Parshat Mikeitz/Channuka - Rising to the Occasion

Last week’s parsha concludes with Yosef in prison after having been accused of assaulting Potiphar’s wife. Placed with the Sar Ha’mashkim and the Sar Ha’ofim, he successfully interprets their dreams. Yosef requests of the Sar Ha’mashkim to remember him and mention his name to Pharaoh to be released. However, the Sar Ha'mashkim forgets, and Chazal say that as a punishment for putting faith in the wrong place, Yosef remained confined for an extra two years. Next, Pharaoh is stricken with dreams for which he cannot find a meaningful interpretation. Finally, the Sar Ha’mashkim recalls Yosef and suggests that he be summoned to interpret the dreams.

Pharaoh sends for Yosef, and in a flash he is brought before Pharaoh. Pharaoh gives great honor to Yosef saying, “I have dreamt a dream, but no one can interpret it. Now I heard it said of you that you comprehend a dream to interpret it.” Pharoah ascribes a tremendous amount of power to Yosef, that he alone can interpret the dream. Yet Yosef responds, ״בלעדי אלוקים יענה את-שלום פרעה״ – “That is beyond me; G-d will respond to Pharoah’s welfare.” Rashi explains Yosef's response, “That is beyond me” as:  “The wisdom to interpret dreams is not mine, rather ‘G-d will respond’ that is, He will put a response in my mouth ‘for Pharoah’s welfare.’”

The Mesiach Ilmim (רבי יהודה כלץ), a commentary on Rashi, expounds on this as follows: The word בלעדי does not mean “other than me”; Yoseph did not tell Pharaoh, “I will not answer. G-d is the one who will respond instead.” Yosef was actually saying that although the capability of interpretation comes from G-d alone, Yosef would act as the conduit of G-d in relaying the messages. Rather than remove himself from something he was incapable of doing, he recognized his position as G-d’s messenger.

This is such a powerful idea for us, for so often we are confronted with challenges that may seem impossible, which feel like they can only be overcome by G-d himself! We feel that we cannot muster the strength or the wisdom to know the right thing to do, and to be able to do it. Or perhaps we have lofty goals that we feel incapable of accomplishing. Yet if we let go and ascribe all greatness to G-d, if we recognize that the results are ultimately decided by Him alone and realize that we are merely His messengers, we can overcome any challenge and reach heights of wisdom that we could not fathom to have reached on our own. We should not cower when faced with daunting tasks, but rather view ourselves as second to the All-powerful King for Whom no challenge is too great. In that light, we can do anything with His help.

This is a fitting message for the holiday of Chanukkah, when Hashem “delivered the strong into the hands of the weak, the many into the hands of the few…” Rather than capitulate when faced with the sheer absurdity of the imbalance, both in numbers and strength, the Chashmonaim – scholars of  the Torah – trusted in G-d. Their shortcomings did not cause them to fear, but instead to submit themselves to Hashem’s mission, and they emerged victorious.

This should give us chizzuk in all our endeavors, small and great. With G-d’s help, may we grow and accomplish the so called “un-achievable”.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Vayeishev - The Measure of Holiness

In this week’s parsha we learn the tragic event of the selling of Yosef. Yosef shares his dreams of grandeur with his brothers and engenders negative feelings from them. Additionally, Yaakov gives Yosef a special coat signifying Yaakov’s love for him. Fearing Yosef to be a threat, the brothers decide to dispose of him, initially wanting to have him killed. But due to Reuven’s intervention, Yehuda and the brothers decide instead to sell Yosef to merchants heading down to Egypt.

Thus begins the the arduous exile of the Jewish people in the land of Egypt. Yosef is thrown into servitude in the house of Potiphar. Quickly proving himself to be capable, Yosef is appointed to a position of authority of the household. He draws the attention of Potiphar's wife who seeks to tempt him. As is known, Yosef overcomes this test, but in light of the wife’s accusations is nevertheless imprisoned.

There is a fascinating Gemara in Sotah (36b) which contrasts this with another episode from the parsha: that of Yehuda and Tamar. Yehuda, having been tricked by Tamar to father a child to her, openly admits to being the father. He does so despite severe embarrassment, having already sentenced Tamar to death for her actions and subsequently needing to retract his condemnation. Thus he was given the merit that his name יהודה be comprised of G-d’s ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה. The Gemara goes on to say that this differs from Yosef’s name, which only includes part of Hashem’s name: י-ה-ו (This is based on Psalm 81:6, the Gemara explains that the letter ה was added to Yosef's name, spelling יהוסף.) The Gemara then elaborates with great detail the story of Yosef and the wife of Potiphar, how difficult a challenge it was and the extent to which Yosef went not to succumb to temptation. In juxtaposing this with Yehuda’s act of strength, the Gemara seems to imply that Yosef somehow fell short. As such, he was not granted a merit as high as Yehuda’s. On the other hand, the Gemara appears to be praising Yosef for his great accomplishment. How then is that an explanation for why Yosef was not as meritorious?

In discussing the concept of “Yichud,” my esteemed Rosh Yeshiva Rav Aharon Lopiansky Shlit”a once quoted his Rebbe Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l (famed Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir in Yerushalayim) on the matter: When it comes to the world of avoiding עריות (licentious behavior), the measure of success is not based on falling prey in the moment or not. Rather, the true test is whether or not we have taken the necessary precautions beforehand, not to put ourselves in a precarious position to begin with. Thus, says the Rosh Yeshiva Rav Chaim, this is the depth of the prohibition of Yichud, for it guarantees that a person not even be placed in a challenging situation. One who is careful with these halachot has passed the test.

With this in mind we can now attempt to understand Yosef Hatzadik, who is known throughout rabbinic literature for his holiness and purity, and the Gemara’s apparent critique despite his having overcome his Yetzer Harah. For perhaps we can say (in our superficial understanding of his motives) that Yosef should not have been in the situation at all. The fact that he overcame the temptation, while showing great strength and surely deserving of praise, does not exempt him from making sure he does not find himself in a place where he is tempted. A true showing of success in this area would have been the extent to which he went to avoid such circumstances. This may be what the Gemara is addressing in telling us that Yosef was not so meritorious as to have his name fully reflect that of G-d’s. (In fact, the Gemara (ibid.) quotes an opinion that interprets the passuk, “And it was on that day that he entered the house to do his work” (39:11) – he went to fulfill his needs with her, i.e. to have relations with her. Meaning that he indeed went with the intention of sinning. Even according to the alternate opinion, that he went to do actual work, he still should not have been alone, having known Potiphar's wife had tried to seduce him in the past).*

It is important to reiterate that we cannot fully ascertain the true understanding of both the Gemara and Yosef's actions, but we can take this as lesson to internalize: we must not allow ourselves to be placed in precarious situations where we are likely to be tested. Post facto, if G-d forbid we have indeed succumbed, the correct course of action is not to wallow in sadness, for clearly, once in the situation, it is understandable that the challenge may be too great at that point. We should simply take it as a lesson for the future to make the proper precautions and סייגים to ensure that it will not happen again.

May Hashem grant us the strength to resist any negative temptations that come our way, and may we all have the wisdom to always put ourselves in places that will be conducive to growth, happiness and greater avodat Hashem.

*According the above, one could still ask: Yehuda himself also should not have put himself into the situation with Tamar! So what is the great praise of Yehuda, in comparison to Yosef? Seemingly, Yosef is even more praiseworthy, for he didn't succumb to temptation, while Yehuda did in fact “give in” in being with Tamar. Perhaps we then need to take into consideration the explanation of Yehuda’s actions according to the Midrash and the Da’at Zekeinim, which say that an Angel forced Yehuda, and that it was not by his own will. He is therefore not held accountable. The great act of strength we are highlighting about Yehudah is not whether he gave in to temptation of arayot, but rather the fact that he later admitted to his sin, and for that he is rewarded.

Parshat Vayishlach - A Blessed Life: A Tribute to Rabbi Elchonon Zomber zt”l

This week's parsha describes the tense encounter of Yaakov with Eisav; it is the first time they have met after Yaakov “bested” him, in receiving the blessing from their father, Yitzchak. Eisav, having waited for Yitzchak to die so he could exact his revenge upon Yaakov, collects an army of 400 hundred men and approaches Yaakov. In his fear and anticipation of this showdown, Yaakov prepares accordingly and places his children and wives in separate camps to ensure that there will be at least some survivors.

Yaakov's preparation included gifts for Eisav – a large quantity of animals – in order to steer Eisav away from his rage. Finally they meet. Yaakov is completely self-effacing, bowing towards Eisav in a show of deference. Eisav (as Rashi explains) is overcome with mercy and runs towards Yaakov to embrace him, even kissing him. Yaakov's attempts to appease Eisav do not stop there. He entreats Eisav to take the gifts that he had prepared for him, exclaiming: “Please accept my homage, which was brought to you” (33:11). Interestingly, the Torah uses the word ברכתי as opposed to מתנה or מנחתי – which would be more fitting for the context. Even more curious, is that the Torah previously used the word מנחתי when referring to these gifts (32:14). Rashi, seemingly bothered by this change, explains that in fact ברכתי does mean מנחתי. But still, why change now? What is the significance of Yaakov using the word ברכתי instead of מנחתי?

I believe that Yaakov was trying to send a message to Eisav. In confronting Yaakov, Eisav is faced with the tremendous blessings that G-d has bestowed upon his brother; Eisav sees first-hand Yaakov's great riches, a clear culmination of the blessings of Avraham and Yitzchak, which Eisav felt he was supposed to receive. By using the word ברכתי, Yaakov was trying to reference the blessing. But if so, how can Yaakov seemingly offer up the blessing to Eisav? Did Yaakov not go to great lengths to receive it in place of Eisav? How could he “give it back” now?

This was the message that Yaakov wanted to send: The value of the blessing was not materialistic; it was not a blessing for riches nor for honor. The blessings of Avraham and Yitzchak are so much greater than that. They are a mission: a life of purpose and of meaning for ourselves and for others. Yaakov was, in essence, saying, “Eisav – if you perceive the blessing so superficially as to think the sum of its parts is just materialism, then yes – take it” But in no way was Yaakov giving the blessing away, rather he was sending a message of what it’s true value is.

This message is very powerful for myself and my family, especially now. This past Monday night and Tuesday marked the first Yahrtzeit of my esteemed and beloved brother-in-law, Rabbi Elchonon Zomber zt”l. There is no one I can think of who embodied this message as well as Elchonon. He lived a life of meaning and of giving, above and beyond one of mere superficiality. He submitted himself to a path of true depth: teaching his students, both Torah and Math. Anyone who met him immediately sensed how incredibly talented and capable he was; he could have used his tremendous mind for his own self aggrandizement, or his own pocketbook. Yet he chose to devote himself to something much higher, much deeper, and ultimately more meaningful for a myriad of people. Nothing gave him more fulfillment than to see his students grow, mature, and ultimately succeed, and he cherished being a part of that process. The impact of his untimely death on our own lives is truly immeasurable, yet we take solace in that fact that we can use it as an opportunity to learn from his life and become better people, creating everlasting merit for his neshama.

Yehi Zichro Baruch

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Vayeitzei - The Loud Sound of Silence

This week's parsha, in continuing the episode of Yaakov and Eisav’s rivalry, tells of Yaakov's journey from Be’er Sheva to Charan. Rashi (verse 10) notes that his leaving was significant because “the departure of a Tzaddik makes an impression, for as long as he is there, he is their magnificence, he is their splendor...Once he leaves, the [city’s] magnificence has gone away, its splendor has gone away...” Clearly both Yaakov's presence in and exiting of the city was impactful.  

One may wonder why Yaakov in particular is used as the illustration for this idea. We have already heard of a few departures of the righteous from their towns, some of the most notable being Avraham from Ur Kasdim and Yitzchak to Gerar to see Avimelech. Surely these also made an impression on their cities, yet we have no mention of this idea in those instances. What is so significant about Yaakov's departure in comparison with the others that warrants this special status?

As we know from the Midrashic sources, in the period between his leaving of his family and his setting off for Charan, Yaakov went to study in the Yeshiva of Shem V’Ever for 14 years. But when and where did this happen? The Meharsha in Megillah (17a) points out that if it is true that he spent 14 years in the house of Shem V’Ever, it would seem to contradict the verse itself – which implies that he left Be’er Sheva and went directly to Charan, without any stops along the way. Furthermore, the Midrash Rabbah and the Gemara in Chullin (91b) explain that the dream of the Ladders and the Angels actually occurred when Yaakov was still in Be’er Sheva, even though it is mentioned after the passuk has already told us that Yaakov was on his way. This would again imply that once Yaakov left Be’er Sheva, there were no detours before his arrival in Charan.

To resolve this issue, the Meharsha gives an answer that is meaningful on many levels. The Meharsha explains that the Yeshiva of Shem V’Ever was actually in the city of Be’er Sheva itself. Therefore, when the Torah says that Yaakov left Be’er Sheva to go to Charan, it was already after the 14 years of study. This is stunning; we know that throughout that time, Eisav was seeking retribution from Yaakov for stealing the Bracha. If Eisav were to find him, he would surely have exacted revenge upon Yaakov. Yet, according to the Meharsha, Yaakov remained in the very same city with the person looking to kill him and was never caught! This obviously bespeaks of the great Hatmada (diligence) Yaakov in his learning – he must not have left the Yeshiva throughout the entire 14 years, for had he done so, he would have been found by Eisav.

According this Meharsha we can now answer our question. Why was Yaakov chosen to illustrate the concept of the impact of a Tzaddik on his city, when we already have prior examples to learn from? As explained previously, for much of the time that Yaakov was in Be’er Sheva, he remained hidden behind the walls of the Yeshiva, and probably did not make much contact with the people outside. Yet even with all this secrecy, the Midrash says “the departure of a Tzaddik makes an impression, for as long as he is there, he is their magnificence, he is their splendor...Once he leaves, the [city’s] magnificence is gone away, it's splendor has gone away...” Yaakov, being a complete unknown, is in actuality “the splendor” of the city, and his departure is marked as a loss despite the complete lack of awareness of the residents! The very presence of a ben-Torah in the town is a merit, even when he does not make an active effort to interact with others. Of course we understand that one who goes out and speaks to the people directly can influence them for the good, but only from Yaakov could we learn that a person who sits indoors and does his avodat Hashem privately, makes a strong impact on the public as well, if not even more so.

What an important lesson for us all - we all want to make our mark and do all we can for K’lal Yisrael. Whether we find ourselves in the public sphere or not, we need to remember that first and foremost, our personal efforts in serving Hashem make the greatest impression.

May we all be able to be a source of merit for the entire nation in all that we do.

Shabbat Shalom

Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Toldot - Yaakov's Truth

This week's parsha tells us of the rivalry and difference of character between Yaakov and Eisav. Yaakov was “איש תם יושב אוהלים”, while Eisav was a man of the field. The Medrash relays how already from the womb, the contrast was stark. When Rivka would pass the Beit Midrash, her stomach would rustle, and when she passed a house of idol worship, the same would occur.

Despite Yaakov’s piety, Eisav was the bechor – the firstborn – and thus was entitled to the blessing for the firstborn son.

 

In what is one of the more difficult episodes in the Torah to understand, we learn of the means to which Yaakov had to resort in order to acquire the blessings in place of his brother. By the command of his mother Rivka, Yaakov presents himself to Yitzchak as though he is Eisav. On a surface level, this is accomplished through trickery and false pretenses – a difficulty which many commentators have dealt with at length.

 

There is a fascinating Gemara in Makkot (24a) which expounds on the verse in Tehillim (15:3):

לא רגל על לשונו זה יעקב אבינו, דכתיב אולי ימושני אבי והייתי בעיניו כמתעתע

“Has no slander upon his tongue” this refers to Yaakov, our forefather, as it is written “Perhaps my father will feel me and I will be in his eyes like a deceiver.”

 

Rashi (In Makkot) explains:

He [Yaakov] initially did not want to lie, thus he said “Perhaps my father will feel me…But his mother [Rivka] forced him, as she had a prophecy..etc.”

The implication here is that Yaakov, in voicing his fear of being caught, is demonstrating his trait of honesty.

 

This concept is truly perplexing; the Gemara is attempting to show that Yaakov always spoke the truth, yet the proof it brings to support its assertion is from one of the most seemingly duplicitous episodes in the Torah! Furthermore, Yaakov appears to be concerned that his father will feel him and “catch him in the act.” From the fact that Yaakov bases his concern on his father possibly discovering his identity, we may infer that were Yaakov assured that he would not get caught, he would have no apprehension. How does this show honesty, and how is this a proof to the Gemara’s point?

 

I posed this question to my rebbe, Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl Shlit”a (former Chief Rabbi of the Old City) and he explained this Gemara based on an idea from the Vilna Gaon in Parshat Chayei Sarah. Every time אולי (perhaps) is written, it is actually an expression of a hope or desire for something to occur. For example: Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, said regarding his mission to find a wife for Yitzchak: ״אולי לֹא־תלך האשה אחרי״. The ksiv (i.e. the way it is written in the Torah) is spelled without the letter vav, so the word can also be read אלי. On this word, Rashi brings the Medrash which explains that Eliezer really did not want Rivka to follow him, and that he was searching for a pretext for Yitzchak to marry his own daughter in place of Rivka (hinted to in the word “אלי” – “to me”). With the word אולי, the Torah is alluding to Eliezer’s inner desire that things would not work out as planned.

 

According to this, says HaRav Nebenzahl, the verse from Toldos is the greatest proof of Yaakov’s complete integrity. In saying “Perhaps my father will feel me,” Yaakov was not expressing fear of being caught – to the contrary! His very desire was to be caught, lest he have to follow through with that which could be perceived as dishonest.

 

Here we see the lengths to which Yaakov was willing to go to avoid lying, even in a permissible situation. He was personally prepared to forfeit the place of the firstborn, and all the spiritual and material benefits that go along with it. This one decision could also affect the entire course of man’s history and the future of the Jewish nation, allowing Eisav to reign with the special rights given to him. Yaakov only acquiesced in deference to his mother’s command, which was based on a prophecy showing that this was the correct way to act.

 

What a lesson in how gravely serious it is to lie, and how much we should be prepared to sacrifice to avoid doing so.

 

 

Shabbat Shalom

Chayei Sarah - Unspoken Virtues

This week's parsha tells us of the mission Eliezer was sent to fulfill, to find a wife for Yitzchak, his master's son. Eliezer requested of G-d a sign to show him who was fitting for Yitzchak, and the request he makes is a fascinating one. Technically, all Eliezer needed to do was seek out Betuel and Lavan and pick out the girl for Yitzchak. Yet he doesn't do that. Instead, he sets up a test of sorts: “Behold I am standing by the spring water...let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’, and who replies ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels.’”

The Malbim explains, that the motivation for Eliezer's request was to glean something about the character of Rivka. He preferred someone of modest means, the kind who would draw water herself, not through her servants, despite her family's wealth.

Eliezer asks G-d that Rivka should respond, “Drink, and I will even water your camels.” The Sforno explains that her response will go beyond Eliezer’s request, and she will offer all that is needed...

However, in the actual playing-out of this episode (verse 18), Rivka, initially does not mention a word about watering the camels. She speaks only of bringing water for Eliezer, and then proceeds to draw water for the camels too. Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt”l powerfully explains that so great was Rivka’s kindness, it was second-nature to her that another's needs should be provided for. That Eliezer’s camels had to be watered was so obvious that she saw no need to say she would do it. Chesed was so much a core of her personality that it went beyond second-nature; it was her essence.

Rav Moshe is saying an incredible idea: the unspoken acts of kindness, the innate traits, are sometimes greater than the outspoken and verbalized ones. It showed that kindness was deeply ingrained her very fiber. In a certain sense it didn't need to be “verbalized” – and perhaps if it was, it would have cheapened it.

The need to verbalize and publicize our ideals is known as “Virtue Signaling.” To bloviate, to speak of ideals, serves to make us feel good about ourselves, for we have now shown others how virtuous we are. But too often, it leads to a feeling of superiority, so that when acts of kindness are performed, it's not because they are ingrained in us. Instead, it is a robotic mirroring of chesed, of what we (or others) perceive to be kindness. Inevitably, this “kindness” will be misapplied – because it’s merely a cheap knock-off of the real thing.

This lesson of the ingrained trait of chesed is beautifully contrasted to last week's episode of Lot and the angels in Sodom. On the one hand, he risked his life to save his guests, mirroring Avraham's trait of kindness. Yet on the other hand, incredibly, he offered his own children to the rabid mob of Sodomites. How could he act in such a contradictory manner? To protect his guests, while serving up his own children?!

In light of what we discussed above, the Alter of Slabodka explains* that Lot’s chesed was a superficial form of kindness, which while on the surface appeared virtuous, did not go beyond the surface level. It was not ingrained in him in a true way, and therefore it was horribly misapplied. This led him to protect his guests at all costs, while sacrificing his own children! Chesed – or any trait for that matter – that is not really processed into our character, is only skin-deep. It is not real.

The greatness of Rivka was that her kindness was not a virtue, or an ideal to be “spoken about,” rather it was a reality, it was her life. It was as much a concrete part of her personality as her name. This is what Eliezer was looking for in a spouse for the son of Avraham, the paragon of kindness, the epitome of inculcating the trait of kindness in his service to G-d.

This is the level of character that we strive for: to have chesed become ingrained in our essence and a part of both our conscious and subconscious. We should grow strong in our resolve and be blessed in our efforts in this endeavor.

Shabbat Shalom

*See the Alter’s explanation of the Midrash which states that Lot was saved from Sedom in the merit of his revealing to the Egyptians that Sarah was the wife of Avraham, and not his Hachnasas Orchim. He explains that the act of Hachnasas Orchim was by habit, while the act of not revealing the truth about Avraham was true test of his loyalty. The struggle and overcoming is what is valued, not the act by rote.

 

Parshat Vayeira - Illness and Identity

 

This week's parsha begins “Hashem, appeared to him in the plains of Mamre” (18:1) Rashi comments that G-d's appearance was for the purpose of visiting Avraham who was ill following his circumcision. Interestingly, the Torah does not name who is being visited by God.

 

Rav Yaakov Kenizel, in his commentary on Rashi, notes this problem; how does Rashi know that this was the intention? He explains that Rashi knew from the fact that the Torah does not identify Avraham. Thus this parsha must be coming off the heels of Parshas Lech Lecha which concluded with Avraham performing a circumcision on himself, and there he was fully identified. 

 

But one could still ask, why doesn't the Torah formally name Avraham? Why rely on such a seemingly convoluted method to figure it out?

  

Perhaps there is a deeper message hidden here. As we know, G-d comes to visit Avraham in his pain. After Avraham undertook the arduous mitzvah of Brit Milah, Hashem comes to perform the mitzvah of Bikur Cholim – visiting the sick, so to speak. In order to curtail the burden upon Avraham, G-d even made the day hotter, as the medrash explains to stop travelers from passing by his tent lest Avraham would tend to them. All of this because Avraham was in pain – G-d was sensitive to the feelings of Avraham. For the truth is, as we know, when a person is sick, they're not “themselves”; they are not at their best and they don't look their best, whether because of a serious illness G-d forbid, or something as simple as a headache. Too often it is easy to judge or conclude that this is the true person.

 

This idea is born out in a vivid and difficult memory of mine. I had a relative who throughout his life was the paragon of sensitivity and mentchlichkeit. Unfortunately, he was stricken with brain cancer to which he ultimately succumbed. I watched painfully as this great man, over the time he received treatments, became bloated and immobile. He lost his hair, and due to to his incredible pain, his temper as well. It was almost as though he was a different person. This person who I adored for so many years and admired for his care and sensitivity to his spouse, was now irritable and moody towards her.  It felt so incongruent – how could this happen? How could a person undergo such a drastic change? Was this who he really was deep down? How could all those years of character vanish in such a short amount of time? I struggled to make sense of what I was being presented with.

  

That was until I learned this parsha. Then I understood this important lesson in Bikur Cholim and in empathy. In not identifying Avraham by name, the Torah teaches us that a person in pain is not “himself”, that pain and difficulty can take over a person, and become an impediment to be the person who he really is deep down. It is not a true representation of that person. Rather the true self is covered under the difficulties that they are bearing. And we, the onlookers, must understand that they are not the true version of themselves. 

 

The message doesn't end there. In truth, this episode is a tremendous praise of Avraham. Despite his deep pain, he so desired to perform the mitzvah of Hachnasat Orchim – Hospitality – and we see the great effort that he invested in that. But this is a praise of Avraham, our righteous forefather who lived on this great spiritual level and was able to overcome the pain. For us, it is not so easy. We are not Avraham Avinu, and we cannot expect that of ourselves or of others. What we can do is strive to better understand the pain and empathize with those who find themselves in this difficult situation.

 

This should serve for us as a lesson in empathy and love for others around us. May we continually grow to be the best version of ourselves.

 

 

 

Shabbat Shalom

 

Parshat Noach - Sensitive Souls

 

The Ramban writes in Bereishit (1:29) on the verse “Behold I have given to you all herbage of yielding seed that is on the surface of the entire earth” that originally man was only allowed to eat from the vegetation of the earth, but from the flesh of the animals, man was not permitted. Only until Noach was such permission granted (9:3, Sanhedrin 59b).

The Ramban explains that this was granted to Noach specifically, for since he saved their species, he would be permitted to slaughter them for their meat.

At first glance the connection between the saving of the animals and their slaughter seems perplexing. How is it logical to say that since he saved them from their death and extinctions, their death would come from his hand? Wouldn't it follow and be more fitting to say that since he saved them from death he couldn't be the one to cause their death?

In fact, we find a similar parallel for such a concept later in the Torah. The first plague that G-d decreed upon Egypt was the turning the Nile River into blood. The plague of blood came through the hands of Aharon and not Moshe; as Rashi explains, “since he was saved through the Nile it would have been wrong for him [Moshe] to be the instrument to inflict a plague upon it”. So too, one could argue that since the saving of the animals came through the hands of Noach, that hand could not be the instrument in their death. For if Moshe was barred from causing pain to the Nile since he was saved through it, Noach; who saved the animals all the more so could not be the the once to slaughter the animals.

In truth the only person through whom the permission to slaughter the animals could be granted was Noach and his children. The most fitting of conduits to such a privilege could only be given to those that are of such spiritual and selfless stature as of Noach and his children who toiled for forty days and forty nights with great care in serving and feeding the animals. Only those so attuned to the sensitivity of the animals could be the ones to kill them and consume them for their own pleasure.

This level of sensitivity to animals is echoed by Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch:

There are probably no creatures that require more the protective Divine word against the presumption of man than the animals, which like man have sensations and instincts, but whose body and powers are nevertheless subservient to man. In relation to them man so easily forgets that injured animal muscle twitches just like human muscle, that the maltreated nerves of an animal sicken like human nerves, that the animal being is just as sensitive to cuts, blows, and beatings as man. Thus man becomes the torturer of the animal soul, which has been subjected to him only for the fulfillment of humane and wise purposes . . . (Horeb, Chapter 60, Verse 415)  
 

This is perhaps what the Ramban is telling us, in connecting the permission to slaughter the animals and eat their meat and Noach saving them from extinction. That by caring for them they showed that they were most capable of not losing their humanity and sensitivity to them while using them for their own benefit.

Shabbat Shalom.

Parshat Bereishit - The Worth of Humility

In this weeks parsha the Torah tells us of G-d's creation of the world and all within it. Six days G-d created and on the seventh He rested. Each day was dedicated to different creations. and the pinnacle of creation was Man. The Torah writes "Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness (1:26)." This hakdama or introduction indicates to us that man's creation was done with great care and deliberation. The Abarbanel points out the command to creating Man was different than previous commands where G-d said "Let the earth bring forth..." G-d couched man's creation in this form to point out this very idea, that man's creation was on a wholly different level than previous creations.

 

Yet, the mefarshim are puzzled with a fundamental issue in the verse. When telling us of the great idea to make Man, the Torah uses the plural "Let us make man" which would seem to indicate their is more than one creator. this would obviously be completely antithetical to the basis of Judaism and Monotheism yet nonetheless G-d uses this phraseology. And in truth Moshe himself raised this very issue. The Midrash tells us that when Moshe wrote the Torah and came to this verse he exclaimed "why G-d would you create the pretext- Pitchon Peh for heretics to maintain their belief of plural divinity!"  Yet G-d replies "write! whoever wishes to err will err".

     

The question though is why? What can be gained by using this specific way of expression? Why risk the possible error of many people throughout the generations due to this verse?

 

To answer this very question Rashi cites Chazal "from here we learn of he great humility of G-d, for he consulted the Angels before creating man, so too we should always consult others before embarking upon a new idea". This is amazing, seemingly this lesson of G-ds humility in consulting the Angels is justification enough to risk heresy How can this be so? How can we better understand this idea?

 

Perhaps we can glean a deep insight from this question. Very often we are lead to belief that the results of any particular action are a reflection of the correctness of the deed itself. but very often this is not true. for very often what one course of action is correct may not necessarily lead to the result that we desire, yet the reaction or course of action was nonetheless correct, this is very often true in interpersonal relationships where we cannot control the result or consequence of others behavior . Sometimes being non confrontational and timid is the correct response even though this may not lead to appeasing the other person but may in fact even cause them more outrage. This goes for responding in a more aggressive stance as well. Yet the results of our actions cannot be the litmus of success and failure regarding the initial decision.

  

Clearly Hashem felt that this lesson of humility, or seeking guidance and counsel is worth teaching in this particular context, despite the possible error that may come from this verse. For nothing can be allowed to get in the way of acting with forethought, with clarity of mind of purity of intention, when embarking upon a course of action, not even the possibility of the great error of heresy!

 

This should serve for us as a lesson in the appreciation of seeking counsel and spur us to take heed of those greater and more wiser among us

 

Shabbat Shalom