new light on the Gemara Sota 10b that highlights a difference between Yosef and Yehuda. Yehuda sanctified Hashem’s name in public when he admitted to his being with Tamar. Yosef sanctified Hashem’s name in privet (when he refused to have anything to do with Potifar’s wife – Maharsha). Here we see in Yosef the attribute of doing great things specifically in private. As we mentioned, “כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה” – here we see this honorary “feministic” trait in Yosef.

Bird Dreams

By On · Add Comment

In the end of this week’s Parsha we find that whilst Joseph was in jail he had two prisoners incarcerated with him, Pharaoh’s personal Butler and Baker.

They both dreamt strange dreams and Joseph interpreted it for them. Lo and behold both interpretations turned out to be correct. The question is, how did Joseph know to interpret the Butler’s dream in a positive manner, explaining that he will be reinstated into his previous post, whilst interpreting the Baker’s dream negatively saying that he will be executed?

Rabbi Meir Shapiro, famed head of Lublin yeshiva and founder of the Daf Hayomi movement, explains that in his dream the Butler was serving Pharaoh a goblet of wine thus prompting Joseph to understand that his job was safe. However the Baker dreamt that a bird was pecking from the baskets, laden with loaves, on his head.

Birds or any other animals are afraid of man and the only time when they’re not afraid

to approach the human race is when they show no sign of life. If the Baker in his dream saw the bird resting so close to him it was a sign that he’d lost his status as Man and therefore it was clear that he would be meeting his death within the near future. This meaning is of great depth. It shows us that Man, even bearing all his special traits, still instills fear in every animal but only when he’s worthy of being defined as Man as it says in Genesis 9:2, ‘and I shall instill your fear into all the mammals that surround you’ etc.

Legend says that an Emperor once commissioned a sculptor to create a piece of

art for him. The sculptor went about his work and presented the king with a statue of a lion resting and a bird perched on his shoulder. The king was fascinated by the sculpture and said it was more real than life. In fact he offered anyone who could voice a valid criticism a handsome reward. No one could come forth with a legitimate criticism

Until a farmer stepped forth and said if the lion were real no bird would dare rest on his shoulder!

The parable is quite clear. When a human is in his full strength both physically and spiritually every mammal, bird of sea creature would have the utmost fear and respect for him!

Angel Combat

By On · Add Comment

כו. וַיַּרְא כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ וַיִּגַּע בְּכַף יְרֵכוֹ וַתֵּקַע כַּף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ

26. “When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob’s hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him.” (32:26)

The Yalkut Reuveni writes: “He saw that he couldn’t beat him, so he hit the socket of his hip” -  He (Esav’s angel) set his eyes on the descendants of Yaakov; this refers to Nadav and Aviyhu.

This Yalkut needs simple understanding. Why couldn’t the angel beat Yaakov because of Nadav and Aviyhu and what is the connection between them?

The Divrei Yosef explains with a hint of genius: Esav’s angel fought with Yaakov over the brachos that Yitzchak had blessed him. When Yitzchak blessed Yaakov, his intention was to bless Esav as the pasukim in P’Toldos explain. However, in actual fact, Yaakov received the blessings from his father. So the “machshavah”  (thought) indicated that Esav should receive the brachos, however the “ma’aseh” (action) indicated that Yaakov should receive the brachos. This was the argument between Yaakov and the angel of Esav.

Regarding the sin of the egel (golden calf), Rashi writes that because Aharon sinned, his two oldest children; Nadav and Aviyhu, died. However, in Vayikra  (32,5), Rashi writes that Aharon only took part in the egel to stall the rest of Bnei Yisroel, but he was still punished eventually.

Over there, Aharon’s intentions were good, but the actions themselves seemed bad, and overall he lost Nadav and Aviyhu, so we see that when “machshavah” and “ma’aseh” clash, we go after the “ma’aseh.”

If so, from Nadav and Aviyhu we have a proof that Yaakov was right, and he received the blessings from his father, because “actions speak louder than words.”

This is the pshat in the Yalkut, once Esav’s angel saw the death of Nadav and Aviyhu, he realised that he couldn’t beat Yaakov, because Yaakov was right, therefore he had to dislocate Yaakov’s hip socket.

The Yalkut asked, why did the angel especially hit Yaakov on his “kaf yeracho”?

He answers that the angel set his eyes on the “yotzei yerachoi” of Yaakov (those that stemmed from Yaakov’s loins); these are Nadav and Aviyhu. Therefore he specifically hit Yaakov at that spot.

The question is, what do Nadav and Aviyhu have to do with this fight, why does the passuk say that “he saw he couldn’t beat him” because of them? And the Divrei Yosef explains their interference in this fight, and this caused the angel to lose to Yaakov.

The Dying Truth

By On · Add Comment

(ויאמר אם יבוא עשו אל המחנה האחד והכהו והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה (לב:ט

[Yaakov] said, “If Esav comes to the one camp and strikes it down, then the remaining camp shall survive.” (32:9)

Rashi explains: “על כרחו לפליטה כו’ – Against [Esav’s] will, [the remaining camp] shall survive.” It is clear from Rashi’s comment that by splitting his camp in two, Yaakov was ensuring the survival of one of them. Even if Esav were to strike one down, the other would be free of his hurtful hand, and there would be nothing he could do to them.

The commentators struggle to interpret where Rashi knows this from. Is it not possible that Esav could wipe out both camps (chas v’shalom)?

The ספר גן רוה answer as follows: The Medrash says that the camps were situated a distance of one day’s journey from each other. Yaakov himself travelled along with the first camp. Now, Rivka said,”למה אשכל גם שניכם יום אחד – Why should I lose both of you in one day?” (27:45) Rashi there brings Medrash that she was relating a prophesy that Yaakov and Esav were to die on the same day. According to all this, if Esav were to kill Yaakov amongst the first camp, then Esav himself would have to die within the day before he was able to reach the second camp, a day’s journey away. This is what Rashi means that the second camp would survive against Esav’s will.

Give

By On · Add Comment

(ותרא רחל כי לא ילדה ליעקב ותקנא רחל באחתה ותאמר אל יעקב הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי (ל:א

“Rachel saw that she had not borne children to Yaakov, so Rachel became envious of her sister; she said to Yaakov, “Give me children – otherwise I am dead.” (30:1)

In the new edition of the sefer Kli Chemda, at the end of his commentary on this parsha – Parshas Vayetzei – he asks the following question on this passuk: What is meant by the lashon of “הבה” – “give” in the words, “Give me children?” He explains, using the passuk earlier:

(29:21),ויאמר יעקב אל לבן הבה את אשתי כי מלאו ימיי ואבואה אליה

“Yaakov said to Lavan, ‘Give over my wife, for my term is fulfilled and I will consort with her.’”

Rashi there comments that even the lowest of the low do not speak in such a manner. He explains that Yaakov Avinu’s intention in marriage with Rachel Imeinu was solely for the sake of having children. We see from here, says the Kli Chemda, that the terminology of “הבה” – “give,” alludes to birthing children. If so, we can explain Rachel’s statement to Yaakov, in which she specifically uses the terminology of “הבה” – “give.” She, too, was alluding to and reminding Yaakov that his purpose in marrying her was to produce children.

In the notes from the sons of the Kli Chemda, they use their father’s idea to explain an episode that occurs later in the parsha. We find that as soon as Rachel gave birth to Yosef, Yaakov says to Lavan, “ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף ויאמר יעקב אל לבן שלחני ואלכה אל מקומי ולארצי” – “Grant me leave that I may go to my place and to my land.” (30:25). Rashi there explains the connection between the birth of Yosef and Yaakov’s immediate desire to leave Lavan’s house.

With Yosef’s birth came Yaakov’s defense against Eisav. Yet, the Kli Chemda’s sons would like to suggest a new explanation based on their father’s idea: Ultimately Yaakov’s original words to Lavan (“Give over my wife, etc,”) were not befitting someone of his stature, and Rashi was bothered by this. Therefore, he needed some rectification, a tikkun. His tikkun would be to do that which he said: to bear a child with Rachel. Since one of the requirements of tshuva is to do tshuva in the very same place in which one has erred, Yaakov could not leave the house of Lavan before having a child with Rachel. It was only immediately after Yosef’s birth that Yaakov was able to say, “Grant me leave that I may go to my place and to my land.”

Hidden Messages

By On · Add Comment

יט.וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ

19. And Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you have spoken to me. Please rise, sit down and eat of my game, so that your soul will bless me.” (Toldos 27:19)
When יעקב said “I am  עשוyour firstborn”, everyone learns the famous Rashi as a child that יעקב paused after he said “I am”, and then affirmed that עשו was his firstborn son.

But what about the rest of the פסוק – “I have done as you have spoken to me”?  Had יצחק really instructed him to do anything at all?

At this juncture, Rashi says that יעקב was referencing an earlier instruction that he had carried out.

The Od Yosef Chai explains that the אבות taught their sons the Torah, father to son, אברהם to יצחק, יצחק to יעקב, יעקב to the Shevatim. Certainly the instructions they received included the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם which requires one to listen to instructions and do the will of parents.

We find in the פסוק that רבקה “instructed” יעקב to take the food to his father and thus receive the ברכות. Why did he do as his mother had instructed? Because his father had taught him to. This is the deeper meaning of the פסוק “I have done as you instructed” – to listen to my parents and do the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם.

And that was certainly no lie!

A Different Level of Mourning

By On · Add Comment

‘וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ’ – “and he wept for her” (Chayei Sarah 23:2)

The Baal Haturim says that there is a small ‘כּ‘ to explain that he only cried a bit because she was old.

The Bikurei Avraham asks, ‘How this can be the explanation of וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ’?  The Torah is emphasizing that he only cried a bit for his deceased wife – is this a praise of Avraham?!

Furthermore, this was Sarah Imeinu – whilst Avraham converted many people, it was she who converted all the women, she was a great prophetess of her own right, she was the first of the matriarchs, all of whom experienced regular miracles. In an instant this was lost – was it not necessary to weep without end at the loss of such an important person? At the passing of both Moshe and Aharon at the ages of 120 and 123 respectively, the entire nation had a 30 day mourning period – how are we to understand that Avraham did not greatly mourn his wife?

In truth, the Torah is trying to tell us what a special and unique person Avraham Avinu was. When he got back from the Akeida, he found his wife had passed, and knew it had happened when she’d heard about the Akeida – ‘ונסמכה מיתת שרה לעקידת יצחק’ (Rashi 23:2)
The way the Yetzer Hara works is that he doesn’t just dissuade us from trying to do something – he approaches us even after we’ve achieved our goal. He tried to manipulate Avraham into regretting the Akeida that was the cause of his wife’s death.

What Avraham did was distance himself from such thoughts – he justified her death to himself  (refer to the above quote from the Ba’al Haturim) by saying her time had come to die anyway because ‘she was old’. The fact that the Torah publicized that he wept briefly for his deceased wife is indeed a huge praise for Avraham.

This methodology used by the Yetzer Hara – discourage from performing, bad intentions while performing, haughtiness or regret after – all cause a person to forfeit any reward due for performing Mitzvahs. It has no value in G-D’s eyes, since it has no value in man’s eyes. This is what we pray for in Ma’ariv every day when we say “v’hoser satan milfaneinu” (“before us [our action] and after us”).

Drinking Problems

By On · Add Comment

ותאמר שתה אדני ותמהר ותורד כדה על ידה ותשקהו. ותכל להשקותו ותאמר גם לגמליך אשאב עד אם כלו לשתות.

“She [Rivka] said, ‘Drink, my lord,’ and quickly she lowered her jug to her hand and gave him [Eliezer] drink. When she finished giving him drink, she said, ‘I will draw water even for your camels, until they have finished drinking.’” (Chayei Sarah, 24:18, 19)

The pasuk in Devarim 11:15, says,  ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעת– “I shall provide grass in your field for your cattle, and you will eat, and you will be satisfied.” The Gemara in Brachos 40a learns from here that one must feed his animals before feeding himself.

What about drinking? Who comes first?

The Sefer Chassidim (531) learns from our pasukim in Chayei Sarah that humans come first. We see this from Rivka, who first gave Eliezer to drink, and only afterwards did she give the camels.

The Shulchan Aruch (O”C 167:6) is discussing a situation in which a person has already made a bracha on his food, and between that and eating, he discusses something that is of the interests of the meal. In such a case, one does not need to make a new bracha. One of the examples the Shulchan Aruch gives is that one asks someone else to feed his animals. This too is considered “tzaruchei seudah,” as the Gemara says, one must feed his animals before he feeds himself. The Magen Avraham (ibid 18), contrasts this with drinking. In such a situation, if one were to ask another to give his animals to drink, one might (see Machatzis HaShekel) have to make a new bracha. He bases this on the Sefer Chassidim’s limud from Rivka. According to the Sefer Chassidim, since humans come before animals regarding drinking, it would thereby not be tzarchei seudah to discuss giving them to drink first. The Mishna Brurah (ibid 40) brings this Magen Avraham as halacha l’meisah.

The Yad Ephraim (ibid) asks, surely there is a better proof to this Halacha (that regarding drinking humans come before animals), from the pasuk in Parshas Chukas (20:8),והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם – “You shall bring forth for them water from the rock, and give drink to the assembly and to their animals.” (It seems that his question stems from the fact that this pasuk is after Matan Torah, as opposed to the pasuk in Chayei Sarah. However, the Yad Ephraim obviously did not see the Sefer Chassidim inside, for the Sefer Chassidim does learn from that pasuk as well). He quotes the Ohr HaChaim (in Parshas Chukas and here in Chayei Sarah) who says that we cannot use either of these pasukim as proofs that man comes before animals with regard to drinking, since both are cases where man was in a situation of great thirst. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that one should give man to drink before animals. However, under normal circumstances there is no difference between food and drink; animals come first.

The Kli Chemda (Chayei Sara 4) writes that the Sefer Chassidim meant nothing different than the Ohr HaChaim, that animals always come first unless the human is specifically uncomfortable, be it hunger or thirst. He extracts this by the wording of the Sefer Chassidim: לענין צמאון אדם ובהמה יתנו לאדם תחילה ואח”כ לבהמה – “Regarding [the] thirst of man and animal we give to man first and afterward to animal.” The Sefer Chassidim does not say לענין שתייה – “regarding drink,” but rather “thirst.” If so, he means exactly as the Ohr HaChaim.

(According to the Kli Chemda a new halacha would appear. That is, specifically one who was not uncomfortably thirsty yet he wanted to have a drink, makes a bracha on his drink. But before taking a sip, he asks of a friend to quickly give his animals to drink. This would be considered tzarchei seuda according to the Kli Chemda’s interpretation of the Sefer Chassidim. One would thereby not be required to make a new bracha. However, for one who is thirsty, this would not be considered tzarchei seudah, and would require a new bracha. This is clearly not how the Magein Avraham and others understood the Sefer Chassidim.)

This suggestion of the Kli Chemda in interpretation of the Sefer Chassidim is difficult to accept, besides for the fact that many other Torah giants did not understand the Sefer Chassidim this way. Surely this is due to the contrast the Sefer Chassidim draws between drink and food. The Sefer Chassidim begins by saying, “Regarding [the] thirst of man and animal we must give to man first and afterward to animal,” and he continues by sourcing the pasukim in Chayei Sara and Chukas. He then contrasts this as follows: אבל באכילה הבהמה קודמת – “But as for eating, the animal is first,” and he carries on by citing the appropriate pasukim as proofs. Now, according to the Kli Chemda, why does the Sefer Chassidim contrast “thirst” with “eating”? A better contrast would have been “thirst” and “not thirsty,” or “hunger” and “not hungry.” Rather it certainly appears that clearly the Sefer Chassidim’s intention was to differentiate between food and drink, and that by “thirst” he meant “drink,” as all other Achronim understood him.

Other Achronim are bothered with the Sefer Chassidim’s halacha for a reason other than the Ohr HaChaim’s. How can we learn from Rivka who gave Eliezer before the camels if the camels were not her own. It seems clear from the Gemara in Brachos that this halacha to give to animals first is only if they are one’s own animals. There is no notion that one would have to feed every stray cat on the block before sitting down to lunch. If so, Rivka did not have any obligation whatsoever (not even tzar baalei chayim, see Igros Moshe O”C 2, 52) to give the camels to drink. Naturally, she gave Eliezer first. And as part of her great altruistic characteristics, she gave the camels too. But how can one see from this story any proof to who comes first in drink between man and animal?

The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe, Chayei Sara) brings the Elya Raba who asks this question. The Chasam Sofer explains that really the halacha is not like the Sefer Chassidim, and that even for drink animals come first. He elucidates Rivka’s actions based on the Gemara Baba Metzia 49a, that one can be makneh a small gift just by saying so. There is no requirement for a physical transaction (maiseh kinyan). That is why she said “Drink, my lord,” and quickly gave him to drink even before mentioning giving to camels to drink. She had been makneh just enough water to him to quench his own thirst, but no more, in order to insure that he was not required to give to the camels. Had she said, “I will give you and your camels to drink,” Eliezer would have acquired from her enough water for himself and the camels, and would have had to give the camels first, despite his thirst. Rivka chose her words wisely in order to insure that Eliezer got before the camels.

The Ksav Sofer (Teshuvos, O”C 32) uses his father’s interpretation to illuminate the pasuk in Chukas. “You shall bring forth for them water from the rock, and give drink to the assembly and to their animals.” He asks, why was it necessary for Hashem to tell Moshe Rabbeinu והשקית – “give drink” to the people? Would it not suffice to say, “You shall bring forth for them water from the rock”?  Once Moshe Rabbeinu had released water from the rock, the people would have been perfectly capable in getting the water themselves. The Ksav Sofer answers that had Hashem just said that, then every individual would have attained water from Hashem and would have been required to give to their animals first. In order to insure that the people themselves would quench their thirst first, Hashem specifically said to Moshe Rabbeinu that he was to give them to drink. Meaning that as the water left the rock it was given by Hashem into Moshe’s possession. Thereby it was not considered to be given to the people directly by Hashem, but rather from Moshe specifically enough for each individual. Thereby they were not required to give their animals first. After their thirst was quenched, they were allowed to have more for their animals. Clearly, the Chasam Sofer and the Ksav Sofer did not see the necessity to learn these pasukim as the Sefer Chassidim did.

In defense of the Sefer Chassidim, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe O”C 2, 52) suggests that clearly Rivka was obligated to do tzedaka towards Eliezer. Inasmuch, her requirement was to do so in the form that Eliezer himself would have needed to do. Meaning, in the same way that had Eliezer had his own water he would have had to give the camels first due to his obligation of tzedaka toward the animals (if the halacha is the same by drink as it is by food, as those who oppose the Sefer Chassidim believe), so too when Rivka was to give water to Eliezer she was to give it to him in the same way that he would have distributed it. Her mitzvah of tzedaka toward Eliezer required her to do that which held preliminary status among his obligations. That is, to give to the camels first, albeit that they were not her own. Since we see that she rather gave to Eliezer first, the Sefer Chassidim learned from here that it must be because the halacha by drinking is that man comes before animal.

A question one might ask on this is, never mind that the camels were not Rivka’s, they weren’t Eliezer’s either! They belonged to Avraham Avinu, as did Eliezer who was his slave. Inasmuch as this halacha did not apply to him, how could Rivka be fulfilling her obligation via his obligation if he didn’t have such an obligation to begin with? The answer to this seems to be, that all these halachos of feeding animals are obligatory not to the monetary owner of the animal, but rather to the one who carries out the feedings (“mizonosav alecha,” see O”C 324:11 and Mishnah Berurah 29). Often, they can be the same person. But in the case of Eliezer, although he was not the monetary owner of the camels, they were given into his care. It was thereby his requirement toward the camels, and thus Rivka’s requirement to act according to Eliezer’s, as Rav Moshe writes. This same idea can be used to redefine the pasuk in Chukas. It was Moshe Rabbeinu’s obligation to give the Jews to drink according to their very own obligation towards their animals. Thus, since he carried this out by first giving the people to drink and only then to their animals, we see that when it comes to drinking, man comes before animals.

(See the Yad Ephraim who explains  על דרך דרושwhy there should be this discrepancy between food and drink.)

To Run or Not To Run

By On · Add Comment

As Avraham recovers from his circumcision, the temperature gets blazingly hot, with the intention that Avraham relax and recover.

. וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה’ בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁ בפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיַּרְא וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה

Hashem appeared to him in the plains of Mamre; and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot. He raised his eyes and noticed three men were approaching him, and he saw them. He ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

His location “from the entrance of the tent” is established when the setting is described, yet repeated when he departs. Why?

The Kehilas Yitzchak explains that the Gemara in Brachos teaches that one who  leaves a synagogue should not take large steps while leaving - he shouldn’t appear happy when finishing a mitzvah. There is also a halacha in he Shulchan Aruch that it is a mitzvah to run towards any mitzvah.

If someone is switching from one mitzvah to another, should he run or not? A paradox is presented:  if he runs, it appears to devalue the first mitzvah; if he doesn’t run, then he isn’t doing the mitzvah of running to perform the second mitzvah!

The resolution is that if the first mitzvah is greater than the second, then he shouldn’t run; so as to not devalue the first and greater mitzvah. If the second mitzvah is greater, the he should run in order to fulfill the second greater mitzvah with haste and zeal. What if the two are equal? He should walk the first half of the journey and run the second half, in this way he fulfills both his obligations.

So how did Avraham conduct his behaviour? The Gemara in Shabbos teaches that taking in guests is greater than speaking to Hashem.

If so, when Avraham went to take in guests, although previously speaking to Hashem, the second mitzvah was greater than the first, Avraham had to run the entire journey.

Therefore the Torah writes that he ran towards them to praise his eagerness to run towards the second mitzvah the entire journey; “from the entrance of the tent”.

Its All Relative

By On · Add Comment

Hashem sends two angels, one to save Lot and the other to destroy Sedom. The people of Sedom became so twisted and corrupt that Hashem had to destroy the entire city. Sedom knew the concept idea of kindness and chessed; they just twisted it in the most perverse way.

Chazal teach that if someone were too tall for a bed, they would cut off his legs so he would fit. Give Tzeddaka, plenty of it, just don’t let the pauper use those coins to buy food in the city. Sedom took the attribute of chesed and warped it to what they saw as ethical, what they believed kindness to be.

Lot brings the angels, disguised as travelers  into his home, prohibited by law in Sedom. He offers them food and lodging, punishable by death. A mob gathers to dispense justice, and when the people of Sedom want to attack the travelers, Lot offers his two daughters in their place, and is willing to give up his own life to save his guests. The angels intercede, striking their attackers with blindness. They subsequently inform Lot that he must flee from Sedom to save himself.

Rashi (19:29) says that Lot merited from being rescued from Sedom because when Avraham put Sarah in a box before going into Egypt, Lot didn’t tell the Egyptians that Sarah was hidden inside. Lot could have told the Egyptians who would then kidnap Sarah, kill Avraham, and Lot would inherit all of Avraham’s property; but instead he kept his mouth shut.

Lot’s only true merit was from not informing on Avraham and Sarah; he had nothing else.

Why in the world would Lot not get any merit for hosting guests in the incredible manner delineated above? Lot was willing to give up his life for them; yet his only merit came from not getting his uncle killed?

Rashi (19:17) also says that the angels warned Lot not to look at Sedom being destroyed because Lot himself wasn’t fit to be saved through his own merit, but only through Avraham’s merit which is controversial to what I just said above.

Rav Dessler says that if a person was taught as a child all the laws of Shabbos and he grows up in a Shomer Shabbos house, then he doesn’t get much credit for not turning on a light on Shabbos. This person doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. He knows not to (and why not to) turn on a light on Shabbos. The disgrace that he would be in his friends and family’s eyes, stop him from even thinking about it. Thus his struggle in life doesn’t include the will he/won’t he use the lights on Shabbos, but something more sophisticated; such as will he study Torah for a bit on Shabbas? Or will he be haughty when he interacts with friends?

The point is that every Jew is on their own level with their own respective trials and tribulations. But something that you are so accustomed to do, that you are taught to do your whole life, stops becoming a test for you eventually – it literally becomes natural. The Evil Inclination has no pull over something so naturally ingrained into a person.

Lot grew up in the house of the kindest man who ever lived – the epitome of chessed. After living with Avraham for so long, and following his example day by day, Lot became so accustomed to hosting guests, to the point where he had no choice in the matter. Lot had to be kind to people, he’d been living that way for so long. If so, says Rav Dessler, Lot’s conduct of self sacrifice are not as valuable as they appear. There is still merit received for mitzvos done with no choice, but it wouldn’t have been enough to save Lot.

On the other hand, Lot had extreme passion for financial success.

As we see later  Lot parts from Avraham due to a financial disagreement. If Lot would’ve informed on Sarah, he would have been phenomenally wealthy. He would inherit Avraham’s property and live a happy life. This was truly a difficult test for Lot, in a field he hadn’t had training or experience. Lot conquered his inclination for money, and didn’t tell on Sarah.

Through this act alone, which appears fairly insignificant to the unenlightened eye, Lot merited to be saved from the destruction of Sedom.

The value of our actions is directly proportional to the effort expended to perform them.

Why isnt the episode of Avraham in Ur Kasdim in the Torah?

By On · Add Comment

Our Shemona Esrei, the staple point of prayer, begins with a Tefila called Avos.  Avos goes through how Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov each accepted and were accepted by Hashem. The Bracha ends off with ברוך אתה…מגן אברהם.

The Beis Yosef in in the Tur brings down a Midrash from Shivulei Haleket  that says that each Brachaof Shemona Esrei is in essence what the angels said when an awe-inspiring event happened in the history of the Jews. For example when Yitzchak was brought as a Korban the Melachim cried out Mechayay Hamasim or when Yosef was taught 70 languages by the Malaach Gavriel, the Melachim cried out חונן הדעת. So what is the story behind מגן אברהם ?

In this weeks Parsha (15:7) G-d proclaims to Avraham “I am Hashem who took you out of Ur Kasdim to give to you this land as an inheritance”. (Rashi 11:28). Many of the Meforshim bring down that אברהם  figured out on his own that there was a monotheistic creator and traveled around the world preaching this claim. Nimrod, the leader of the World at the time, wasn’t satisfied with him and threw him into a fire from which he walked out 3 days later, unscathed as Hashem had protected him. At this point the Melachim in heaven screamed out מגן אברהם‘’ – ‘the G-d who protects Avraham  ‘ which is what we do too in our Shemonah Esrei to commemorate this incredible miracle.

This is a beautiful Midrash which shows how Avraham was willing to give up his life for G-d even before He showed Himself to Avraham. There is only one question: Why didn’t the Torah tell us about this incident? The Tanach brings so many other cases of people dying Al Kiddush Hashem, why not mention this one? Yes, it is mentioned in Oral Torah , but this looks like one of the focal points of Avrahams life, so why wouldn’t the Torah mention it any other form other than בדרך רמז  (hint)? (רשי 11:28)

The Shela asks this question (Sefer Yad Hashela) and gives an incredible answer. We have a Halacha that at certain times (when forced to kill someone, have illicit relations, or commit the sin of idol worship)  a Jew must give up his life rather than committing a forced sin upon himself (Please ask your Rav for confirmation). This is called dying אל קידוש ה’ .

The Shela says that this Halacha is true only when a Jew is forced to commit the sin. But, if the Jew brought the issue on himself, it would not be called dying אל קידוש ה’ . He brought it upon himself to be killed and that is not what G-d wanted. Avraham did just that. He went too far trying to convince the world that there was a G-d and he brought it upon himself to be thrown into the furnace. Since Avraham acted against Halacha the Torah couldn’t have written it down because as we know the Torah is a book of laws, not a story book. Therefore the only way we could mention this incredible act of Avraham is in the Oral Torah . The Shela finishes and asks  why did Avraham go against Halacha? He answers that it was at a time when the world was so entrenched with idol worship that Avraham needed to go against Halacha to put an end to it. This is fine for Avraham as Hashem obviously agreed with his course of action, but it is not a way of living for us to emulate and thus it is only hinted in our Torah in the two words Ur Kasdim.

Learning From The Animals

By On · Add Comment

When Hashem informs Noah of the impending flood,  a distinction is made for the first time in the Torah between kosher (“טהור”) animals and non-kosher (“טמא”) animals.

At the time, this was not practical dietary information; man was not yet permitted to consume meat, its criticality to the kosher diet was not known until Sinai. Yet was a certain relevance to the people of the time who kept the Seven Noachide Laws – they were only allowed to bring offerings from kosher animals.

When Noah is informed how to populate the ark: “of every pure animal you shall take” (7:2); whereas concerning the non-kosher animals he is told “they will come to you” (6:20). Why did the kosher ones need to be sought out?

The word טהור is related to the word “צהור” meaning transparent, which describes allowing for light to pass through something. Consequently, purity has the connotations of being receptive, being able to accept the light of God.

The dietary laws for which Jews are obligated to keep for all of time are not intended to preserve bodily health, nor are they related to climatic conditions – both reasons being documented elsewhere. After all, we have a responsibility to ensure that non-Jewish residents living in Israel keep the law (גר תושב) are taken care of, and it is completely permitted to do so using non-kosher food products.

The actual reason, as explained by  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, is that animals are “pure” if they are receptive to human influence; they submit their nature to man without requiring taming; they serve his purposes; and instinct and passion do not overwhelmingly predominate them. Animals which are “impure” have that status because they are unable to be controlled, and can only be tamed, if at all, through violence, which is detrimental to nature.

The same applies when animals are to be used for sacrifices. The main function of a sacrifice is to express complete dedication to God. Through the blood spilled we symbolically devote our lifeblood to God’s will. Therefore only animals which closely align to man’s nature are suitable for a sacrifice. The characteristics of the kosher animals are what Jews should aspire to have within them – the ability to subdue instinct. Accordingly, only those animals that were later permitted to Jews as food are fit to be used as offerings – the same reason applies in both instances.

Consequently we can see why Noah was commanded to actively seek out the pure animals, while the impure animals would come to him. The pure animals by their very nature are meant to inform mankind of the mission, the duty to overcome what comes naturally, which, back then, was achieved by offering them as a sacrifice. Today we achieve this by eating them.

Literally food for thought.

Optimum Kindness

By On · Add Comment

Regarding the extent of the severity of the flood, we are told:

וימח את כל היקום אשר על פני האדמה מאדם עד בהמה עד רמש ועד עוף השמים וימחו מן הארץ וישאר אך נח ואשר אתו בתבה – Hashem blotted out all existence on the face of the Earth – from man; to animals; to creeping things; and to the birds of the skies; and they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah survived, and those with him in the Ark.” (7:23)

Rashi quotes the Midrash that teaches that Noah was once late to feed a lion, and it bit him in the leg. The Midrash extrapolates this from this verse, from the word “אך” – “only,” which implies a limitation – an exception. The “limitation” was Noah himself, that he was more limited; a part of him was missing – having been bitten off by the lion.

What is the goal and function of this teaching? What is the significance of this account?

The Gemara in Bava Metzia states that whenever R’ Chanina and R’ Chiya were in a dispute, R’ Chanina would say to R’ Chiya; “If the Torah were to be forgotten in Israel, I would restore it using my argumentative ability.”

R’ Chiya would reply to R’ Chanina: “I already made sure that Torah should not be forgotten in Israel. I  planted flax and made nets from it, trapped deers with the nets. I fed their meat to orphans, and prepared scrolls from their skins, upon which I wrote the five books of Torah. Then I went to a town which contained no teachers and taught each of the five books to five children, and the six orders of the Talmud to six children. And I instructed them: ‘Until I return, teach each other the Torah and the Mishna;’ and thus I preserved the Torah from being forgotten in Israel.”

The obvious question is why he didn’t just buy some parchment ready-made. Was it necessary for R’ Chiya to go through all the entire manufacturing process just to obtain some parchment?

The Maharsha explains that in commencing something, one must be sure that it starts out fundamentally sound. Thus, R’ Chiya intended to ensure that the continuation of Torah would spread from solid foundations. There was no room for financial impropriety leading to the emergence of the parchment in the marketplace; they needed to be secured in holiness from the outset. He could only do this if directly under his own supervision.

However, this itself begs extra clarification. Why was all this necessary? The Mishna in Avos 1:2 teaches: “Shimon HaTzadik used to say: ‘The world is stands on three things: On Torah, on Service (Prayer), and on Acts of Kindness”. Rabbeinu Yona explains that “the world stands” on these three things means that these are the purpose of creation; creation happened in order to bring these things into being.

It is evident then, that if one of these three things were removed from the equation, creation would have no reason for this world to exist. To this end, R’ Chaim of Volozhin writes regarding the study of Torah, that if not a single Jew across the globe were to learn for even one second, the entire universe would cease to be.

It is for this reason that R’ Chiya needed to take extreme measures to insure the future of Torah learning. One of the three foundations of the world certainly requires impeccable establishment.

With this insight we can explain the Midrash’s story of Noah being attacked.

The Midrash teaches that until the Torah was given and the Mishkan built, Torah and Prayer were not required; and the sole foundation the world stood on was Acts of Kindness. Rashi quotes the Gemara in Sanhedrin that explains that although the generation of the flood was guilty with all sorts of activity, it was only due to their “חמס” – corruption, theft and extortion – that their fate was sealed. Because the world at that point stood only – or was created only – for the perpetuation of kindness. By going to the opposite extreme, by robbing and cheating each other, they doomed themselves. Without standing up for the purpose of the world, they retained no purpose in existence.

Noah and his family had a very particular job to accomplish in the Ark. Rashi suggests another interpretation of the word “אך” : that Noah was himself, less. This means that he started out eager and excited, but then sighed and groaned about the burden of his duty to care for the animals. Chazal teach that for all twelve months in the Ark, Noach and his sons did not sleep, for there were always more animals to feed. (This poses a slight difficulty – as if he was always at work, he could never be “late” per se.) But this certainly seems odd – if Hashem found Noah to be righteous among his generation – at least enough to warrant his survival – why trouble him for the duration of the flood to such an extent that he was overworked? Why not simply allow him to enjoy the cruise?

As the Midrash said; at that time there was but one purpose to the world: Acts of Kindness. That generation had destroyed their foundations, resulting in their annihilation. It is not a stretch then, to say that Noah’s “job” was to rectify and restore Kindness; to rebalance the world on its single, shaky leg. He could not sit back and enjoy the cruise; of course he had work to do!

In rebalancing the world with Noah, Kindness required that he not just feed one animal from time to time, but to go to great lengths – to the extent of not sleeping for an entire year – to feed all animals, all the time. All this was necessary to counter the severity of the destruction to the pillar of Kindness caused by his generation. This is congruent to the story of R’ Chiya who also exhausted great efforts in establishing the pillar of Torah.

So the Midrash tells us; at one point Noah slacked, or came late. This was a disaster – given the magnitude of his task. He was the one chosen to perpetuate Kindness, and his performance needed to be perfect – being late was not an option. The lion delievered this message to Noah by biting him.

To balance the world, imperfections were intolerable and could not be afforded. It is implied that the lion bit Noah in the leg, as we are told that he left the Ark limping – and the symbolism is clear; in reestablishing the “leg” of the world there must not be any fault.

There is an old joke: “Why do flamingos stand on one leg? Because if they lift it, they’ll fall.” In causing Noah to limp, he was reminded of just how delicate his world was, standing on it’s one “leg,” it’s one purpose – Kindness. It may only be one “leg” but it would be enough to give life to the world. The world needed Noah’s Kindness on the Ark to be done to a perfect level. The lion bite was a rectification for his infraction, however slight.

But the world got its’ leg to stand on, a purpose, in his חסד – Kindness.

Antagonists

By On · Add Comment

Avraham is blessed by Hashem after the Akeida:

כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו – I will bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants, like the stars of the heavens, and like the sand on the seashore; and your descendants will inherit the cities of their enemies. (22:17)

Years later, Lavan blesses Rivka as she leaves to marry Yitzchak:

וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֶת רִבְקָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהּ אֲחֹתֵנוּ אַתְּ הֲיִי לְאַלְפֵי רְבָבָה וְיִירַשׁ זַרְעֵךְ אֵת שַׁעַר שֹׂנְאָיו – And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “Our sister, may you become thousands of myriads, and may your seed inherit the cities of those who hate you.” (24:60)

Rashi notes that Lavan is quoting the blessing received by Avraham, that she’d “inherit the cities” of her antagonists. But the quote is not identical.

What is the difference between אֹיְבָיו – enemies and שֹׂנְאָיו – those who hate you?

R’ Yehoshua Hartman points to where the two are used in conjunction to note the difference.

וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה קוּמָה ה’ וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ – So it was, whenever the Ark set out, Moses would say, “Arise, Lord, may Your enemies be scattered and may those who hate You flee from You.”

Rashi says that אויביך is enemies who are assembled for battle, and that וינסו משנאיך are pursuers. There is a distinction between an enemy and a pursuer. The word אויב is is similar in root to the word אוהב – to love. Both verbs are a result of closeness. A שונא however, is someone whose hatred transcends proximity, and will pursue. Eisav is referred to as שונא ישאל, and Yishmael is referred to as אויב ישראל, and circumstances on the ground reflect this – if a Jewish State had been set up in Uganda, there would be no problems with the Palestinians and neighbours, inheritors of the mantle of Yishmael – the situation is a result of being together.

Conversely, the Nazis had little to do with Jews worldwide, and yet their extermination campaign spanned the globe; truly the definition of רודף. But how does this insight correlate to the different terminology Rivka and Avraham were blessed with? R’ Hartman explains that at Mt. Moriah, the blessing was to Avraham, for Yitzchak, regarding his Yishmael – the אויב, therefore the pasuk says שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו. In contrast, Rivka received a bracha that was for Yakov, regarding Esav, and Esav is a שונא, and therefore the pasuk says שַׁעַר שֹׂנְאָיו.

Embittered Lives

By On · Add Comment

Hashem told Avraham that his children would be enslaved in a land not their own for 400 years. Yet we find that they left after just 210 years of actual enslavement. Where are the missing 190 years?

There is an answer suggested that Egypt treated the Jews much worse than they should have, so as we say in ברוך המקום during Seder night:

ש”הקבה חשב את הקץ – Hashem calculated the end. What “end” is this talking about? Hashem hastened the גאולה and reckoned off קץ – 190 (from 400)- leaving us with 210.

In the Haggada we read how וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם – They embittered their lives (Shemos 1:1)

The Vilna Gaon points out how this is very subtly hinted to by the notes. The notes on וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם are קדמא ואזלא, which literally means “they got up and went”. Additionally, the numerical value of this is 190! They were over-embittered to a value of 190, so they got up and went!

R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld points out that the redemption from Egypt was only completed 7 days after it began, when the Red Sea parted and when Paroh and his army were destroyed, so where is this reflected in historical events?

He answers that the 400 years were counted from Yitzchak’s birth. The extra week is found at his circumcision. Yitzchak was only circumcised 7 days after his birth – so only became Jewish then, and only 400 years from then were the Jews genuinely free.

An eighth of an eighth

By On · Add Comment

There is a Gemara in Sota 5a says that it is good to be humble, and quantifies this as an eighth of an eighth (1/64). This is seemingly arbitrary as the number is random, and how would we measure 1/64th of arrogance to find the suitable degree of humility?

The Vilna Gaon (biography here) has classic answer, that the 8th pasuk in the 8th parsha (Vayishlach) says “קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכָּל הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ – I have become small from all the kindnesses and from all the truth that You have rendered Your servant” – on which Rashi elaborates ” קטנתי מכל החסדים : נתמעטו זכיותי על ידי החסדים והאמת שעשית עמי – I have become small: My merits have diminished because of the kindnesses and the truth that You have rendered me”. This is a classic answer to what the Gemara is referencing, that we should assume that our merits have become small and that we are not actually all that, considering all G-d has done for us.

The Koheles Yitzchak delves deeper into the number 64, and says that the Gemara in Megila 29 tells the story of how all the mountains spoke to G-d, as it were, and competed for the right to have the Ten Commandents given on them, and Mt. Sinai “won” the right, and we are informed that one of the mountains was call Tabor.

In a Gemara in Bava Basra 73, the measurements of Tabor are listed, that it was 4 parsa tall, which is 16 mil, and a mil is the distance a person can walk outside a poulated area on Shabbos – 2,000 amot (cubits), so 16×2,000 cubits = 32,000.

There is a Mishna in Midos 2:1 that says that Mt Sinai was 500 cubits high. 500 fits 64 times into 32,000, ie Mt Sinai was 1/64th as tall as Tabor, and it was selected.

There is a third answered suggested by the Maharsha (biography here), that the word for arrogance in Hebrew – גס - has the numerical value of 63. Being a part of something greater (1/64th) is the way we should perceive things.

Yesimcha Elokim k’Efraim v’chMenashe

By On · Add Comment

Why do we bless our children  that they should become like Efraim and Menashe instead of any other of the myriad blessings available?  How is it that they were able to inherit from Yakov a portion equivalent to that of the previous generation, their uncles?

My Zaide explained that Menashe and Efraim were worthy of being considered Yakov’s own children and two of the 12 Tribes because they were born and raised in Egypt. The Uncles (Reuven, Shimon etc,) were raised in Yakov’s house; It’s not so big a blessing to say that to continue tread the path you’re already on. But the fact that 2 boys, born in Egypt, to a father who was the viceroy of Egypt who had left his heritage at 17 (and we could understand if he’d sought to cut off ties with his past, the past that he’d been exiled from by his brothers), that is a massive chiddush, that people can rise from the 49th level of tuma and become one of the Shivtei Ka. This is truly inspirational and affirms that each of us has unlimited potential. This is the blessing we give our children, that they should transcend all obstacles, just like Efraim and Menashe.

Another explanation given by D, is that neither son objected when Yaakov switched hands to bless them, and said that the younger son would become greater. There was no hint of jealousy or animosity from one to the other, they were content with their lot. Menashe was happy for Ephraim to be first and Ephraim merely accepted the reponsibility of his portion without gloating. D explains that the blessing we give to our children is that they should have this relationship with each other (which perhaps leads on to what my Zaide says?).

Forgiveness – Big deal?

By On · Add Comment

When the brothers apologise to Yosef, he rebutted this by saying “אַל תִּירָאוּ כִּי הֲתַחַת אלֹהִים אָנִי – “Don’t be afraid, for am I instead of God?” (50:19). It is unclear what exactly he means, but certainly he is not annoyed.

The Baal Haturim suggests that this is is poetic justice as this is precisely what his mother had been told when she begged for children from their father, at which point he said “הֲתַחַת אֱ־לֹהִים אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר מָנַע מִמֵּךְ פְּרִי בָטֶן - “Am I instead of God, Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (30:2)

The Maharil Diskin wonders why a simple yes/no answer isn’t enough, and we can (and have) explained that he did not actually forgive them, but did not say this. We can look deeper into his words: In Parshas Matos (30:7-9) the pasuk describes a woman who makes a vow, but then her husband annuls it. In an event where she did not know he had annulled it, and she thinks she is deliberately breaking it, the pasuk says “‘והֹ יִסְלַח לָהּ“ – “…and the Lord will forgive her.” This is astounding – she has technically done absolutely nothing wrong – her vow had been annulled at the time of her actions, and yet there is a certain something that requires forgiveness! And the same thing was true here:

The brothers thought they had committed a horrendously evil act to their brother, and even though circumstantially it turned out for the best in the end, and the family were reunited – just as in the case of a woman who circumstantially did nothing wrong – there was still a certain something that required forgiveness. The Maharil Diskin suggests an alternate explanation to that which the Baal Haturim suggested, that this is exactly what Yosef was saying here.  Due to the turn of events they had done nothing wrong, but he was not in the place of Hashem, because as we said by the woman, they needed G-d’s forgiveness.

In layman’s terms, the ends do not justify the means. Yosef was telling his brothers that they were only circumstantially sorry.

Rabbeinu Bachaye  shares a frightening thought that is brilliant. He takes the concept of Yosef not forgiving his brothers a step further, and suggests that this resulted in the Asara Harugei Malchus, one of the greatest tragedies in Jewish history, and one died in lieu of each of the group who’d sold Yosef. Yaakov was not told, as an oath was made as a group of 10 (a minyan) to not tell him, and such an oath cannot be annulled.

But why were there 10 martyrs then, as there weren’t 10 men present at the sale? Binyamin was not there, Reuven had gone home, and we can’t include Yosef as part of such a minyan? There is a concept that a minyan can take place with 9 as Hashem joins in – Hashem was the 10th member of this group.

R’ Shamshon Ostropolier points out that we can expand the pasuk in Bechukosai - “וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ – Any tithe of cattle or flock of all that pass under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord” (27:32)- and there is a deeper meaning to this pasuk, in reference to Rabbi Akiva - וכי למא מת עקיבא, שהוא רואה בקר וצאן הכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ – Why did Akiva die? He was just a shepherd! When he passed under the staff (judgement?) he was the tenth, holy for G-d.

There is another allusion to this in Parshas Vayigash (45:15), that “וַיֵּבְךְּ עֲלֵיהֶם – and he cried on them” – we can break up עֲלֵיהֶם and read it על י ה”ם - for the ten Harugei Malchus.

Scary. So not that any of us are like Yosef and his brothers, but it’s clear that we should be more forgiving to people for what they may do to us.

Handy Tips from Yaakov

By On · Add Comment

When Yosef brings his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe, to his father Yaakov, to bless them, we find Yaakov does something quite curious:

שכל את ידיו – he maneuvered his hands… (48:14)

He switched around his right hand with his left, so that Ephraim, the younger son, was under his right hand. But why did he not just tell Menashe and Ephraim to switch places?

R’ Chaim Volozhin explains that the nature of the average person is to talk down the positive attributes of his fellow, but when it comes to the negative side, he is ready to speak up and even exaggerate the other’s bad traits. In this way, he will look good compared with his friend.

Indeed, when one stands opposite his fellow, one’s left is the other’s right and vice-versa. This hints to the fact that his friend’s right, or stature, stands opposite his left, generally the one seen as weaker, i.e. weakening his friend’s strengths, whereas his friend’s left, i.e. weaker side, is opposite his right, i.e. contrasting his own strengths with his friends weaknesses.

Yaakov was the ultimate man of truth, not wishing to detract or embellish any characteristic. He only crosses his hands – the result being that his right hand corresponds with the boys’ right and his left with theirs!

It teaches us a really important, says R’ Moshe Shternbuch – how careful we must be when relating to the strengths and weaknesses of our friends (and others!), placing our right opposite their right…

He cites the Rambam for further proof – ”it’s a mitzva upon every person to to love his fellow Jew as himself as it says ואהבת לרעך כמוך. Therefore, he must tell of his praiseworthy points…as himself…”.

As an addendum, Gav C pointed out that the Ohr Hachaim says a beautiful idea associated with the above: it says שכל את ידיו כי מנשה הבכור – he maneuvered his hands because Menashe was the firstborn – surely Menashe being the firstborn would be reason to not cross hands!?
So he answers that just before, we were told that ”Yisrael’s eyes were heavy from old age and he could not see”. This indicates that he couldn’t see who was Menashe – the firstborn – and who was Ephraim. So when it came to blessing them, he knew who he wanted under his right hand. He worked out in his mind that Yosef would have placed Menashe on his right – therefore he crossed his hands because he knew where the firstborn was, and because Menashe was the בכור!

Dying of Embarrassment

By On · Add Comment

There is a Midrash that says that when we eventually go up to Heaven and are put on trial to account for our lives, we will be as embarrassed as the brothers were in front of Yosef. The Beis Halevi shares a marvellous idea on this.

On a superficial level, we can understand this Midrash by simply saying that we cannot bluff someone who sees the bigger picture. The brothers claimed that their brother was not with them, but Yosef knew why he wasn’t really with them, and when he revealed himself to them, they actually died of embarrasment according to some commentators. Even if we don’t learn this, it’s clear what the metaphor is trying to portray. There was nothing they could say.

But we can look at it in a deeper fashion, and admire the nobility Yosef displayed. For one: וְלֹא יָכֹל יוֹסֵף לְהִתְאַפֵּק לְכֹל הַנִּצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיִּקְרָא הוֹצִיאוּ כָל אִישׁ מֵעָלָי וְלֹא עָמַד אִישׁ אִתּוֹ בְּהִתְוַדַּע יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו – Now Yosef could not bear all those standing beside him, and he called out, “Take everyone away from me!” So no one stood with him when Yosef made himself known to his brothers.

On which Rashi remarks that whatbYosefncould not bear was that some Egyptians would stand beside him, and hear his brothers being embarrassed when he would reveal his true identity to them.

We must not forget that at this point, from the brothers perspective at least, they had been harrassed and interrogated by a foreign ruler, and they had him on their own; he was unguarded. There was every possibility they’d have murdered him and escaped (Shimon and Levi in particular had a track record…), but he could not bear to embarass them publicly.

But moreover, from 44:20, Yehudah explains that they have an old father and attempt to explain that they did not want to bring Binyamin to Yosef for their fathers sake.

וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו אֲנִי יוֹסֵף הַעוֹד אָבִי חָי וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו – And Yosef said to his brothers, “I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?” but his brothers could not answer him because they were startled by his presence.

The Beis Halevi points out that the first thing he said to them after telling them who he was, was “is my father still alive?”. Clearly he knew Yaakov lived, as Yehudah had spoken at length about him. The fact he asked this question regardless is telling, heartrending and completely ironic. It means “Is he not my father too? Was he not alive back then for you to not have abandoned and disowned me? Is he only alive to you now?”. And they could not say anything, because of course he was right, their hypocrisy had been revealed, which caused them to die of embarrassment, whether we take that literally or figuratively. This is tochacha in its true form (tochacha, usually translated as rebuke, is a form of the word l’hochiach, to prove).

There was nothing they could say, but instead of shouting at them he simply said גְּשׁוּ נָא אֵלַי וַיִּגָּשׁוּ – “Please come closer to me,” and they drew closer (45:4). He hugged them all, and it is simply unfathomable for any of us to have acted in such a way, even when faced with lesser evils than he’d suffered, and it is no small wonder we call him Yosef HaTzaddik with character traits such as these.

Vayigash – A New Approach

By On · Add Comment

ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדני – And Yehudah approached him and said, ‘please my master…’ (44:18)

Another insight into the brilliance of the ta’amei hamikra (cantorial notes): The Vilna Gaon points out that if you look at the notes on these words, you’ll see something astonishing – kadma ve’azla, Revi’i, Zarka, Munach and Segol. But what is so amazing about this? Surely these are standard notes in a pretty standard format?

If you look back to Parshas Miketz (43:9), Yehudah guarantees Binyamin’s safe return by saying, ‘If I don’t bring him back to you and place him before you, then…וחטאתי לך כל הימים – I will be sinning against you all the days‘. The Midrash explains this last phrase to be referring to Olam Haba.

Now let’s have another look at our notes and we will get an insight into what the Vilna Gaon was referring to – firstly, kadma ve’azla, Revi’i – Yehudah, the fourth son (revi’i) went and stepped forward (קדם ואזל) to confront Yosef. Surely Reuven should have been the one to step forward – why Yehudah?
Because he threw himself into a situation where he would be ‘rested from being parted from the Am segula, in Olam Haba – (זרק את עצמו מלנוח בתוך עם סגולה). This is Zarka, Munach and Segol – and Yehudah is prepared to give up everything for his brother.

Geshmack!

Postscript: I do intend at some point, to explain my comment from a previous post, where I suggested that the ta’amei hamikra might be the genius of Chazal, as opposed to the widely accepted view (from the Gemara) that they are Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai…

Random searches?

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says “וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה וַיִּמָּצֵא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּאַמְתַּחַת בִּנְיָמִן - He searched; he started with the eldest and finished with the youngest, and the goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack” (44:12). You would think this means he searched from Reuven’s bag until Binyamin’s bag. Not so. The Midrash Rabba says that the eldest referred to was in fact Shimon. Therefore Yosef only searched this eldest and the youngest, Binyamin. The Griz, the Brisker Rav asks how the Midrash reached this conclusion.

He answers in the name of the Maharil Diskin that in 44:8 the brothers said a kal v’chomer, one of ten in the Torah, that “ הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב: – Behold, the money we found in the mouth of our sacks we returned to you from the land of Canaan; so how could we steal from your master’s house silver or gold?”. However, there are two people who did not make this kal v’chomer: Shimon and Binyamin! Binyamin was not there so he could not say he was as honest as his brothers who returned Yosef’s gold, and in 44:24 it says “וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם – And he took Simeon from among them and imprisoned him before their eyes”.

So the pasuk is actually telling us that the only people who were searched were the oldest and youngest of the people whose honesty had not been proven, Binyamin and Shimon!

Cow Spirituality. What?

By On · Add Comment

וְהִנֵּה מִן הַיְאֹר עֹלֹת שֶׁבַע פָּרוֹת יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר וַתִּרְעֶינָה בָּאָחוּ – And behold, from the Nile were coming up seven cows, of handsome appearance and robust flesh, and they pastured in the marshland. (41:2)

(Rashi)
יפות מראה: סימן הוא לימי שובע, שהבריות נראות יפות זו לזו, שאין עין בריה צרה בחברתה – of handsome appearance: This was a symbol of the days of plenty, when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow. — [from Gen. Rabbah 89:4]

This describes Pharaoh’s dream as he sees it. But why does Rashi interpret the dream, isn’t Yosef about to do that, and differently? Where did Gen. Rabba (source) get this from?

It is interesting to note that the words יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה are used, which we translated as having “handsome appearance”. This is an imprecise translation. If we look to 29:17, “וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת וְרָחֵל הָיְתָה יְפַת תֹּאַר וִיפַת מַרְאֶה – Leah’s eyes were tender, but Rachel had beautiful features and a beautiful complexion.” What is the difference between תֹּאַר and מַרְאֶה? Rashi explains that תאר: הוא צורת הפרצוף לשון (ישעיה מד יג) יתארהו בשרד, קונפ”ס בלע”ז [מחוגה]: – features: That is the form of the countenance, an expression similar to (Isa. 44: 13)“he fixes it (יְתָאִרֵהוּ) with planes (בַשֶׂרֶד) ,” conpas in Old French, outline, shape.

So תֹּאַר is a physical beauty. But what is מַרְאֶה ?
מראה: הוא זיו קלסתר – complexion: That is the shine of the countenance.

So מַרְאֶה is more of a spiritual aura/radiant beauty. However, when Pharaoh dreamed he dreamed of יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה cows, spiritually beautifully cows. If the idea of spiritual cows sound absurd to you, you’re not alone: so did Pharaoh! When he recounted his dream to Yosef (41:18), he changed what he saw to וִיפֹת תֹּאַר, physically beautiful cows, rather than what he’d seen, יפות מראה spiritually radiant cows!

But Rashi and Gen. Rabba that we quoted (“when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow”) worked out what the dream was when we knew that really they’d been spiritually beautiful. Cows don’t have spirits: people do. So clearly, the cows are metaphors for people. This is also how Pharaoh knew that Yosef’s interpretation was right, as he saw that this interpretation accurately describes the nature of people, something he’d seen in his dreams and failed to recount.

But we can answer our original question: why is Rashi interpreting the dream? So the answer is, he isn’t! He’s pointing out to us that יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה should not theoretically be there, and the fact it is shows that there was more than meets the eye, he is telling us to question this.

This Dvar Torah should be a Zchus for the Neshama of Rut Nechama bat Noam Shlomo (v’Revital)

Geshmack!

Because That If….?

By On · Add Comment

Whilst imprisoned, Yosef sayid the following to the butler:” כִּי אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי אִתְּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לָךְ וְעָשִׂיתָ נָּא עִמָּדִי חָסֶד וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְהוֹצֵאתַנִי מִן הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה – Remember me when things go well with you, and please do me a favor and mention me to Pharaoh, and you will get me out of this house.” (40:14).

The words כִּי אִם do not really belong here, as the translation above clearly shows – they do not add or change any meaning in the Pasuk. כִּי אִם translates loosely as “because that”. Certainly this translation is not helpful in understanding the Pasuk What is it then there for? As we have seen many times, it must be because we have not understood the context clearly enough.

There is a story told by the Brisker Rav in the name of his father R’ Chaim Brisker about the Rav of Kovno. The story occurred at the time that Napoleon’s armies were marching through Eastern Europe.The lords and gentry wanted to please Napoleon as his armies passed through their lands, and they wanted to honour him by making a lavish evening whereupon they would bestow gifts and treasures to him. The province’s leaders each took their turn to present him and his delegation with their offerings, and after a while, he noticed none of the Jewish community were represented. He was relatively good to the Jews, and was involved in their emancipation, and questioned why there were no Jewish leaders at the gathering. The pronvince’s leaders shuffled around uncomfortably, and explained that they did not feel the Jews to be members of society worthy of honouring Napoleon. He flew into a rage and insisted they bring a Rabbi, and the gentry grew nervous. They sent for the Rabbi from the nearest town, who happened to be the Rav of Kovno. He was rushed to the ball and Napoleon requested that he say something truthful, something he considered was lacking in the previous speeches. The gentry were quaking at this point.

The Rav referred to that week’s Torah portion, Vayeshev, and said that he had never understood why the Pasuk had said כִּי אִם until the sequence of events that had unfolded that night had enabled him to have an audience requested by Napoleon. He explained that without context, we do not see the bigger picture, with regards to what Napoleon was doing in this far flung corner of Europe. He said that things do not just happen coincidentally. Everything is ordained, everything is planned in Heaven. Yosef was saying to the butler that he was innocent, and certainly that was the case: how does one prevent a fly falling into the wine as it is being drunk? But nevertheless he was imprisoned. For what purpose?

כִּי אִם, “you are here because (I.e. – in order) that you must remember me when things go well with you”.

The Rav then proceeded to tell Napoleon that the reason he was near Kovno was because the Jews were being oppressed terribly, and he was here to save them. Napoleon applauded, and he saved them by removing the gentry’s stewardship over the Jews (albeit temporarily!).

Everything happens for a reason, sometimes we only realise this at the end.

Thanksgiving – A Jew’s Attitude

By On · Add Comment

The Beis Yosef famously questions why we celebrate 8 days of Chanuka and not 7, seeing as there was enough oil for a day, meaning the benefit from the miracle was 7 days worth.

R’ Yaakov Hillel quotes Rashi on the pasuk where Leah gave birth to her fourth child, (29:35) that is based on a Midrash: הפעם אודה: שנטלתי יותר מחלקי, מעתה יש לי להודות – This time, I will thank: since I have taken more than my share. Consequently, I must offer up thanks.

Bizarrely, the Midrash identifies Leah as the first person to truly praise God. Bizarrely, because many before her thanked and praised God, for example Avraham at the Akeida and Noach after the flood.

The basic understanding of her thanks indicate that her rationale was that each of Yakov’s wives would be mother to 3 of the 12 tribes, and since she had exceeded her fair share, she was grateful for the extra good G-d had done to her. R’ Hillel tells us this is not so.

She did not express thanks solely for the extra, but everything overall. By receiving more than she felt she was due, it contextualised everything she’d been given until then. She realised that she was wrong to calculate or expect anything at all; we can’t second-guess G-d. She realised she was wrong to have assumed that 3 was her “fair share”.

What is natural, what we take for granted and makes sense, is still a miracle.

This is a massive concept, and internalising will change the way you see everything.

Why do we expect to be able to walk tomorrow, to see, to live, to be free, to be well? We are so overly familiar with exceptional processes that we view the incredible as simply “natural”.

There is an amazing Gemara in Taanis 25a about the righteousness of R’ Chanina ben Dosa that illustrates this point. He came home one Friday night and saw his daughter crying, and inquired why. She informed him that she had lit a lamp for Shabbos, that she had thought was filled with oil, but was in fact filled with vinegar, and she was weeping that they would have no light for Shabbos when the wick reached the vinegar, at which point it would extinguish. The reply: “מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק” תנא היה דולק והולך כל היום כולו עד שהביאו ממנו אור להבדלה – “He who said that oil should burn will also say to vinegar to burn.” And the lamp burned the entire following day until they lit a Havdala candle from it. This story speaks volumes about how skewed our perceptions are: nature is not natural.

R’ Hillel explains that we celebrate the “extra” day of Chanuka to teach us something that seems so obvious that we don’t see it – that we must be thankful for every single thing we have and do.

The way of a Jew is “מודה אני” – to be thankful. The first thing a Jew is meant to do in the morning is thank Hashem that they woke up. Sometimes people don’t wake up – I take this opportunity to thank you Hashem. Some people can’t walk; paralysed suddenly, after a lifetime of mobility. Thank you Hashem that I am not one of them.

When we realise that not only are the “miracles” miracles, but everything in between – וְעַל נִסֶּיךָ שֶׁבְּכָל יוֹם עִמָּנוּ, וְעַל נִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ וְטוֹבוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁבְּכָל עֵת, עֶרֶב וָבֹקֶר וְצָהֳרָיִם – then we’re really on our way to true praise of HaShem, and a better understanding of Hashem as the constant Creator.

It is poignant to recognise that we are called יהודים, and the leader of the Maccabi revolution was Yehuda. Being grateful to God, as well as the people around us is the lifeblood of our people.

A Lame Excuse?

By On · Add Comment

ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר…ותקע כף ירך יעקב בהאבקו עמו – ‘and a man wrestled with him until dawn…and his hip-socket was dislocated when he wrestled with him.’

Once we are told that “a man wrestled with him”, isn’t the repetition – “when he wrestled with him” a little redundant?

The Ksav Sofer points out that Rashi gives two interpretations on the word ויאבק: firstly, the word is from אבק - dust – that they kicked up a lot of dust through their movements. Or שחבקו ואבקו בזרועתיו – that they were embracing with their arms (which is also an essential part of wrestling, of course).

The first interpretation is in line with the way that enemies fight with each other, whereas the second has echoes of the way that friends embrace. This is precisely what Chazal mean when they discuss Maaseh Avos Siman LeBonim. (This is a principle that ancestors leave imprints that repeat for their descendants)

There are two ways in which the enemies of the Jewish people try to bring them down (as is famously noted by Chazal in a number of a places – מיד אחי מיד עשו – he needed to be saved from both aspects of Esau as we are about to discuss). The first is by harsh decrees, pogroms, crusades etc. But what happens when they try this? You only need to hear what the Mossad agent who caught Eichmann (according to some – Isser Harel) stated that Eichmann said upon his capture - שמע ישראל ה’ אלקינו ה’ אחד – Shema Yisrael!

When questioned about how he knew this, he testified- as did many other Nazis, that it didn’t matter which type of Jew was in the gas chamber, this was the constant phrase on the lips of those holy martyrs. When oppressed, the Jew gets closer to G-d. This doesn’t work for our enemies. So they try another way – they befriend us, influence us, try to make us one of them. Through this, says the Ksav Sofer, they make us be פוסח על שתי סעיפים – straddling both worlds, so that we have one foot in both worlds and thereby are not totally part of either one, making us unable to walk properly…hence the limp This is the second interpretation of Rashi – because the initial wrestling did not work in overcoming us, they resort to the embrace. Unfortunately, history has shown the second method to be deadlier, as it distances us from G-d. Through this ותקע כף ירך יעקב – the point of the Bris is dislocated!

Amazingly, what follows is ויזרח לו השמש – the sun shone for him – i.e. after the dark period which equates to the harsh treatment of Galus, they attempt the sunshine or friendly treatment. This is the bit that damages us the most and we are פוסח על שתי סעיפים – in two places. And – this is the best part – it is this which indicates the inability to walk properly, or the limp. What are the words which follow ויזרח לו השמש? That he had a limp on his hip, the area of the Bris that signifies are relationship with G-d!

Incidentally, this explains the reason he asked to be saved “miyad achi miyad Eisav“, on the one hand the destroyer, on the other, his brother, how could he resist?

What’s so special about Jewish children?

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says “ה. וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת הַיְלָדִים וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵלֶּה לָּךְ וַיֹּאמַר הַיְלָדִים אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ – And he (Esau) lifted his eyes and saw the women and the children, and he said, “Who are these to you?” And he (Yakov) said, “The children with whom God has favored your servant.” (33:5)

Esau wasn’t a fool, he knew Yakov had his family and entourage with him. This is obvious, as he brought a small army with him to kill them all. So why then, does this conversation take the form of a chance meeting, as if it weren’t apparent who they were and what their connection to Yakov – the head of the family, was?

Clearly, there is something else afoot. The Chafetz Chaim says that Esau saw something different in these children, and he was correct for identifying this difference. They were the first Jewish children – we are Bnei Yisrael, and Yakov’s children were the first of the lot! He saw a difference in them from other children he’d encountered, and we need only look at Yishmael and Esau themselves to see how children behaved in that society, so naturally Yakov’s children owuld act differently.

The Chafetz Chaim explains that the answer to what made them different is in Yakov’s answer. He answered “אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ – with whom God has favored your servant”. Why did it not say the normal word for giving – נתן, instead it says חָנַן. The Chafetz Chaim teaches us that there is something else to be learned here that what made these children different was the merit of חָנַן- the Roshei Teivos of the 3 Mitzvos only women can perform – חלה ,נר , נידה – the laws regarding the seperation of Challah, lighting Shabbos candles, and family purity. Yakov said within his reply to his brother what made his children special, that his wives observed these laws.

There are other interpretations of the נר part of observance, which just translates as light. The Sforno explains it to mean the light of Torah – it is a mother’s obligation to ensure her children know Torah – “v’al titosh Toras imecha“. How do we see this? There is a Gemara in Niddah which says that every baby in its mother’s womb has 2 things – an angel that teaches the baby the whole Torah, which it forgets at birth when the angel taps its lip, and a light above its head. We don’t see babies born with lights above their heads, so what does this mean? This means that the mother provided the circumstances through which the light of Torah shone on the child before its birth, and the mother is meant to nurture this “spark” into a full blown flame throughout the child’s life.

There is a short story told about R’ Yaakov Galinski and the Chazon Ish circa 1953, that explains us what the light of Torah does. They were walking together in the street at night, and were walking under streetlights. The Chazon Ish said “Wow!” every time he walked under a light, and his student, R’ Yaakov asked what was going on. The Chazon Ish obliged, and explained a phenomenal lesson. We are not meant to be arrogant people, but how does one work on this character trait if it is innate? The further away from the streetlight/light of Torah we are, the bigger your shadow appears. The closer we get to the streetlight/the light of Torah, the smaller we realise we actually are.

Yakov’s Journey

By On · Add Comment

“וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה – And Jacob left Beer sheba, and he went to Charan”


Why would Yakov leave the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel and go to Charan? A place devoid of spirituality and ruchnius? Furthermore we know where Yakov lived, so why does the Torah stress that he left Be’er Sheva. If he went on a journey, presumably he started at home.

The Sfas Emes explains that Yakov’s departure was a preparation for Klal Yisroel’s eventual exiles in Chutz La’aretz. Yakov therefore voluntarily traveled to a place where Hashem’s presence was more ‘nistar‘, or less visible to show his descendants that even in the darkest of places, the torch of our faith can shine brightly, an example of Maaseh Avos Siman LeBonim.

Furthermore, Yakov Avinu showed us how we can keep our faith throughout our struggles and hardships. Be’er Sheva. the place he left, represents complete spirituality. A be’er is a well of water. Water is the life force of all creatures and figuratively represents the spiritual life force, the connection to G-d that sustains everything around us. Sheva means seven, representing the seventh day of the week – Shabbos.Shabbos is a time that we distance ourselves from the mundane and unimportant things that occupy our lives. It is a time when we can elevate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Eating and sleeping are things that we do every day that seem to be the polar opposite of spirituality. Yet on Shabbos they take on a new dimension as a part of oneg Shabbos and allow us to bring spirituality and a higher purpose into the physical aspects of our lives. Thus Be’er Sheva figuratively represents a place where the spiritual source of life and its connection to the physical world are apparent.


Yakov our ancestor showed us how to travel through the darkness. We must always remeber where we came from and do our best to connect to our spiritual source. We may find ourselves in places where G-d seems remote and we do not see his hand guiding events around us. Yet, we have the capacity to serve Him through simple actions and even thoughts. A kind word or deed, a brocho on what we eat, brings G-d into our lives and give us a spiritual lift in even our darkest of hours.

What Goes Around…

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says ” ….עֵד הַגַּל הַזֶּה – This pile (of stones) shall be a witness…”(31:52)

Many Midrashim mention that Yaakov thrust a sword into the wall as a second witness. The Da’as Zkeinim mentions this and then points out that Bilam ben Be’or’s downfall was with these two, a wall and a sword. Why is this relevant?

He quotes a Gemara in Sanhedrin (105.) that “תנא הוא בעור הוא כושן רשעתים הוא לבן הארמי – Be’or is the same person as Lavan the Aramean and Kushan Reshasaim (an evil king in judges)”, both of whom were mockers and scoffers who caused great difficulties for the Jews. Bilam was Lavan’s son.

Bilam was damaged by a wall, (Numbers 22:25) as it says “וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר – and his foot was crushed against the wall”, and killed by the sword (ibid. 31:8) “וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב – also Bilam son of Be’or was slain by the sword”.

There is a terrifying story in the Gemara quoted by Rashi and Tosfos (Taanis 8.) that a young boy found a girl who’d fallen into a deep pit, and promised to rescue her on the condition that she marry him. She consented, and they made the pit she was in and a passing animal witnesses. He rescued her and they went their separate ways, and years later he married another woman, who bore him two sons. Unfortunately, one died falling into a pit, and another was killed by this animal. The woman asked why these bizarre misfortunes had befallen them, and he remembered the witnesses and his vow. His wife told him to divorce her and find this girl, which he did.

This is similar to the case of Bilam in that the witnesses came back to “remind” them of their duties, a clear demonstration of measure for measure.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional point to ponder: when Yakov entered Lavan’s house, he clearly did not have sons, as otherwise why would he send his daughters to tend the sheep, surely a man’s job? (We see this too by Yisro’s daughters). Yet in this week’s Sedra he clearly has sons (31:1). Lavan only had daughters until the blessing that Yakov brought with him gave him sons, and his own son broke his vow that nothing should befall his daughters.

These are a fulfilment of the Pasuk “יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ – The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death”.

United We Stand

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says ” וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר, אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְהוָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי – And Yakov awakened from his sleep, and he said, “I now know the Lord is in this place, and I did not know before.” (28:16)

Clearly this means something else, and R’ Shamshon Ostropolier obliges us. He explains that we know from Sefer Yechezkel there are 4 images on the Kisei HaKavod(G-d’s Holy Throne), a lion, an eagle, a cherub and a man.

He then explains that אָכֵן is Roshei Teivos Aryeh (lion), Cruv (cherub, the angel that appeared on the Aron) and Nesher (eagle), and אָנֹכִי is Roshei Teivos Aryeh, Nesher, Cruv, and Yakov. This is what he was really saying; “”אָכֵן” I already knew were on the Kisei HaKavod, but after I saw the Kisei Hakavod in my dream, I saw “אָנֹכִי” with the additional yud, for Yakov ie that my face was the fourth, fitting enough to be on the Kisei HaKavod, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי“.

I heard a very interesting explanation on how he saw himself as fitting from when he woke up and not before. There is machlokes how many stones Yakov took as the pasuk does not say how many. Pirkei D’Rebi Eliezer says that Yakov took 12 stones to put around his head. Before, all the stones were seperate and individual, and Yakov/Yisroel was not fit to be on the Kisei HaKavod. But once he woke up and saw they had combined to make 1 stone, then he was fitting to be on the Kisei Hakavod, and that’s why he didn’t know before. We can apply this to ourselves by saying that the 12 stones is a metaphor for the 12 Tribes, and clearly from this we can see that divided we are not fit to be on the Kisei HaKavod, but united, we are.

Why did G-d “relent” to Isaac and Rivka’s prayers?

By On · Add Comment

When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

“וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה – And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him”.

A gentleman once told R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say “and He relented to him”? Does this not seem an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac’s birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau (25:26), making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time (25:30). If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that “וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה” is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children; his father had been promised “nations”. Certainly then Isaac would have children, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. “וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה” can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, but simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R’ Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and exclaimed that this was certainly true, because the numerical value of “וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה” is 748 (686+36+26), the same Gematria as חמש שנים – five years – 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children – at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu’s life.

R’ Yosef Chaim also said that we say “רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם – He will fulfill the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them”. Isn’t this in the wrong order? Doesn’t Hashem fulfill their desires to placate their cries? R’ Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don’t know what’s best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.

What did Avraham buy?

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk describes how Avraham purchased the land from Ephron:

” וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עֶפְרוֹן, וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר “בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת–אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר -” And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.” (Gen. 23:16)

How much did he get for 400 shekels? Why are we told about all the specifics in the story, such as the price/negotiations, surely they don’t really matter? You’ll have to bear with me, as this answer is all literally over the place.

We will go on a tangent for a second, to Kesubos 17, where we are told that since the Torah was given to 600,000 adult men, this is the appropriate amount of people to have at a funeral. The Vilna Gaon proves that the land Avraham bought has this capacity.

First, I need to prove to you how much a se’ah is. A se’ah is a measurement of land size. The perimeter of the Mishkan courtyard was 100×50 amos (cubits – roughly 60 centimetres). It is known sometimes as “Beis Se’asayim”, or 2 se’ah. The Mishkan was 100×50. A se’ah is therefore half of this, 50×50 amos. The amount of amos in a se’ah is 50×50, = 2500 square amos.

I now need to explain how much a kur is. It is also a meausrement of land, and is 30 times the size of a se’ah. 30×2500 amos = 1 kur = 75,000 square amos.

In Succah 7 the Gemara informs us that the amount of space a person occupies will standing is 1 square ama. If we are going to say that Avraham purchased land that could hold 600,000 people, it would need to be at least 600,000 square amos.

There is a Gemara in Erchin 25, that explains that when people want to retract donations to the Temple fund (hekdesh), they must pay a fee to redeem the item. The price set by the Gemara for land donations is 50 shkalim per kur.

Avrhaham Avinu spent 400 shkalim, which at the Gemara’s price mean he bought 8 kur of land from Efron. We said that a kur is 75,000 square amos. 8 kur = 8×75,000 amos = 600,000 square amos.

This proves there was enough room on the land for 600,000 people to attend the funeral in keeping with the Gemara, but moreover, it further shows there is not a spare word in the Torah, the details of the narrative including the price were not written purely for the story’s sake.

(This also proves how lucky we are to have the decimal system! :) )

Out of Context

By On · Add Comment

וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר – And Abraham answered and said, “Behold now I have commenced to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes.”

The Gemara in Chulin says that for displaying such humility, his descendants would earn the mitzvos of the ash of the Para Adumah – Red Heifer; and dust of the Sotah – a woman brought to the Temple accused of adultery was forced to drink a concoction which had dust from the foot of the Altar in it.

There is an obvious yet superficial connection of dust todust, ash to ash; yet how are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to his humility for saying Afar v’Efer?

The Dubner Maggid tells a story of an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and the townsfolk and leaders were invited. There was a top table for the family, and next to it, another for the rabbis. A rabbi invited arrived, wished congratulations, but when taking his seat, felt unworthy of sitting in the presence of the other rabbis; and quietly sat in the corner elsewhere. The host felt that the rabbi had not been accorded due respect, and he requested that the whole table of rabbis move to the table in the corner to join this great rabbi. He manipulated the context to make the supposedly less worthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbis sit there.

The Dubner Maggid explains that this is precisely what Hashem did; He took what Avraham said, and changed the context from dust and ash with all their negative connotations, to dust and ash as Mitzvos, the essence of the Torah, the absolute opposite of dust and ash.

Another explanation is suggested by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but immense potential for the future, it is the cradle of life; it grows plant life, which in turn sustain animal life etc. Ash has no future whatsoever, but has a detailed past, being the charred remains of something that once lived. Avraham intended to mean that he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman’s past through dust, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future through ash.

Breaking the chain

By On · Add Comment

There are just four appearances of a שלשלת (Shalsheles), a rare cantor’s note in the entire Chumash– in Lech Lecha 19:16 – in Chayei Sarah– 24:12, in Vayeshev 39:8 and in Tzav 8:23. The Shalsheles is a tremendous literary device

In Chayei Sarah, we find that Eliezer, Avraham’s most trusted servant, is charged with finding a wife for Yitzchak. He is not allowed to take a wife from Canaan. The Midrash tells us that Eliezer had a daughter and it could have been that he might ‘just not have found’ a suitable wife outside Canaan. This could have left the path open for his daughter. Nevertheless, Eliezer overcomes any personal attachments and prays that Hashem heed his master’s request. This triumph over his own desires is signified by the Shalsheles on the word ויאמר – the opening word of his prayer.

In Vayeshev we see the tremendous personal struggle that Joseph had to overcome. Indeed, by running out and leaving his coat behind in the hands of his master’s wife, he got himself into more trouble in some ways. But on a personal level, he could not afford to be in the house a moment longer, refusing his master’s wife’s advances. That very word – וימאן (and he refused), has a שלשלת on it, denoting the breaking of his own potential negative desires.

As for the final appearance – in Tzav – the Midrash tells us that Moshe Rabbenu was the Kohen Gadol until the end of the Miluim, the first week of the Mishkan’s use, at which point he had to hand over the position to his brother Aharon (according to various sources, because he had argued at the burning bush). It must have been hard for him. Yet he overcame any personal desires and handed over the baton wholeheartedly. His final act as High Priest was וישחט…no surprises about the musical note on this word, at the point of his breaking with his own emotion.

Looking back at Lech Lecha, we see from Rashi that the Torah tells us that the angels had to grab hold of Lot because he was tarrying… leaving behind all his possessions. The first word of the Pasuk, which means he hesitated, contains a שלשלת – he overcame his physical desire for wealth and grabbed reality with both hands… literally.

It is no accident that Shalsheles actually means a chain. Furthermore, if you listen to its sound, it is elongated (3x a פזר – Pazer, another musical note – which is long already), yet comes to an abrupt end, thus breaking the chain. The person it is used about has transcended. See how wise Chazal are, even when ascribing the musical notes to the words.

לך לך and the sensitivity of syntax

By On · Add Comment

At the beginning of this week’s Parsha, Hashem tells Avram, as he is called at this point, that ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאור – I will bless those who bless you and those who curse you, I will curse.

Why does Hashem change around the order of the verbs – following ואברכה מברכיך, it should say ואאור מקללך, thereby keeping the syntax the same?

Firstly, the Vilna Gaon explains that a bracha given by an עשיר is going to be more generous than that of an עני, as he has the experience and comfort with which to issue such a ברכה. Conversely, an עני, who generally is perceived to suffer more, will likely give heavier curses than a wealthy man. Therefore, Hashem says ואברכה first with regards to ”מברכיך”, so that anyone who is blessing you should already be an עשיר at the point in time that he blesses you, so that the ברכה is maximised. However, when it comes to ”מקללך”, it only says that Hashem will curse him afterwards, so that at the time he curses Avram, he will still be an עשיר and the curse will be minimal!

Secondly,mine Kli Yakar explains that there is a concept of מחשבה כמעשה – that Hashem treats our thoughts as if they were acted upon. However, חז”ל point out that this is only with regards to our intended מצוות. With regards to our עבירות, Hashem doesn’t treat our negative thoughts as having been acted upon.
Therefore, ואברכה - ‘I will bless’, occurs even before a man is an actual מברך, even at the point that he thinks it. מה שאין כן with regard to the מקלל who will only receive the reciprocal curse from Hashem if he vocalises it. Therefore, אאור only comes after he is established as such!

Benefiting from Miracles

By On · Add Comment

R’ Chaim Brisker wonders how the jug of oil the Hasmoneans found in the Chanukah story was suitable for use beyond the first day. It wasn’t natural olive oil after the first day – it was the product of miracle, and therefore not organic – and the commandment to light the Menorah was with natural olive oil specifically. It might have had the physical and chemical properties of olive oil, but the substance had not come from an olive!

What was the point of using it after the first day?

Secondly, the Gemara in Taanis 24 states that one ought not benefit from a miracle.

Examples of this may be found in the stories of rabbis of old in Europe who didn’t have food, and when circumstance or luck provided something for them to eat, the Rabbi would refuse it on the grounds that it would detract from his Olam Habah.

At the construction of the Mishkan, in Shemos 35:27, the Torah describes how the princes, הַנְּשִׂאִם, brought oil and spices after the nation donated resources, but הַנְּשִׂאִם is spelled without the letter י. Rashi explains the oversight to mean that their intentions were good, but their actions were deficient, in that they underestimated the will of the Jewish people to donate materials for the construction of the Mishkan, and so their name was shortened here to teach us to act wholeheartedly.

R’ Yonasan ben Uziel explains differently, reading Nesi’im as Neshaim, Aramaic for clouds. It was not the Nesi’im who provided the materials, but rather, clouds came to the princes with stones, oil and spices – from the sky!

R’ Chaim Zevin asks R’ Chaim Brisker’s question; how could the princes use these for the Mishkan? They might have physically been olive oil/stones/spices, but again, they were unnatural. And then there is the prohibition of benefiting from miracles.

This can be answered by understanding how Noach left the Ark.

וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב, וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה-זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ – the bird came back in the evening with an olive branch in its mouth. (8:11)

The Ramban explains that the olive branch was from Gan Eden – clearly, it is an actual place with actual things within it.

Knowing this, R’ Tzvi Pesach Franck concludes that we can differentiate between certain kinds of miracles. The cases under discussion were not Yesh Me’ayin – something from nothing. These were Yesh MeYesh, manipulations of something that was somewhere else – specifically, in Heaven! They were then moved to Earth. They were thus completely permissible, much like the Manna, which was not a new “thing”, rather, it is what the angels grind to make their bread according to the Gemara in Yoma. Nothing new was created, which was what the prohibition in Taanis was referring to. That is to say that the miracle was not their creation, which one would be forbidden to benefit from according to Taanis 24, but rather, their miraculous manipulation to be somewhere else at the appropriate time.

This can be proven from when Yakov brings a feast to his father, Yitzchak:

“וַיֹּאמֶר, הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי–לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ, נַפְשִׁי; וַיַּגֶּשׁ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאכַל, וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן, וַיֵּשְׁתְּ” – “And he said: ‘Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee.’ And he brought it near to him, and he did eat; and he brought him wine, and he drank.”

At no point did his mother prepare wine, and R’ Yonason ben Uziel again points out the previous idea of things existing in Heaven and says that an angel brought wine made from grapes that were in heaven since Creation.

There is a saying; “To bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe,” – this is the same idea. The objects under discussion were not from scratch at all.

Great Aspirations – the nature of marriage

By On · Add Comment

R’ Shamshon Refael Hirsch relates a concept where the first use of something in the Torah enlightens how it is used everywhere else. He cites the blessing by a Pidyon Haben as an example; זה קטן, גדול יהיה – “this little one, may he become great”. He explains that the first instances of the words קטן/גדול in the Torah are in reference to the luminaries, the sun and moon. The moon only reflects light, whereas the sun actually produces light.

The blessing thus means that the baby – at the time helpless and reliant on others – should become an independent and great person.

Adam has a problem of finding his עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, partner, and this problem is solved when Hashem completes his surgery; וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה – and He closed the flesh in its place. (2:21)

This is the first time the letter ס – “samech” – is used in a verb in the Torah – it’s appearance was limited to nouns and names until this juncture. The Torah is hinting that there is some kind of relationship between the letter and women getting married.

The letter ס, when spelt out, reads סֶמֶך, a support, meaning that Eve was intended to assist the Adam and be there for him.

The letter ס is circular, and in Kabbalah, a woman is likened to a circle, and a man to a square. The woman is meant to be an עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, around him always. Incidentally, old rings in the cities of mekubalim like Tzfat used rings that have a square surrounded by a circle, illustrating this concept. This is partly why the bride circles the groom under the chupa.

This circular idea is further demonstrated by the numerical value of עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, which equals 360, which happens to be the amount of degrees in a circle.

How we have a Yetzer Hara

By On · Add Comment

Before man ate from the tree, we are told:

וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ – They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they weren’t embarrassed. (2:25)

Rashi points out that they were not ashamed because they did not know about modesty – they were literally being “natural”. They could not distinguish between good and evil; and although a degree of knowledge was initially granted to man, ie enabling Adam to name all the animals, nonetheless they were not imbued with the evil inclination until they ate of the tree, after which he knew the difference between good and evil.

The purpose of creation is to grow close to Hashem by resisting the natural tendencies and inclinations that prevent us from fulfilling our duties, thereby overcoming them. This being the case, what function would creation have served if there were no inclination for evil?

R’ Chaim Volozhin explains that Adam had all faculties, particularly free will, instilled within him before the original sin, to enable to him to do as he saw fit. What he didn’t have though, was an internal urge to sin or do evil. The snake/Satan figure, the personification and embodiment of evil, was an external being to Adam, and had to physically manifest itself as the snake to ensnare Adam and Eve – unlike today, where this battle is an internal battle, choice, decision.

The original quote from Rashi implies this: that the Evil Inclination only became an innate thing in man once he consumed the fruit and it became part of him.

The Pardes Yosef adds that the Gemara concludes that the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil was an Esrog tree – a פרי עץ הדר – the final letters of the words are י – צ – ר – יצר! When the פרי עץ הדר entered their bodies, the יצר did too!