Posted on

Parashat Vayechi: An Old Shirt for a Young Prince

Excerpted from Rabbi Dr. Norman J. Lamm’s Derashot Ledorot: A Commentary for the Ages – Genesis, co-published by OU Press, Maggid Books, and YU Press; edited by Stuart W. Halpern

An Old Shirt for a Young Prince*

When our father Jacob was on his deathbed and just before he blessed all his children, he called over his favorite son, Joseph, and told him that he was giving him a special award, something the others would not get. “Son,” he told his royal child who was now effectively the master of Egypt, “I have given you an extra portion over your brothers” (Genesis 48:22). The Torah does not say what that portion is. But our rabbis (Targum Yerushalmi, Genesis 48:21) suggested what that extra legacy
was. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it was the garment worn by Adam!

What a gift to give a king! That an inheritance for a man who controlled the greatest kingdom of antiquity, who had millions under his thumb, who regulated the commerce of the whole nation, who was an absolute potentate who had all that he wanted at his command: a shirt, and an old one at that! It was quite a buildup Jacob gave for what turns out to have been merely a family heirloom. A shirt twenty-three generations old may have some sentimental value, it may be of archeological value. You may give it to other children, or to a museum; but you don’t give that to a fabulously wealthy viceroy as a “special” reward.

But if that is what Jacob decided to give to Joseph, according to our sages, there must have been some very special reason for doing so. Our rabbis meant to tell us something of what Jacob wanted to teach Joseph, and the Josephs of all ages. There are three descriptions of that garment worn by Adam which indicate three major points that we must take to heart and remember. They are three lessons Jacob wanted to drive home to Joseph – because he was the wealthiest and most powerful of all his children – three correctives to the abuses that come so frequently with the acquisition of prosperity, power, and social recognition.

The first thing our rabbis said of this piece of clothing was that it was made of a special kind of leather. The Bible calls it “katnot or” (Genesis 3:21), a leather garment. And the rabbis add that it came from the skin that the serpent shed off. Joseph, he told him, I am afraid that your wealth or power is going to go to your head. You have every reason in the world to be proud of yourself. You started as a slave in a miserable prison, sold down the river by your brothers. Now you’ve achieved political eminence, economic domination of an empire, and social recognition, being heralded by all Egypt as its savior, and crowned by Pharaoh himself as second to him alone. You have money, you have real estate, you have power. You have, in other words, the greatest temptation any man can ever have – to lose his humility. You ride around in golden chariots; you are a titled prince; you are a shrewd businessman; the Egyptians may not want to break bread with you because you’re a Jew, but still, you have made yourself your own palace. But don’t forget, Joseph, don’t forget that it doesn’t mean a thing. Don’t you ever pride yourself on being a self-made man. No man is self-made. His power is a dream. His wealth is illusory. His shrewdness is only in his imagination. His eminence is transitory. It’s all a great spiel, nothing else. And just as a reminder, son, here, take this old, tattered snakeskin shirt and frame it and hang it on your living room wall for everyone to see. Every once in a while take a look at it. And let you and your descendants and all men forever remember that the original owner of that shirt once had a complete Paradise in which to disport himself. He had Trees of Knowledge and life, and had gold and silver. He must have thought it was all his – that he was self-sufficient – and he could live as proudly as he wanted to. But then remember that he was chased out of Eden, and he was left with nothing, not even a shirt on his back. And then, only through the goodness of God, was he given a garment to wear. And, Joseph, my princely and wealthy and powerful son: where do you think even that one shirt came from? Adam’s own work? His handicraft? Nonsense. It came from the skin the snake sloughed off. Man, despite his delusions of grandeur, is ultimately only a parasite!

Remember, Josephs of all generations: you’re not self-made, you’re God-made. Forget your golden chariots or your Cadillacs; forget your empire-building or business sense; forget your social status, whether in ancient Egypt or modern America. Remember that whatever you have came from someone else, that even the shirt you wear came from the hair of a sheep or the skin of a snake or the back of an underpaid cotton picker down South. Use your power and wealth and all you now have, but use it with humility. Keep the snakeskin in front of you, Joseph. It’s the greatest gift you can receive. It’s the only thing that will help you keep your balance and keep you from submitting to that great abuse of prosperity: the belief that you are a god and that you are self-sufficient.

The second thing our rabbis said about that garment was regarding its design. It had, drawn upon it, pictures of birds flying. Here was the corrective to a second, and very unusual and unexpected kind of difficulty that power and prosperity bring in their wake. One writer, I think it was Max Lerner, has maintained that in the history books of the future, our age will not be called the Atomic Age or Hydrogen Age or any other such name. It will be called the Age of the Ulcer. With increasing prosperity and with the higher standard of living, we have inherited a whole line of diseases caused by the anxiety that grips us. In ages gone by people hardly ever experienced or even knew of that whole array of illnesses we now call by that fancy name, “psychosomatic diseases” – something our ancestors would have preferred to call “an aingerreter krenk.” Why the plague of migraines, the necessity of visits to a psychiatrist, the ubiquitous ulcer? It is because we do not know quite what to do with our power and our money, and because we are always seeking to increase it – and this, because of another fear: that if we don’t get more, we’ll lose all we have. In the midst of all the luxurious blessing, we feel a curse – a sort of obsessive unhappiness, a neurotic anxiety and, of course, the ulcer. What good are all these things if the price we must pay is stewed prunes, sweet cream, and amphojel? We have better beds and mattresses, but can’t sleep at night. Wonderful new reclining sofas, but we are no longer able to sit back and relax, so tense are we. We have television even in color, and can’t even force a sincere laugh out of our systems; we’re too worried to be able to be happy. We rack our brains devising timesaving devices – and then, when we do get home earlier, we take along the office in our minds and our phones, and leave no real time for our families. We’re unhappy, busy, nervous, anxious, and – of course – ulcerous.

“Joseph,” Jacob must have told his great son, “Joseph, don’t fall victim to these plagues. Don’t destroy the value of your greatness by submitting to the anxiety that goes with it. Here’s Adam’s garment. He had lost every penny, been driven out of a Paradise, forced to go to work – manual labor, no less – and had nothing to his name but this garment. And look: he managed to remain so happy and satisfied with his simple life that he drew the figures of birds in flight, the symbols of careless happiness, of unconcerned joy and a feeling of uninhibited and un-anxious well-being. Remember, son, after your day of business is done, be done with it. Don’t worry about losing it. Just relax, trust in God who gave it to you to keep it for you, and don’t get sick looking for amusement. Just determine always to be happy with what you have. Let your mind be as free as a bird, though all you may have after all is only a shirt.” “When a king is at a celebration,” said the Mezeritscher Rebbe, “he is approachable to many people who otherwise would be denied admittance to the palace. Likewise, when we serve God with joy, He is more approachable.”

And finally, the third thing our sages had to say about this ancient garment worn by Adam was that it was no ordinary garment at all. It was, they maintained, bigdei kehuna, the robe of a high priest, worn while serving God, first used by Adam, then down the ages through Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and now being given to Joseph. That garment, in short, was the symbol of religious tradition. It was the service and worship of our one God, being transmitted from father to son, spanning all human history from its very beginnings. Oh how worried Jacob must have been when he took leave of his earthly existence and of his twelve sons. Joseph must have troubled him more than all the others. Such a wonderful son, such a clean-minded, upright young man of true integrity and fear of God. How would he fare when tested with wealth and might? Had he, perhaps, in all this luxury and regal splendor, forgotten his old father and his Eternal God? “What about these two young sons of Joseph I just blessed?” Jacob must have thought. “What is to become of them in this land of Egypt? Will they assimilate? Will they be Egyptian like all Egyptians, and angrily maintain that they are no different from other Egyptians who worshiped the sun as it rose on this Nile valley?” Joseph had to have a reminder with him at all times. And so Jacob gave him this high-priestly vestment, first worn by the first man. Religious responsibility, he meant to tell him, does not decrease with increased substance; it increases. Here, Joseph, is this yellow- greenish, ancient-looking, outmoded, outlandish, and, to Egyptian eyes, ridiculous-looking little robe. Wear it, Joseph. Maybe this garment of Adam, the robe of the high priest, doesn’t go well with your royal purple. Maybe a brand new, shiny, and attractive Egyptian robe would look nicer and be more appealing to your young folks who never saw or understood the religious tradition of Adam and Abraham and Isaac. Maybe so, but this is yours, and now you’re to wear it.

Even more than arrogance and unhappiness, the greatest victim of our American Jewish prosperity has been our religious tradition. It hasn’t always looked good beside the shiny brassiness of our newfound wealth. Some of our non-Jewish neighbors might have snickered at it – or so we thought. The tallis hasn’t always matched up to our tuxedos and riding habits and minks. And so we scrapped it. We disinherited ourselves from the ancient mantle which came down to us through the ages. We now wallow in the fat of the land – and the priestly garments lie somewhere unknown and un-mourned. I have been stressing the outlandish and old-fashioned look of this garment of Adam, precisely because this is the test of the Jew. Any child will automatically grab for that which is new and shiny and colorful. The test of Jewish maturity is to hold to the heart the old mantle, perhaps to polish it up, but never to exchange it. The Jew who is ashamed of it because it is so ancient looking is not an authentic Jew. Ludwig Lewisohn has given us an excellent description of the authentic Jew when he said that it depends on your reaction when walking with gentile  friends through New York’s East Side and seeing bearded, kaftan-robed and shtreimel-decked Jews running to Minĥa. If you feel uneasy and embarrassed, you’re not an authentic Jew, just like the Catholic ashamed of the robed nun is not an authentic Catholic. You can test it right here in Springfield. If you’re ashamed of being identified with your religion on Main Street, then – sorry to say – you’re not a full Jew. The true test of authenticity is to be as Americanized as Joseph was Egyptianized; as wealthy and mighty as Joseph – and still to proudly wear the mantle of your religious tradition.

“I have given you an extra portion over your brothers” – it is only one more trifle than the others received. But it is that one garment of Adam, with its triple message of humility, happiness, and holiness, which can spell the difference between successful, satisfying Jewish living, and abortive, unsatisfying, and un-Jewish living. The Torah offers it to us, even as Jacob offered it to Joseph. Let us not wait. Let us extend our hands, open our hearts, and take it – with humility, with happiness, and in holiness.

Posted on

The Light That Unites: Day 3 – Shalom Bayit The Teaching of A Single Candle

Excerpted from The Light That Unites: A Chanukah Companion – Blessings, Teachings, and Tales by Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider

The Teaching of A Single Candle

If a person finds himself with only one candle on Friday afternoon during Chanukah, should he light it as a Shabbat candle or a Chanukah candle?

It can’t be both. One might suggest that he should light it as a Chanukah candle. After all, this light signifies the great miracle and spreads its light to tell of the great event in our history.

Yet Jewish law holds that, faced with such a choice, he should light it as a Shabbat candle.

Why?

The Rambam beautifully explains: “The Shabbat light takes priority because it symbolizes shalom bayit, ‘domestic peace.’ …And great is peace, because the entire Torah was given in order to make peace in the world” (Laws of Chanukah 4:14).

Halachah, Jewish law, rules that if a person can light only one candle, the Shabbat light takes precedence. Peace in the home matters more than the great Maccabean military victory and even more than the miracle of the oil.

This teaching is beautifully exemplified by a wonderful story about one of the most beloved sages, the Chafetz Chaim (1839–1933). The world-renowned Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan had a rebbe, a mentor, who was not as well known as he was. His rebbe was a saintly man from the town of Horodna, Lithuania, named Rabbi Nachum Kaplan (1812–1879), known lovingly as Reb Nachum’ke.

The Chafetz Chaim made a point to observe carefully Reb Nachum’ke’s every action and deed, for he knew that anything that Reb Nachum’ke ever did was done with forethought and good intent.

It happened one night during Chanukah that the Chafetz Chaim came to visit his rebbe.

The time for lighting Chanukah candles came, and the Chafetz Chaim waited for his rebbe to recite the blessings and to light the candles. Surprisingly though, Reb Nachum’ke let the time pass and made no move to light the menorah. The Chafetz Chaim was a bit baffled that his rebbe would let the time slip by and not light on time, but he didn’t dare say anything.

More time elapsed, and still Reb Nachum’ke went about his regular routine without saying anything about the lighting of the Chanukah candles. An hour went by and then another hour; still the menorah was not lit. The Chafetz Chaim simply could not understand his rebbe’s inaction and apparent inattentiveness to this mitzvah.

Finally deep into the night, there was a knock on the door. The rebbe opened the door. It was his wife. Almost immediately after she came in, Reb Nachum’ke began his introductory prayers, recited the appropriate blessings, and then lit the Chanukah menorah. The Chafetz Chaim realized that there had to be a lesson here, so once the flames were flickering, he respectfully asked his rebbe to explain to him why he had let so much time elapse before finally lighting his menorah. Reb Nachum’ke explained patiently to his beloved student.

The Talmud (Shabbat 23b) poses a question: What is the law if a person has money to use for only one candle on the Friday night of Chanukah? Should he spend it on a Shabbos candle and fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles, or rather spend the money on a candle for his Chanukah menorah, and thereby fulfill the mitzvah of Chanukah candle lighting?

Reb Nachum’ke answered, “The Talmud states unequivocally that one is obligated to spend the money for a Shabbos candle, the reason being that the Shabbos candle, aside from the mitzvah involved, adds to shalom bayit, peace and tranquility of the home. Thus, a candle that fosters shalom bayit takes precedence even over the mitzvah of lighting Chanukah candles.

“I have no doubt,” continued Reb Nachum’ke, “that had my wife come home and realized that I did not wait for her with the Chanukah candles, she would unquestionably have been distraught. There would have been tension, and perhaps even anger on her part that I didn’t show her the courtesy of waiting until she returned. Thus, I delayed until she came home.

“You see,” added Reb Nachum’ke, “the Talmud itself used Chanukah candles as a focal point to emphasize the importance of marital harmony. Should I have taken these same Chanukah candles and through them diminished shalom bayit? Better to let the ideal time to light pass by and to fulfill the mitzvah of generating love and harmony in the home.”

Posted on

Parashat Veyetze: The Name that Calls Us

Excerpted from Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider’s Torah United: Teachings on the Weekly Parasha from Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chassidic Masters, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishing House

The Name That Calls Us

Vayetze is the parashah of names. In it, eleven children are born and each of them is given a unique name. The Ishbitzer Rebbe contemplated the underlying meaning of names. Each of us has been given a name, but what is its true significance?

In the days of the Patriarchs, wrote the rebbe, parents were able to discern the disposition of their child already at birth, and to give them an appropriate name. Rachel and Leah were given names that expressed their essential nature by their father Lavan. Rachel is named after an ewe, whose submissiveness before shearing reflects her restraint. Leah’s name comes from a root indicating weakness, because she drained herself in supplication to the Almighty. It follows that the names of Yaakov’s children are also not random but verbal distillations of their essences.

Regarding the notion of names, the Ishbitzer further quoted a thought-provoking Midrash: “A person has three names: The name that your parents gave you; the name that others call you; and the name you acquire for yourself.” Clearly, the Midrash does not refer to actual names but is offering insight into the human psyche. The first name is given by parents who name their child based on his or her innate personality, and such names are the ones recorded in Vayetze. The second “name” derives from one’s accomplishments, stature, or professional life, and might be “physician,” “mechanic,” “lawyer,” “academic,” and so forth.  It is how others see us. But what is the third name that we “acquire”?

The Ishbitzer Rebbe explained that the third name is “the rectification and healing of what one is lacking, even if the lack is imprinted at birth.” He does not mean purifying oneself from sin, but developing and ennobling one’s personality to make oneself a fuller person. The old aphorism has it that “you need to know yourself in order to grow.” Evidently, the rebbe was teaching his Chassidim, and by extension us, to be more aware of their “third name.” He impressed upon them the need for personal development and growth to realize the ideals and virtues that had not yet found a place in their lives.

We limit ourselves severely if we relate only to our first two “names.” If we aren’t working on ourselves actively, we can all too easily slide into a slippery rut from which escape is difficult. Our first “name” is rooted in our past, and the “second” in the present. The third is not a name we are called but a name that calls us to look to the future and encompasses our yearnings, personal victories, and steady growth. The
Maharal beautifully captured this idea:

Man is not created in his ultimate perfection. Man was created to realize his perfection. That is [the meaning of the verse], “Man is born to toil” ( Job 5:7) – man is born and exists for the aim of this toil, which is the actualization of his perfection.

Rabbi David Aaron, a contemporary master teacher of Kabbalah, tells the story of a guest his family once hosted for Shabbat dinner in the Old City of Yerushalayim. The guest had stopped in Israel after traveling the world. Her previous stop had been Japan, where she was, in her own words, “looking for herself.” Rabbi Aaron’s daughter, eight years old at the time, turned to her father with a very confused look. She opened her eyes wide and asked: “Looking for herself? I don’t understand. How did she lose herself? And if she was never in Japan before, why would she think she would find herself there?”

Rabbi Aaron shares this humorous anecdote in order to illustrate that, truthfully, we do carry multiple layers of identity. When we speak about “finding ourselves,” we are actually touching on a profound idea. We are far more than just the identity that we embody from birth, and even more than our hard-won professional attainments and social status. In the Ishbitzer Rebbe’s terms, we have a “third name” that is our very essence; it is what we call the soul. It is the seat of our strivings, lofty aspirations, and growth. Rabbi Aaron pithily terms these layers found in every human being “me, myself and I.” “Me” is the bundle of traits present at birth; “myself ” is the long string of accomplishments; and “I” is our essence, the divine spark within.

The Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Chassidut, similarly taught that a person consists of body, soul, and name. The Hebrew word for name (שֵׁם) comprises the middle two letters of the word for soul (נְשָׁמה), and so is conceived as the core of the soul. In other words, our name defines us, and as we have seen we possess more than one. Nevertheless, the divine image embedded within us is the core that fuels our creativity, propels us beyond our seeming limitations, and drives us toward becoming the most magnificent human beings we can be.

Posted on

Parashat Lech Lecha: Dowsing for God

Excerpted from Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider’s Torah United: Teachings on the Weekly Parasha from Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chassidic Masters, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishing House

Dowsing for God

In God’s first call to Avraham, He charges him with the words lech lecha (Genesis 12:1), conventionally translated as “go for yourself.” It would have been enough to communicate to Avraham that he should go to the land that God would show him by simply ordering lech, “go.” What did God intend by adding lecha?

A Clean Break
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik understood lecha to add an air of finality to the command lech. “Go for yourself” meant that Avraham had “to leave the past, to blot out his memory, to emigrate from his country to a new country.” If God had only said lech, “go,” Avraham might have understood that he was to journey to one place but then could continue on his way. Lech lecha makes it final: stake your place in the world. As Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor phrased it: “Abandon your land entirely; do not entertain the notion of ever returning to it!”

The Rav found support for this from the lover’s charge to his hesitant beloved: “Rise up (kumi lach), my love and fair one” (Song of Songs 2:10). Lach in this context emphasizes the finality of the action. “Enough, let’s go already” he says to her. And thus did God say to Avraham.

Complementing this reading is the Rav’s observation that lecha, “for yourself ” in the singular, connotes “by yourself.” Avraham had to leave everything familiar behind, anything that rooted him in his old life. This is made clear from the specification: “from your land, and from your birthplace, and from your father’s house” (Genesis 12:1).

This notion fits the well-known designation of Avraham as ha-ivri, the Hebrew. Literally, the epithet ivri (עבִרְִי ) means from the other side (עֵברֶ) of the river. Originating in Mesopotamia, Avraham was from the eastern side of the Jordan. But does it just mean “Avraham the immigrant”? The Rav believed that it marked Avraham as different, as someone who charted a distinctive lifestyle that stood in stark contrast to everyone else. That is why the Jews will forever be called Ivrim, for we are a people of unique beliefs, behavior, and goals.

To the Land of Promise
Rashi interpreted lecha, “for yourself,” to mean that the journey would be for Avraham’s own benefit. “There I will make you a great nation; here, you will not merit children.” The Talmud  explicitly states that the special merit of the Holy Land benefited Avraham. But why did Avraham need to be in the Land to receive this blessing?

The seminal medieval philosopher and poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi explained in his Kuzari that the Land of Israel is uniquely suited for the encounter between God and man, given its special metaphysical properties. In his famous dirge “Tziyon Ha-lo Tishali,” Halevi wrote: “The air of your land is the breath of life for our souls,” and many other medieval rabbinic figures adopted this line of thinking about the land’s holiness.

In his eulogy for Rabbi Wolf (Ze’ev) Gold, a leading figure in Religious Zionism and a signatory of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the Rav said:

I will never forget the evening in 5695 [1935] when I visited Rabbi Gold in Ramat Gan in Eretz Yisrael. He took me out to the orange groves near his house. It was a beautiful night, the sky was a perfect blue and there were endless stars. The bright moon of Eretz Yisrael shone all over the enchanted beauty. From afar we could see the lights of the new all-Jewish city of Tel Aviv glistening in the dark. The lights were telling us the thrilling and intoxicating news of the rebuilding of the Holy Land. Overwhelmed with emotion, Rabbi Gold gazed toward the horizon and then turned to me and said: “Whoever does not feel the presence of God in Eretz Yisrael on this beautiful night while looking at the magnificent moon and at these beckoning stars, breathing the clear and pure air filled with the fragrance of blossoming growth, and above all when looking at the glistening lights of the city that was built entirely by Jews, is simply blind.”

Rabbi Gold continued, “Rav Yehudah Halevi was right when he said that prophecy flows unhindered in Eretz Yisrael and we need only a proper vessel to receive its message.”

As we stood there, Rabbi Gold picked up a small pebble and kissed it, to fulfill Rav Abba’s dictum in the Talmud that he would kiss the rocks of Akko. That night, I thought to myself how insignificant I was compared to this special Jew who was able to experience the glory of God through the grandeur of the landscape of the Land of Israel.

The atmosphere of the Land of Israel is redolent of and with God.

A Natural Divining Rod
This explains why God said “to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), usually understood to mean that Avraham was not informed of his destination. Rashi said its identity was withheld “to make it beloved in his eyes.” The Ramban explored this a bit more deeply. He theorized that Avraham was not told where to go and wandered until he settled on Canaan, “not knowing that this was the land about which he was commanded.” Rabbi Soloveitchik elaborated that the journey was not linear, so that Avraham explored many countries, wondering if he had found the place that God had intended. At that point, God confirmed that he had found it by promising him, “I shall give this land to your offspring” (Genesis 12:7).

The Rav pointed to a strikingly similar scenario later in Avraham’s life. When God commanded Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak, He said to do so “on one of the mountains which I shall tell you” (Genesis 22:2). Apparently, Avraham would need to identify it intuitively.

What is the significance of Avraham locating these holy sites on his own? The Rav thinks the notion that kedushah, holiness, is an attracting force might be “the greatest discovery made by Avraham.” The fact that Avraham could find his way to the holy sites without guidance suggests that “the Almighty has implanted in the Jew a sensitivity to kedushah, to the holy.” In other words, the Jew naturally yearns for holiness and seeks to uncover and recognize it even when on the surface it is not apparent. This further indicates that knowledge of God is not merely abstract and intellectual but passionate and experiential.

This explains why Jews have a special place in their hearts for the Land of Israel and leave reason at the door in all that concerns it. It is our special place, a place where Avraham would go to birth our nation:

[O]ur relationship to Eretz Yisrael is that of segulah. Whenever segulah comes to the forefront, to the foreground, ratiocination resigns. You cannot rationalize events which revolve around segulah. There is an element of diminuendos, of the frighteningly strange, and of the hidden ineffable in the segulah’s charisma.

Exploring the Rav’s Insight
What are we to make of this somewhat mysterious notion that a Jew has an internal divining rod that leads him to holiness? The Rav asserts that “there is an eternal commitment in the Jew to the Almighty,” whether conscious or not, which he identified as what Chabad-Lubavitch Chassidut calls ahavah tiv’it: “a natural instinctual drive and urge in the Jew to find God.”

In Tanya, Rebbe Shneur Zalman of Liady, the Alter Rebbe, explained that every Jew has an inherent drive to seek God and holiness by virtue of being a descendant of our forefathers. This longing is not logical or rational because it emanates from the part of our soul that in kabbalistic thought is beyond reason. It is “wisdom” (חכָמְָה) of our soul, the “power of the what” (כחֹּ מָה), that is to say, that which one cannot even ask “what” about. It is a simple desire embedded in each and every Jew to unite with God. In the same way the flame of a candle seeks to jump off the wick to unite with the source of elemental fire above, the Jewish soul yearns to leave the body and unite with God.

Like a nomad in the desert who can find his way to water, Avraham was able to discover holiness in the spiritually desolate world of polytheism. We, his descendants, have been gifted this skill for discerning holiness, but it often remains underutilized. Like Avraham, we need to be called to use it in our lives. And so lech lecha is not only a command to Avraham, but to every one of us. It is imperative that each and every one of us seek out what is holy, even when there is no one providing us with map, and surely no X’s marking any spots.

Two simple words, lech lecha, have resonated in the minds and hearts of our people for thousands of years. As the famed Kotzker Rebbe once taught, not only did Avraham hear this call from heaven, but in every generation we are summoned to hear these words and allow them to pierce our hearts.

Posted on

Gan Shoshanim 3 – Yom Kippur

Excerpted from Rabbi Menachem Genack’s Gan Shoshanim 3

בענין הדלקת הנר ביום הכפורים

במשנה (פסחים נג ע”ב) מקום שנהגו להדליק את הנר בלילי יום הכפורים מדליקין, מקום שנהגו שלא להדליק אין מדליקין. ובגמ’ שם, תנא בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהן לדבר אחד נתכוונו, דרש רבא ועמך כלם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ וגו’ בין שאמרו להדליק ובין שאמרו שלא להדליק שניהם לא נתכוונו אלא לדבר אחד [ופרש”י אותן שנהגו להדליק והנוהגין שלא להדליק לא נתכוונו אלא לדבר אחד, להפריש עצמו ממשכבי אשה, האומרים להדליק משום דאין אדם משמש מטתו לאור הנר, והאומרים שלא להדליק סוברים כשהנר דולק רואה את אשתו ומתאווה לה].

והנה בשו”ע (או”ח תר”י ס”ב) יש מי שאומר שמברך על הדלקת נר יום כיפורים, והיא שיטת הרא”ש. ובביאור הגר”א שם השיג על זה דכיון דאינו אלא מנהג, ואין מברכים על מנהג נביאים כדאיתא בגמ’ סוכה (דף מד ע”ב), כש”כ זה.

ורבינו ז”ל אמר בשם אביו הגר”מ ז”ל בביאור שיטת הרא”ש דבמקום שנהגו להדליק אינו מטעם מנהג לחוד, אלא דאיכא חיוב להדליק משום כבוד יום הכפורים, דאף דיוה”כ מופקע מחיוב עונג מ”מ אית ליה חיוב כבוד, כדאיתא בגמ’ (שבת קיט ע”א) א”ל ריש גלותא לרב המנונא, מאי דכתיב ולקדוש ה’ מכובד, א”ל זה יוה”כ שאין בו לא אכילה ולא שתיה, אמרה תורה כבדהו בכסות נקיה, ע”כ. הרי להדיא דאיכא מצות כבוד ביוה”כ, והדלקת נר יש בו משום עונג ומשום כבוד, כמבואר ברמב”ם (פ”ה מהל’ שבת ה”א ופרק ל’ ה”ה), ולכן מברכים על הדלקת הנר משום מצות כבוד יוה”כ שבו, רק שיש מקומות שנהגו שלא להדליק משום איסור תשמיש המטה, והיינו דהמנהג מפקיע החיוב להדליק, אבל במקומות שנהגו להדליק, אינו מטעם מנהג לחוד אלא הוי ג”כ משום עיקר דין כבוד יוה”כ [ובאמת כן מבואר בדברי הרא”ש (ביומא פ”ח סי’ כז) שאין מברכים משום המנהג לחוד אלא משום המצוה דשייך ביוה”כ כמו בשבת, וז”ל ויראה שיש לברך על הדלקת הנר כמו בשבת משום שלום בית, עכ”ל.]

ויש להעיר דמדברי הרמב”ם משמע דלא כדברי הגר”מ, שכתב (בפ”ג מהל’ שביתת עשור ה”י) וז”ל, יש מקומות שנהגו להדליק את הנר בלילי יום הכפורים כדי שיהיה לו בושת פנים מאשתו ולא יבוא לידי תשמיש המטה, ויש מקומות שנהגו שלא להדליק שמא יראה אשתו ותשא חן בעיניו ויבא לידי תשמיש. ואם חל יום הכפורים להיות בשבת חייבין הכל להדליק בכל מקום שהדלקת נר בשבת חובה, עכ”ל. הרי כתב הרמב”ם דדוקא ביוה”כ שחל בשבת איכא חובה, אבל ביוה”כ סתם נראה מדבריו דאינו אלא משום מנהג לחוד, וכדעת הגר”א. אולם אף אם נימא דאינו אלא מנהג לחוד, לכאורה שייך לומר שמברכים עליו מטעם אחר, דידועים דברי הגרי”ז (בספרו הל’ ברכות) דשייך ברכה על המנהג היכא דהוי חפצא של מצוה, כמו שמברכים על יו”ט שני אף דחיובו משום מנהג אבותיהם משום דהוי חפצא של מצוה, וה”נ כיון דהדלקת נר בשבת הוי מצוה, יתכן דהדלקת נר ביוה”כ, אף דאין המחייב אלא משום מנהג, יש לברך עליו דהוי חפצא של מצוה. וכן אנו עושים בנר חנוכה שמדליקים בבית הכנסת ומברכים עליו אף דאינו אלא משום מנהג.

[ויש להעיר דהגר”מ נקט בפשיטות דלא שייך עונג ביוה”כ, אולם י”ל דאף דיוה”כ אסור באכילה ובשתייה ובשאר עינויים מ”מ יש בו מצות עונג, וי”ל בב’ אופנים, או דמקיים עונג ע”י כסות נקייה, והיינו ע”פ שיטת הגר”א (או”ח סי’ תכט סק”ה) דהחילוק בין כבוד לעונג הוא דכבוד הוא מה שנעשה לפני השבת להכין צרכי שבת ועונג הוא מה שעושה בשבת עצמו, וא”כ ע”י לבישת כסות נקייה ביוה”כ י”ל שמקיים מצות עונג. אי נמי יש לומר דע”י התענית עצמו מקיים מצות עונג, דהעונג של יוה”כ הוא להתענות, וכלשון הפייטן (ראב”ע), על כן להתענות בו על פי נבוניו אסור לבד מיום כפור עווני, משמע דהא דמתענים ביוה”כ שחל בשבת אינו משום שיוה”כ דוחה איסור תענית בשבת אלא שביוה”כ לא שייך איסור זה כלל, והיינו משום דהעונג של יוה”כ הוא להתענות.]

והנה עי’ בגמ’ פסחים שם (נג ע”ב) דתני תנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן, ר”ש בן אלעזר אומר יום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת, אף במקום שאמרו שלא להדליק מדליקין מפני כבוד השבת, ועני רבי יוחנן בתריה וחכמים אוסרים, ע”כ. הרי דנחלקו ביוה”כ שחל בשבת אם שייך המנהג שלא להדליק. ובפשטות צ”ב שיטת חכמים דאף בשבת אין להדליק, דמצות הדלקת הנר בשבת מה תהא עליה. אולם לפי דברי הגר”מ דהמנהג שלא להדליק ביוה”כ בא להפקיע מצות ההדלקה דאיכא בכל יוה”כ משום כבוד, י”ל דס”ל לחכמים דהוא הדין דהמנהג מפקיע מצות הדלקת נר בשבת, ובזה נחלקו ר”ש בן אלעזר ורבנן, דרשב”א ס”ל דהמנהג שלא להדליק אין בכחה להפקיע אלא מצות הדלקת הנר של יוה”כ, אבל אין המנהג יכול להפקיע מצות הדלקת הנר בשבת, וחכמים ס”ל דהמנהג מפקיע אף מצות הדלקת הנר של שבת.

וביתר ביאור נראה דר”ש בן אלעזר ס”ל דהמנהג שלא להדליק יכול להפקיע המצוה של הדלקת הנר ביוה”כ כיון דאיסור תשמיש המטה ביוה”כ הוי חלק מעצם קדושת היום של יוה”כ, דהנה כתב הרמב”ם (פ”א מהל’ שביתת עשור ה”ה) וז”ל, וכן למדנו מפי השמועה שאסור לרחוץ בו או לסוך בו או לנעול את הסנדל או לבעול. ומצוה לשבות מכל אלו כדרך ששובת מאכילה ושתייה שנאמר שבת שבתון, שבת לעניין מלאכה, ושבתון לעניינים אלו, עכ”ל. הרי דכלל דין ה’ עינויים בעיקר השביתה של יוה”כ, ובקרא של שבת שבתון נכללו ה’ העינויים. ולפי זה הדרא קושיא לדוכתה, לשיטת חכמים, איך האיסור של תשמיש המטה ביוה”כ יכול להפקיע מצות הדלקה של שבת שלכאורה אינו מעניינו כלל.

ונראה לבאר שבזה נחלקו ר”ש בן אלעזר ורבנן אם יש מיזוג בין יוה”כ ושבת ומצטרפים לקדושה אחת של שבת יוה”כ שהוא חלות קדושה בפ”ע. והנה כעי”ז שמעתי ממו”ר זצ”ל שנחלקו רש”י ובה”ג לגבי שבת ויו”ט אם מצטרפים לקדושה אחת, דאיתא בגמ’ (ברכות מט ע”א) אין חותמין בשתים איתיביה לוי לרבי וכו’ מקדש השבת וישראל והזמנים, חוץ מזו. ומאי שנא הכא חדא היא, התם תרתי כל חדא וחדא באפי נפשה. ורש”י שם כתב וז”ל אין כאן אלא ברכת מקדש שמברך להקב”ה שמקדש השבת והזמנים וכו’, ובה”ג גרס הכי חוץ מזו ומ”ש הני תרתי קדושי נינהו ומודה רבי דחתמינן בהו בשתים וכו’ ואינו נ”ל וכו’, עכ”ל. הרי דבה”ג פי’ דשבת ויו”ט הוו תרתי קדושות, ורש”י נחלק עליו ונראה דס”ל דמצטרפים לקדושה אחת ולכן אין בו משום הא דאין חותמין בשתים. ועי’ בתלמידי רבינו יונה שם וז”ל ומהדרי’ הכא הא בהא תליא וכו’ כלומר מקדש השבת וישראל והזמנים אע”פ שנראי’ כשתים ענין אחד הוא, שקדושת ישראל תלויה בקדושת השבת, וקדושת הזמנים וראשי חדשים תלויה בקדושת ישראל, וכיון שתלוי זה בזה כמו קדושה אחת דיינינן ליה. ורבי’ אפרים הספרדי ז”ל פי’ דהא בהא תליא רוצה לומר אע”פ שנראה כשני ענינים כיון ששתי הקדושות באין בזמן אחד כמו קדושה אחת הוי ולפיכך חותם בשתיהם, עכ”ל. ויתכן דכוונת רבינו אפרים הוא ג”כ דשבת ויו”ט מצטרפים לקדושה אחת [וכ”כ הגר”י ענגיל בציונים לתורה (עמ’ מח) והאריך בזה כדרכו בקדש, ע”ש].

ונראה דאף לפי בה”ג דשבת ויו”ט הוו ב’ קדושות ואין מצטרפין, מ”מ יש לומר דקדושת שבת ויוה”כ מצטרפין, דהא יוה”כ הוא שבת שבתון ואסור במלאכת אוכל נפש כשבת, [ועי’ בגמ’ שבת קיד ע”א עולת שבת בשבתו לימד על חלבי שבת שקריבין ביום הכיפורים, יכול אף של יוה”כ בשבת ת”ל בשבתו, דברי רבי ישמעאל. ר’ עקיבא אומר עולת שבת בשבתו, לימד על חלבי שבת שקרבים ביו”ט, יכול אף ביוה”כ ת”ל בשבתו, ויתכן דפליגי בזה]. ולכן ס”ל לחכמים דביוה”כ שחל בשבת אין מדליקין את הנר דקדושת היום של יוה”כ שחל בשבת אינה מחייבת הדלקת הנר.

והנה נסתפקתי ביו”ט שחל בשבת והתפלל תפילת יו”ט ושכח של שבת, ושוב התפלל תפילת שבת ושכח של יו”ט, אם יוצא. ונראה דתלוי בזה אם שבת ויו”ט מצטרפים לקדושה אחת, דאם נימא שאין מצטרפים, הא התפלל של שבת ושל יו”ט ואינו חסר מידי, אבל אם נימא דשבת ויו”ט מצטרפים הרי לא התפלל תפילה שכוללת קדושת היום כלל. ועי’ במחזיק ברכה (סי’ רסח סק”ט) שכתב וז”ל, ליל שבת ויו”ט אם אדם שכח והתפלל תפילת יו”ט לבד ולא הזכיר שבת, ושמע ברכה מעין ז’ מהש”ץ כולה, נראה דיצא לפי מה שפסק מרן בדין זה, מידי דהוה לאוכל פירות מעין ז’ ומזונות דדינא הוא לכוללם בברכה מעין ג’, ואם שכח ובירך על המחיה לחוד דפשיטא דמברך על העץ אח”כ לחוד וה”ה הכא, עכ”ל.

ובס’ שלמי חגיגה נחלק עליו וז”ל, וראיתי לה”ה מוהרח”א נר”ו בס’ מחזיק ברכה שכתב על נדון זה דיוצא בברכת מעין ז’ מידי דהוה לאוכל פירות ומזונות וכו’ אנא דאמרי כי אחרי המחילה הראויה לא כיון יפה בזה ואין הנדון דומה לראיה כלל, דשאני התם שהם ב’ מינים נפרדים ומחולקים זה מזה הן במינן הן האכילות והנאתן, ומן הראוי היה לברך ברכה פרטית על כל מין ומין בפני עצמו אלא שרז”ל לא הצריכו כן שלא להרבות בברכות ויכלול הכל בברכה אחת וכו’ משא”כ בשבת וי”ט, כשחל יו”ט בשבת, בהיום הזה אין הקדושות נפרדות זו מזו אלא יום אחד הוא שיש בו קדושה יתירתא שהוא כלול מב’ קדושות כאחד ולכן בכל תפלה שיתפלל כהיום הזה צריך להזיר בה שתי קדושות כדי שתהיה התפלה דומה ליום דכשם שהיום הוא יום אחד והוא כלול משני קדושות כך תהיה התפלה תפלה אחת כלולה משני קדושות, עכ”ל. ובשע”ת סי’ תקפב הביא מחלוקת זו. מבואר להדיא דפליגי בזה החיד”א והשלמי חגיגה אי שבת ויו”ט מצטרפים לקדושה אחת.

שוב הראני ידידי ר’ אליהו קרקובסקי נ”י דברי האור שמח בפ”ד מהל’ עבודת יוה”כ ה”א שכתב לבאר דברי הרמב”ם שם פ”א ה”ב דאם חל יוה”כ בשבת “אף מוסף שבת אין מקריב אותו אלא כהן גדול”, וכתב האו”ש דהיינו משום “דמוספי שבת בקדושת יוה”כ מקדשי”, ולפ”ז כתב וז”ל, וכן נ”ל דקדושת יוה”כ חיילא על שבת ג”כ להקדישו בשבות מכל אכילה, דקדושת יוה”כ גם לשבת אהני שיוקדש בענות נפש, ולכן ביוה”כ שחל בשבת וחולה שיש בו סכנה שצריך לאכול, מורה אני דלא מקדש גם על שבת, דזה קדושת שבת אז שלא לאכול בו, ופשוט, עכ”ל. אולם בחי’ רעק”א (או”ח סי’ תרי”ח) כתב דחולה שצריך לאכול ביוה”כ שחל בשבת חייב בקידוש ע”ש, הרי דפליגי הגרעק”א והאו”ש בנקודה זו, אי שבת ויוה”כ מצטרפים לקדושה אחת.

Posted on

Parashat Ekev: Women’s Role in Torah Study

Excerpted from Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider’s Torah United: Teachings on the Weekly Parasha from Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chassidic Masters, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishing House

Women’s Role in Torah Study According to the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Parashat Ekev enjoins us to teach the words of God to our banim (Deuteronomy 11:19). The Talmud construes this term in its narrow sense of “sons,” excluding daughters. It makes clear that women are not obligated in talmud Torah (Torah study). Although this law leaves little room for ambiguity, our greatest scholars throughout the generations have offered nuanced explanations of it. In this context, we will examine the opinion followed in the world of Lubavitch Chassidut, even if the presentation cannot be fittingly comprehensive here.

In 1970, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, delivered a discourse on this topic. He began by citing the relevant laws codified by the Alter Rebbe, Shneur Zalman of Liady, in his Shulchan Aruch ha-Rav:

Women are not obligated in the mitzvah of talmud Torah (Torah study). Since they are not obligated, they have no obligation to teach their children or pay tuition for their education.

When a woman assists her son or husband in talmud Torah, however, she shares the merit equally with them.

Although not formally obligated in talmud Torah, women are obligated to study the halachot governing the mitzvot they must perform.

Needless to say, the Alter Rebbe formulated the laws very carefully. Why, the Lubavitcher Rebbe asked, did he place the third point last if it constitutes an obligation, while the second point discusses voluntary involvement alone?

The rebbe answered that while helping the men in the family is not strictly an obligation, it is also not merely a generic act of chesed or kindness. The woman is actively participating in the mitzvah of talmud Torah. He analogized this to the position of the Ran (Rabbi Nissim b. Reuven) regarding the mitzvah of procreation. Although strictly speaking only men have the mitzvah, the woman’s involvement or partnership in the act of intimacy, childbearing, and childbirth results in her sharing equally in the mitzvah. The Talmud’s exclusion of women from the mitzvah of talmud Torah is only on the level of obligation. By actively facilitating their learning, a woman becomes an equal partner who shares the reward with the one who is commanded in the mitzvah.

Although we have a better grasp of the Alter Rebbe’s second point, it still does not explain why this participatory act is greater than her own learning for the sake of observance. The Lubavitcher Rebbe located the difference in their purpose. Learning to acquire the knowledge needed to properly perform mitzvot is preparatory in nature, a means to another end. This talmud Torah is for an admirable cause, but it is not for its own sake. On the other hand, assisting learning that has no motive beyond the learning itself is considered full-fledged talmud Torah. As a result, the assistance comes before the independent study.

Even though this is the “lowest” of the levels enumerated by the Alter Rebbe, the Lubavitcher Rebbe went to lengths to show that it is nothing to be scoffed at. It is not “merely” a hechsher mitzvah, a preparatory adjunct to another mitzvah; it, too, partakes of the mitzvah itself in its own way. The Rogatchover Gaon (Rabbi Yosef Rosen), an eminent Talmudic genius, cited such a case from the avodah (Temple service). When a kohen would offer a sacrifice on the altar, he followed a procedure in ascending the altar with the animal parts, called holachah, which seems to be a practical necessity for carrying out the actual mitzvah of offering the sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Talmud rules that any inappropriate intent during this phase disqualifies the entire sacrifice. Clearly, this preparation is, in some sense, part and parcel of the mitzvah itself. The Lubavitcher Rebbe opined that in learning Torah to perform the mitzvot, a woman has a strong connection to talmud Torah itself. If that mitzvah is about deepening one’s connection to God and becoming uplifted, then the same is certainly achieved by her study.

This perspective answers a curious question about the blessings recited in the morning. If women are truly excluded from talmud Torah, why do they make a blessing over Torah study? According to the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s approach, a woman reaches an elevated spiritual level through her own action-oriented learning, so she recites the blessing. Her study is both ennobling and worthy.

If a woman were to master all the knowledge needed to flawlessly observe the mitzvot, would she continue to recite those blessings over Torah study? The rebbe answered his own hypothetical affirmatively. Her study is not just about practical application, it has intrinsic value and personal meaning.

In sum, the Lubavitcher Rebbe elevated the Torah learning of women in two respects. First, by enabling her family to engage in talmud Torah, a woman receives credit for that mitzvah specifically. Second, her Torah study for proficiency in executing her obligations is much more than a detached hechser mitzvah. The Lubavitcher Rebbe maximized the value of women’s Torah study to the extent possible within his Chassidic tradition and worldview.

This reconceptualization flowed from a much broader appreciation and celebration of the Jewish woman in Chabad Chassidut. At a special gathering at 770 in Crown Heights, the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke to a packed hall of women about the unique qualities of the Jewish woman and her integral role in God’s plan. When the Torah was first given, God ordered Moshe to address the women first (Exodus 19:3), thereby strengthening the rest of people’s acceptance of it as well. Moreover, said the rebbe, when the mishkan (Tabernacle) was first built, Jewish women and girls were first to line up for donations; the men only contributed after having been inspired by their example. In fact, it is the Jewish woman, endowed with a distinctive gracefulness that exerts a positive influence on the concentric circles around her, that turns the home into a mishkan about which God can say: “I shall dwell in their midst” (Exodus 25:8).

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s remarks echo a comment made by Rabbeinu Bachya some seven hundred and fifty years ago. The woman sets the tone of the home, so she bears the greater duty of inculcating love of Torah in her children. “Due to this role a mother should pray when she kindles her Shabbat candles that in the merit of the Shabbat flames, her children should merit the illumination of Torah, which is also likened to flames.” When taking the wide view, we can see that it is the women who facilitate talmud Torah by inspiring their children and husbands. To quote Rabbi Akiva, what’s ours is theirs.

Posted on

Parashat Balak: A Good Eye

Excerpted from Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider’s Torah United: Teachings on the Weekly Parasha from Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chassidic Masters, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishing House

A Good Eye

“‘There has arisen no prophet in Israel like Moshe’ (Deuteronomy 34:10), but among the nations of the world there has arisen. Who is he? Bilam ben Be’or.” That is some high praise for a non-Jewish prophet, no matter how accomplished. Note, however, that the verse says “like Moshe” ( כמְשֶֹׁה ), and this is an instance where the kaf of comparison (-ְ כּ) remains in the realm of “not quite.” In fact, in one significant respect Bilam did not hold a candle to Jewish prophets of even non-Mosaic rank:

All the prophets [of the Jewish people] were motivated by the attribute of mercy toward both the Jewish people and the nations. [ . . . ] As for the prophets of the nations of the world, they were motivated by the attribute of cruelty, for [Bilam] arose to uproot an entire nation for no reason at all.

Perhaps Bilam was bitten by the nasty bug of anti-Judaism, as his actions bespeak a blind hatred of the Jewish people. When offered a princely sum by an entourage from Moav to curse the Jewish people, he had the audacity to think God might see things his way (Numbers 22:19). He then woke early to pronounce his curse and even saddled his own donkey (Numbers 22:21). Our Sages observe that he broke with routine and did not wait for his servants, since “hate prevents thinking straight.” Contrast this with Avraham’s saddling of his own donkey prior to the Akedah, the Binding of Yitzchak – “love prevents thinking straight.”

The Midrash tells us that Bilam exhibited the “attribute of cruelty,” so it was in character for him to attempt to harness God’s “attribute of judgment.” For one moment every day, for a mere 1/58,888th of an hour, God gets angry, and “no living being can determine precisely when this moment occurs except for the wicked Bilam.” Bilam’s intention was to curse the Jewish people at this precise moment, so that God Himself would be the one to destroy them.

It is difficult to comprehend what exactly it means for God to get angry, since He is perfectly benevolent and is not an entity that experiences passions. Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook viewed the notion of God getting angry as a way of teaching us about our own midot, our character and conduct. Every human character trait with which God has endowed us can be used positively. One should feel anger at injustice, corruption, cruelty, and other equally terrible human failings. Of the spectrum of emotions, though, anger should color our perception of the world only on the rare occasions it is truly warranted. This is what is meant by God’s anger lasting 1/58,888th of an hour. In modern parlance, this emotion should linger for a microsecond, long enough for it to register and be acted upon, and then dissipate.

The wicked, entrenched in immorality and iniquity, use the raw power of negative emotions to further their diabolical ends. Bilam used his unusual gifts to tap into divine “anger” and pipe it onto the Jewish people. The righteous, according to Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlop, know that God is only merciful, and so they seek to bring blessing into the world and annul divine decrees made in divine “anger.”

Our Sages contrast Avraham and Bilam in how they view the world:

Those who have a good eye, a humble spirit, and a modest soul are among the disciples of our forefather Avraham. Those who have an evil eye, an arrogant spirit, and an insatiable soul are of the disciples of the wicked Bilam.

The Mishnah does not focus on all the great character traits of Avraham, but on the essential attributes that were at the root of his generous spirit.

A person with a good eye wishes that others be blessed with good fortune. The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot asks: “Who is rich? Whoever is happy with their lot.” Rebbe Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter, the Sefat Emet, imparted to his Chassidim that the very rich are those who are happy when their friends experience good fortune. Furthermore, by cultivating this outlook, we become more like Avraham in seeking to extend our own good fortune to others. Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook drew the following contrast: “Bilam was a professional hexer. Avraham was a source of blessing . . . ‘[all the families of the earth] shall be blessed through you’ (Genesis 12:3).”

Rav Kook the father explained that a good eye, arguably man’s most precious midah, does not come from working on a single character trait like compassion or generosity. It is an entire perspective on the world and on life. One recognizes God’s goodness and feels blessed to live in such a world. When a Jew awakens in the morning the first words uttered are modeh, an expression of thanks. Rav Kook explained that this prayer verbalizes a feeling of optimism and hope for oneself, one’s fellow Jew, and the entire world.

Rav Kook once advised: If you find yourself in a dark place, don’t waste your time cursing the darkness, just light a candle. This is the Jewish way. It is no coincidence that the titles of Rav Kook’s writings incorporate the Hebrew word for lights, orot. They strive to see world from a benevolent God’s-eye-view, as it were, in which everything is rising and fractures are healing. Divine anger is – at worst – fleeting. The kindness and compassion Rav Kook and his writings promote light up the world.

Posted on

Parashat Shelach: Moments of Moment

Excerpted from Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider’s Torah United: Teachings on the Weekly Parasha from Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chassidic Masters, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishing House

Moments of Moment

One cannot help but be captivated by the personality of Calev. Of the twelve leaders detailed to reconnoitering the land of Canaan, only he and Yehoshua returned with positive reports. Surprisingly, Calev turned out to be the hero in the drama that unfolded. He silenced the people and encouraged them, “We can surely go up and take it; we have the power to do it” (Numbers 13:30). In return, God honored him by calling him “My servant” (Numbers 14:24), an appellation used sparingly, and promised that his progeny will inherit the land. Indeed, when the Jewish people eventually conquered the land of Canaan, Calev was immediately given the city of Chevron as a gift ( Joshua 14:14).

When God praises Calev, He says, “he had a ru’ach acheret with him, and he followed after Me” (Numbers 14:24). The phrase ru’ach acheret is typically translated positively to mean that he had a different intention or plan that opposed the other spies. However, the Or ha-Chayim ha-Kadosh, Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar, interpreted the term in light of kabbalistic terminology, where acher/et refers to the “other” side of the divine emanation, the side of darkness and evil. The scriptural phrase now means that Calev had “the other spirit,” the evil inclination, with him, “but he followed after Me” nonetheless. The pressure was strong to join the near consensus of the spies, who were good people, and Calev did battle with himself to maintain faith in the divine promise of a good
land. In the end, as God Himself attests, he prevailed.

This human take on Calev fits the Talmudic story, which has it that Calev left the company of the other spies to travel to Chevron and prostrate himself at the graves of our patriarchs and matriarchs. His purpose was to draw strength from the faith of his ancestors, so that he could resist joining the cabal of his companions.

Calev might have won the internal battle, but he would still need all the fight left in him to take on the other spies and the masses of receptive ears. After his colleagues delivered their depressing intelligence estimate, Calev acted swiftly: “Calev silenced the people toward Moshe and said, ‘We can surely go up and take it; we are able to do it’” (Numbers 13:30). The formulation here is curious: Why does it say Calev quieted them “toward Moshe”?

The Meshech Chochmah, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, posited that this is indicative of a larger concern. The people panicked out of concern that Moshe would not lead them into the land. Recall that according to the Sages, Eldad and Medad had prophesied that Moshe would die and Yehoshua would assume the mantle of leadership.3 How could the Jewish people defeat giants without a spiritual giant of their own? Calev’s counterargument was that they had it all backwards. Moshe’s greatness and ability to work miracles came from the people themselves, and not the other way around. So long as the people were worthy, God would help them fell giants.

The Piasetzner Rebbe, Kalonymus Kalman Shapira, focused on a different element of Calev’s response. The briefing of the spies seemed sound to its audience. It was predicated on facts, and the measures to take or not take seemed rooted in common sense. Was it not the sensible danger assessment they were tasked with drawing up at the outset? Calev provided no contradictory evidence, nor did he poke holes in their logic. Even worse, the spies mixed truth with lies when they said they had seen the offspring of giants (Numbers 13:28), because only Calev had seen the colossi upon entering Chevron. Why did he not call them out, then? How could he expect to sway the people without presenting a rival account and mounting a skillful defense? Why did he simply say the biblical version of “we can do it”?

The Piasetzner answered that the true test of faith is not when reason points the way to being rescued, but when there appears to be no way out:

The faith of the Jew needs to be         אֲבָל כָּךְ צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת אֱמוּנַת
such that he believes that God            אִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי, לֹא בִּלְבַד בְּשָׁעָה
will save him not only when                שֶׁרוֹאֶה מָבוֹא וְדֶרֶךְ לִישׁוּעָתוֹ גַּם
he sees a logical or natural way           עַל פִּי שִׂכְלוֹ וְדֶרֶךְ הַטֶּבַע יַאֲמִין
of being saved, but even when,            בַּה׳ שֶׁיּוֹשִׁיעֵהוּ וְיִתְחַזֵּק, רַק בְּשָׁעָה
God forbid, he sees no logical or        שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה ח״ו שׁוּם מָבוֹא עַל פִּי
natural way of being saved, and         שֵׂכֶל וְדֶרֶךְ הַטֶּבַע לִישׁוּעָתוֹ יַאֲמִין
strengthens his faith and reliance      בַּה׳ שֶׁיּוֹשִׁיעֵהוּ וְיִתְחַזֵּק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ
on God.                                                          ובִּטְחוֹנוֹ.

Calev did not expose the weaknesses of the spies’ account, despite the half-truths it included. To do so would have been beside the point. The Jewish people needed to have faith that insurmountable walls could be scaled and giants cut down to size, even when logic dictated otherwise.

Did Calev’s courageous words make any difference? The other spies did not miss a beat in flat-out contradicting him. They then went on at length about the difficulties presented by the land and its people. While it looks like Calev’s few words barely made a dent in the popular perception, the length and repetition indicate that Calev did score some points in the moment. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein declared this short-lived upswing a success nonetheless. He compared it to the halachic principle of violating the laws of Shabbat to save a life, which applies even when the life in question will only be prolonged for a few moments. Similarly, spiritual achievements are of great moment even if their duration is brief.

The power of a single word of encouragement or small constructive act is humanly immeasurable. Sometimes the seeds we plant bear fruit that we can see or even taste down the road; sometimes we are throwing a bottle into an endless ocean. On that fateful day in the wilderness, when the people cried out in fear, Calev’s soothing voice was heard and touched their hearts, even if only for a moment. Immortalized in the Torah, his words still resound, charged with optimism.

Posted on

Parashat Beha’alotcha – A Prophetic Postscript

Excerpted from Rabbi Shmuel Goldin’s Unlocking the Torah Text – Bamidbar, co-published by OU Press and Gefen Publishers

A Prophetic Postscript

Context
As Moshe’s prophetic spirit is shared with the elders selected to the first Sanhedrin, the Torah states: “Va’yitnabu [they prophesied], v’lo yasafu.”

A fascinating debate emerges among the early biblical commentaries regarding the biblical disclaimer v’lo yasafu. Reflected in this dispute are two diametrically opposed positions concerning the prophetic vision evidenced by the elders at this critical historical moment.

The Sifrei maintains that the term yasafu derives from the term l’hosif, to add or continue. The phrase v’lo yasafu, therefore, means “and did not continue.” The gift of prophecy experienced by the elders was a transient phenomenon, specific to the moment.

Targum Onkelos disagrees. Apparently maintaining that the term yasafu derives from the root sof (end), Onkelos interprets the phrase v’lo yasafu to mean “and did not end.” The prophetic vision granted to the elders, Onkelos argues, was permanent and did not cease with their ascension to leadership.

Questions
Why do these scholars stake out such widely varying positions concerning the nature of the elders’ prophetic vision? Is this dispute simply a linguistic argument, or does it mirror a deeper philosophical divide?

Approaches

A
A case can perhaps be made that the debate between the Sifrei and the Targum reflects a fundamental tension in our approach to the very process of halacha, a tension mirrored at the pivotal moment of the Sanhedrin’s creation.

B
Reflecting the normative approach to halachic jurisprudence, the Sifrei maintains: Lo ba’shamayim hi, the law is not in the heavens. Once transmitted to the Jewish nation at Sinai, Jewish law is to be decided by sages, not by prophets. The tools of the posek (halachic decisor) are the posek’s own scholarship, his intellectual acumen, his loyalty to the halachic process, his familiarity with the vast repository of earlier halachic discussions, and his understanding of his people and his times. Prophecy has no continuing place in this process, for at Sinai God hands the law over to man.

The Sifrei is therefore adamant. A transient prophetic event launches the inauguration of the Sanhedrin, granting that central legal body its divine approbation. After that moment, however, prophetic vision is no longer a component in the Sanhedrin’s continued functioning.

C
There is, however, another, spiritual dimension to the unfolding of Jewish law. For all its intellectual character, the law remains our most direct mode of communion with the mystery of God’s will. Sparks of ruach hakodesh, holy or divine spirit, are therefore seen by many as guiding the decisions of the rabbis across the ages.

How strongly one perceives the presence of this sanctified spirit in the workings of halacha depends on one’s background and philosophical outlook.

Those with an intellectual bent will, of course, minimize any sense of mystery in the halachic process. To their view, as indicated above, the beauty of the law is specifically reflected in its human character, in its definition as a divine law given to the hands of man. Others, however, approaching Jewish tradition from a more mystical perspective, will see the guiding hand of God clearly in the halacha’s unfolding. True, they maintain, the track of the law is determined by the sages; but the decisions of those sages mirror the will of God. Perhaps Onkelos roots his understanding of the events surrounding the birth of the Sanhedrin upon this latter approach to Jewish law. The gift of prophecy, he insists, remains with the elders throughout their lives, a precursor of the ruach hakodesh that will shape the decisions of their spiritual heirs in every generation.

D
A linguistic debate emerging from the moment of the Sanhedrin’s birth may be just that: a simple dispute over the translation of a biblical term. Or this debate may be much more: a foreshadowing of the tension that will characterize our approach to Jewish law across the ages.

Posted on

Parashat Emor: The Erev Shabbat Jew

Excerpted from Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider’s Torah United: Teachings on the Weekly Parasha from Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chassidic Masters, co-published by OU Press and Ktav Publishing House

The Erev Shabbat Jew

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik famously wrote about the missing “erev Shabbat Jew” in America:

It is not for the Sabbath that my heart aches, it is for the forgotten eve of the Sabbath. There are Sabbath-observing Jews in America, but there are not “eve-of-the-Sabbath” Jews who go out to greet the Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls.

Some have said he intended to convey that America has Shabbat, but in Europe of old they had Shabbat eve. They spent more time on Friday preparing for Shabbat, so much so that one could feel it in the air. There is no comparable feeling in the streets of the goldene medine. Let us not forget, however, the rest of his wistful reflection. How many American Jews welcome the earthly Shabbat “with beating hearts and pulsating souls”? Perhaps if we explore the true nature of Shabbat, we will merit doing so.

Two Shabbatot
The command to observe Shabbat appears throughout the Torah. Parashat Emor employs the doubling of shabbat shabbaton (Leviticus 23:3), and Parashat Kedoshim uses the plural shabbetotai (Leviticus 19:3). The Zohar interprets this duality or multiplicity to refer to a Shabbat on high, shabbata ela, and to our earthly Shabbat, shabbata tata. In order to understand the supernal Shabbat, let us begin with the more familiar one.

The Rav explained that Shabbat relieves us of the curses placed on humanity after Adam’s sin. Adam was sentenced to hard labor – “by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread” (Genesis 3:19) – both back-breaking and endless. He was further cursed to suffer anguish (Genesis 3:17), described in the Rav’s inimitable prose as “the restlessness, fear, and suffering that characterize competitive society, or the conflict between human beings.” Finally, “for dust you are and to dust shall you return” (Genesis 3:19) initiated the cycle of life and death for humanity.

The “earthly Shabbat” releases us from the curses of toil and trouble. The monotony and rancor of trying to attain prosperity and maintain its security fade into the background. Work is dignified so long as we know how to leave it at the front door of our home. As the Rav observed, “endless work estranges people from their families.” Therefore, the Torah commands us to rest together on Shabbat as a family, and renew ties within parents, siblings, and children. The Shabbat atmosphere is one of serenity.

The “supernal Shabbat” is what suspends the curse of human mortality. In our prayers on Shabbat night, we ask God to spread His sukkat shalom, the shelter of peace, over us. This special insertion implies that we anticipate a time when evil will be no more and we will be free of suffering and death. This is not a reference to the earthly Shabbat but to the eternal, supernal Shabbat.

When God finished creation, the Torah concludes that He saw that everything He had made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The world was in a state of unity and perfection. However, when Adam and Chava disobeyed Him by sinning, they introduced disunity into the world. Shabbat is a time when the state attained on the sixth day of creation is relived, even if only for one day. The universe will revert to that state for eternity in the World to Come, which is why the Mishnah links the two: “‘A psalm, a song for Shabbat’ (Psalms 92:1) – a psalm, a song for the future, for the day which will be entirely Shabbat and rest for life everlasting.” In this sense, our weekly Shabbat offers us a taste of the peace and perfection of the messianic period, the age which will be entirely Shabbat.

The Shabbat to Come
Shabbat reminds us that we must plan ahead for the ultimate redemption. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan found this idea embedded in the way we prepare for Shabbat every week. Since we cannot cook on Shabbat, all of the food must be ready or partially cooked prior to Shabbat. In the wilderness, we are told that the Jewish people would prepare what they brought home of the double portion of manna (Exodus 16:5). Fifty-two times a year we ready ourselves for the earthly Shabbat, and as we do so we are reminded that our time on this earth will come to an end and that a supernal Shabbat is coming. And, as the Talmud says, “He who prepares on Friday, will eat on Shabbat.”

Every week we refer to Shabbat in prayer and Kiddush by its biblical designation as an ot olam (Exodus 31:17). The phrase is usually translated as an “eternal sign,” meaning, an enduring sign between the Jewish people and God. However, Rabbi Eliyahu de Vidas wrote in his Reshit Chochmah, a kabbalistic and ethical volume, that the phrase means a “sign of eternity.” Rabbi Kaplan expounded upon this idea:

On Shabbat, the door opens a crack, and we see a spark of the eternal. We feel a breeze blowing from the future world, when all is Shabbat. The Shabbat feeling is a sign of the future, when man and God will be in total harmony.”

The Rav saw references to this Shabbat to come in the Shabbat liturgy. Before the Amidah on Friday night, we say that God spreads the “canopy of peace” over the Jewish people and Yerushalayim, which alludes to the end of days. In the morning, we recite Psalm 92, which is about the everlasting Shabbat. In Mincha, the eschatological theme takes center stage. We begin the central section of the Amidah by saying “You are one and Your name is one,” echoing the time when God and His name will finally be unified. We then say that “Avraham will rejoice, Yitzchak will sing, and Yaakov and his progeny will rest on [Shabbat].” This somewhat mystifying line alludes to the end of days when the great figures will join us again. After the Amidah, we recite three verses that typically understood to be an acceptance of God’s judgment, perhaps because Moshe died on Shabbat afternoon. Yet again, the Mincha prayer of Shabbat is connected to the ultimate divine justice.

After Mincha, as Shabbat rapidly approaches its end, there is a widespread custom to recite Psalm 23, which expresses these lofty themes as well. The shepherd symbolizes the Almighty who remains close to His flock. His providence is manifest even in the valley of death, the long night of exile. We will eventually “dwell in the house of the Lord” with the rebuilding of the Temple.

Exploring the Rav’s Insight 
In the same way we are meant to greet Shabbat with yearning and joy, so should we prolong our visit with the Shabbat queen. In this connection, the Rav shared the following memory from his childhood:

In Warsaw we lived three houses away from a Modzhitzer shtiebel (a small, unassuming place of prayer). Generally, I would go to this Modzhitzer shtiebel for the se’udah shelishit (the third meal) of the Sabbath. They would sing all the zemirot (songs) for se’udah shelishit [ . . . ].

I knew these Jews well and I constantly spoke with them. [ . . . ] I once spoke with one of them who was frail and short. He constantly carried heavy metal pieces and I wondered where he got the physical strength to support this weight. His load was always tied around him with a thick cord. . . . On the Sabbath, I saw this very Jew and I did not recognize him. He came over to me in his tattered kapote. It was covered with endless patches, and even the patches had patches. Yet his face shone with the joy of the Sabbath. I recognized in a tangible fashion that a person’s Sabbath countenance is totally different than his weekday appearance.

So I asked him: “When will we daven Maariv [to conclude the Sabbath]?’

He answered: “What is with you? Are you already longing for the weekdays to begin? What do you mean when will we daven Maariv, are we lacking anything now?”

The Chassidim did not want to let Shabbat go and face the weekday. Their rapturous singing at the third meal brought them into contact with the spiritual plane of true bliss – the supernal Shabbat. If we resurrect the “erev Shabbat Jew” within us, perhaps we too will sense this higher reality, and be reluctant to take our leave of Shabbat the moment night falls.