This week's parsha begins: "Re'ei anochi nosein lifneichem hayom bracha uklala." The Torah outlines the choice a person has between the blessings he will receive for observing the mitzvos, and the curses that can Heaven forbid befall a person if he does not. However, it is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy between the two verses: whereas the pasuk dealing with the curses uses the conventional lashon of "im lo sishme'u", the pasuk dealing with the blessings uses the lashon of "ASHER tishme'u", abandoning the usual conditional word "im". What is the reason for this deviation from the norm?
Perhaps we can answer that it is because the Torah is trying to tell us something more than just the cause-and-effect of mitzvah observance resulting in blessing. Rather, the Torah is hinting to us by using the word "asher" that mitzvah observance is actually a reward in and of itself. A person must always remember that it is a privilege to serve Hashem, a gift bestowed upon us like no other. We are fortunate that we are the am ha'nivchar, that we have the opportunity to serve Hakadosh Baruch Hu and to glorify his name.
That is why the pasuk says "Es habracha asher tishme'u el mitzvos Hashem Elokeichem" - in the literal sense, this can be interpreted as "the blessing IS that you will observe the mitzvos of Hashem". By following the Torah, a person enjoys a more fulfilling and enriched lifestyle. He merits the beauty and that only Shabbos can bring. He merits the fulfillment that can only come from Torah study. And he merits the enjoyment that only a spiritual person can feel.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Parshas Eikev
In this week's parsha, Moshe Rabbeinu says "v'ata Yisrael mah Hashem Elokecha sho'el me'imach, ki im l'yirah es Hashem Elokocha" - "And now, Yisroel, what does Hashem your G-d ask of you? Only that you fear Hashem, your G-d". The Gemara in Brachos asks the famous question: is fear of Hashem really such a small matter? To which the Gemara answers: yes indeed, to someone like Moshe Rabbeinu, fear of Hashem is a small matter.
The obvious question is, we all know that when speaking to someone else it is important to speak to them on their own level, so that they can relate to what is being said. If so, why would Moshe Rabbeinu say something like that to Klal Yisroel on his own level? Shouldn't he have been more considerate of the fact that even though it may have been simple for him, for Klal Yisroel it is more difficult?
The answer is, says R' Ahron Kotler, that each and every member of Klal Yisroel has a small part of Moshe Rabbeinu within themselves. Every Rebbe gives over a part of himself into his talmidim, and since Moshe Rabbeinu was the Rebbe of Klal Yisroel, a small part of his spirit is imbued in each person. And when a person focuses on that part of himself, the part of pure holiness that comes from Moshe Rabbeinu, then indeed, he will find that it is truly not difficult to fear Hashem.
The obvious question is, we all know that when speaking to someone else it is important to speak to them on their own level, so that they can relate to what is being said. If so, why would Moshe Rabbeinu say something like that to Klal Yisroel on his own level? Shouldn't he have been more considerate of the fact that even though it may have been simple for him, for Klal Yisroel it is more difficult?
The answer is, says R' Ahron Kotler, that each and every member of Klal Yisroel has a small part of Moshe Rabbeinu within themselves. Every Rebbe gives over a part of himself into his talmidim, and since Moshe Rabbeinu was the Rebbe of Klal Yisroel, a small part of his spirit is imbued in each person. And when a person focuses on that part of himself, the part of pure holiness that comes from Moshe Rabbeinu, then indeed, he will find that it is truly not difficult to fear Hashem.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Parshas Va'eschanan
In this week's parsha, the Torah records the first paragraph of Shema, the paragraph of "Ve'ohavta es Hashem Elokecha". There are several inconsistencies between the first and second paragraphs of Shema, some of which are mentioned by the Vilna Gaon.
First of all, the first parsha is written in singular form ("bechol levovCHA, ubechol nafsheCHA"), whereas the second parsha is written in plural form ("bechol levavCHEM, ubechol nafsheCHEM"). Second of all, the first parsha makes no mention whatsoever of schar ve'onesh, whereas the second parsha goes on in great detail about the rewards of following Hashem and the punishments of chas veshalom doing the opposite. And third of all, the first parsha mentions "bechol me'odecha" - serving Hashem with one's money, whereas the second parsha does not. What is the reason behind these discrepancies?
The answer is that the first parsha is referring to the special people who seek to be close to Hashem, whose profound dedication to Avodas Hashem sets them apart; the second parsha is referring to the more average person, whose religious convictions are more often dictated by the conventions of society.
The first parsha is written in singular form because there are only a few select people who really stand out in their Avodas Hashem, who have almost a private relationship with Him, so to speak. When a person reaches that level, that makes him truly an individual, hence the first parsha of Shema being written in the singular form; as opposed to an average person, whose religious observance is dictated by what other people are doing, and thus is addressed by a parsha written in the plural form.
Likewise, schar ve'onesh is not mentioned in the first paragraph because tzadikim do not need the concept of schar ve'onesh to keep them in line; they serve Hashem because of their love for Him. Such a concept belongs in the second parsha, since it is the average person who needs such motivation.
But perhaps the most crucial of the three is the third discrepancy: the fact that it says "bechol me'odecha" only in the first parsha and not the second. The reason for this is that parting with one's money for Hashem's sake is one of the most difficult tests a person can face, a test which only a true tzadik can pass. People can be very nice to one another and do lots of chesed, but when it comes to giving up of their wealth for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they inexplicably find it difficult to come through. That is because money is the ultimate test of a person's dedication to Hashem. That's where a person must face the real challenge: am I just a beinini, whose parsha makes no mention of "bechol me'odecha" because serving Hashem with one's money can be too difficult to handle? Or do I wish to strive to be a tzadik, and to triumph the nisayon of money?
First of all, the first parsha is written in singular form ("bechol levovCHA, ubechol nafsheCHA"), whereas the second parsha is written in plural form ("bechol levavCHEM, ubechol nafsheCHEM"). Second of all, the first parsha makes no mention whatsoever of schar ve'onesh, whereas the second parsha goes on in great detail about the rewards of following Hashem and the punishments of chas veshalom doing the opposite. And third of all, the first parsha mentions "bechol me'odecha" - serving Hashem with one's money, whereas the second parsha does not. What is the reason behind these discrepancies?
The answer is that the first parsha is referring to the special people who seek to be close to Hashem, whose profound dedication to Avodas Hashem sets them apart; the second parsha is referring to the more average person, whose religious convictions are more often dictated by the conventions of society.
The first parsha is written in singular form because there are only a few select people who really stand out in their Avodas Hashem, who have almost a private relationship with Him, so to speak. When a person reaches that level, that makes him truly an individual, hence the first parsha of Shema being written in the singular form; as opposed to an average person, whose religious observance is dictated by what other people are doing, and thus is addressed by a parsha written in the plural form.
Likewise, schar ve'onesh is not mentioned in the first paragraph because tzadikim do not need the concept of schar ve'onesh to keep them in line; they serve Hashem because of their love for Him. Such a concept belongs in the second parsha, since it is the average person who needs such motivation.
But perhaps the most crucial of the three is the third discrepancy: the fact that it says "bechol me'odecha" only in the first parsha and not the second. The reason for this is that parting with one's money for Hashem's sake is one of the most difficult tests a person can face, a test which only a true tzadik can pass. People can be very nice to one another and do lots of chesed, but when it comes to giving up of their wealth for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they inexplicably find it difficult to come through. That is because money is the ultimate test of a person's dedication to Hashem. That's where a person must face the real challenge: am I just a beinini, whose parsha makes no mention of "bechol me'odecha" because serving Hashem with one's money can be too difficult to handle? Or do I wish to strive to be a tzadik, and to triumph the nisayon of money?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Parshas Devarim
In this week's parsha, the Torah recaps the various events that occurred to Klal Yisroel in the desert. Among the events mentioned is the story of the Meraglim. The pasuk says "Vatikrivun eilai kulchem", which Rashi explains that it was "b'irbuvia", meaning that the incident of Klal Yisroel demanding to send spies occurred in a totally discombobulated fashion. Rashi goes on to contrast how the story of Matan Torah was organized and proper, with the younger generation respecting their elders, and the elders respecting the leaders; whereas by the story of the Meraglim, the younger generation was pushing and shoving their elders, and the elders were pushing and shoving the leaders - a scene of total mayhem. Why did Rashi feel the need to draw a contrast between the two events? Wouldn't it have been enough to merely highlight what was wrong by the story of the Meraglim?
Perhaps we can suggest as follows: Klal Yisroel could have shrugged off the blame by saying that even though they sinned, it wasn't really their fault; rather, they erred due to the hysteria that came about because of the tremendous lack of order. After all, any major event that occurs with a lack of proper structure would be enough to throw people into a panic and cause them to act irrationally. Therefore, Rashi mentions another such incident, where there was the same potential for panic, but Klal Yisroel rose to the occasion: Matan Torah. By Matan Torah, too, there could have been much confusion and mayhem, which would have been easily attributable to the magnitude of the event causing a disruption of order and structure. Rashi is pointing out that since we see that Klal Yisroel did not buckle at another occasion under similar circumstances, obviously such circumstances cannot be a plausible explanation for the sin of the Meraglim.
This concept is unfortunately true in our times as well. All too often, we find ourselves dismissing questionable behavior with all kinds of excuses. "It's too difficult", "I'm too tired", "I don't have time" - the list of possible excuses is endless. But we must be honest with ourselves: is that REALLY the reason why we are not doing a particular mitzvah properly? If we were faced with a similar set of circumstances, except in a case where it is to our material benefit to follow through on the action in question, would we still give the same excuses? Or would we somehow find the strength to go ahead and do whatever it is?
We must be very careful to give Hashem the same level of consideration we do for ourselves, if not more. If we would overcome a particular inconvenience or physical discomfort for our own sake, then of course we must do so for Hashem's sake as well. And in the merit of making the right choices, may we be zoche to have this coming Tisha B'av converted into a time of happiness, with the coming of Moshiach and the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash, b'meheirah b'yomeinu.
Perhaps we can suggest as follows: Klal Yisroel could have shrugged off the blame by saying that even though they sinned, it wasn't really their fault; rather, they erred due to the hysteria that came about because of the tremendous lack of order. After all, any major event that occurs with a lack of proper structure would be enough to throw people into a panic and cause them to act irrationally. Therefore, Rashi mentions another such incident, where there was the same potential for panic, but Klal Yisroel rose to the occasion: Matan Torah. By Matan Torah, too, there could have been much confusion and mayhem, which would have been easily attributable to the magnitude of the event causing a disruption of order and structure. Rashi is pointing out that since we see that Klal Yisroel did not buckle at another occasion under similar circumstances, obviously such circumstances cannot be a plausible explanation for the sin of the Meraglim.
This concept is unfortunately true in our times as well. All too often, we find ourselves dismissing questionable behavior with all kinds of excuses. "It's too difficult", "I'm too tired", "I don't have time" - the list of possible excuses is endless. But we must be honest with ourselves: is that REALLY the reason why we are not doing a particular mitzvah properly? If we were faced with a similar set of circumstances, except in a case where it is to our material benefit to follow through on the action in question, would we still give the same excuses? Or would we somehow find the strength to go ahead and do whatever it is?
We must be very careful to give Hashem the same level of consideration we do for ourselves, if not more. If we would overcome a particular inconvenience or physical discomfort for our own sake, then of course we must do so for Hashem's sake as well. And in the merit of making the right choices, may we be zoche to have this coming Tisha B'av converted into a time of happiness, with the coming of Moshiach and the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash, b'meheirah b'yomeinu.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Parshas Masei
This week's parsha is Parshas Masei, which discusses the travels of Klal Yisroel. It is also the week of Shabbos Chazak, when we finish one of the five Chumashim and say "chazak, chazak, v'nischazeik". What connection can be drawn between these two points?
Perhaps we can suggest as follows: when a person is travelling, he is "out of his element". He is no longer secure in his comfortable, familiar surroundings, but rather he is out "in the wild", unaware of the dangers lurking just around the corner. The spiritual challenges he faces can be quite overwhelming. At a time like that, the solution is to band together with other people. As the pasuk says about Yaakov Avinu, "Vayevoseir Yaakov levado" - when Yaakov remained alone, with no one else with him - "vaye oveik ish imo" - only then was the Saro Shel Esav able to attack him. But when a person is together with friends, then "Ish es rei'eihu ya'azoru, ule achiv yomar chazak" - he can be strengthened enough to defeat the challenges that come his way. And that is perhaps why we end the parsha discussing Klal Yisroel's travels by saying "chazak, chazak, v'nischazeik" - to remind us of the importance of a traveler being mechazeik himself through his friends.
As we enter Bein Hazmanim, we should keep this lesson in mind, being that Bein Hazmanim is the "travel season". We should use this opportunity to meet with each other, to renew old relationships, and be mechazeik one another. And b'ezras Hashem, the chizuk will hopefully carry us through any challenges that may arise.
Perhaps we can suggest as follows: when a person is travelling, he is "out of his element". He is no longer secure in his comfortable, familiar surroundings, but rather he is out "in the wild", unaware of the dangers lurking just around the corner. The spiritual challenges he faces can be quite overwhelming. At a time like that, the solution is to band together with other people. As the pasuk says about Yaakov Avinu, "Vayevoseir Yaakov levado" - when Yaakov remained alone, with no one else with him - "vaye oveik ish imo" - only then was the Saro Shel Esav able to attack him. But when a person is together with friends, then "Ish es rei'eihu ya'azoru, ule achiv yomar chazak" - he can be strengthened enough to defeat the challenges that come his way. And that is perhaps why we end the parsha discussing Klal Yisroel's travels by saying "chazak, chazak, v'nischazeik" - to remind us of the importance of a traveler being mechazeik himself through his friends.
As we enter Bein Hazmanim, we should keep this lesson in mind, being that Bein Hazmanim is the "travel season". We should use this opportunity to meet with each other, to renew old relationships, and be mechazeik one another. And b'ezras Hashem, the chizuk will hopefully carry us through any challenges that may arise.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Parshas Mattos
In this week's parsha, when discussing how to handle spoils of war, the Torah begins by saying "Elazar the Kohein said to the soldiers who were coming to war". The question that arises is, since Elazar was speaking to the soldiers who were returning from war with the spoils after the war was already over, why does the pasuk say "haba'im l'milchama" ("who were COMING to war")? Shouldn't it rather say "haba'im me'hamilchama" ("who were RETURNING from war")?
The Divrei Shaul answers by quoting a story from the Chovos Halevavos. There was once a wise man who saw a group of soldiers returning from war laden with riches which they had conquered, joking and laughing about all the parties they were going to have now that the battle was won. "Fools!" he said to them, "you think the war is over? Quite the contrary, the battle has only just begun: the war you are returning from is a small, physical battle. Now you have to fight a much bigger battle - the battle of the Yetzer Hara! Now that you are rich from the spoils of war, your nisyonos are immeasurably greater!"
So too, says the Divrei Shaul, is the case over here. Although the soldiers were returning from the battle of Midyan victorious, the pasuk refers to them as "haba'im l'milchama" ("who were coming to war") - because indeed, their real battle was only just beginning. Now was when they would have to fight their evil inclinations and make sure to take the proper course of action in handling the spoils.
Indeed, this concept does not only apply to war, but to our regular daily lives as well: whenever a person's physical or monetary situation improves, his nisyonos grow as well. The Chofetz Chaim says that in Rosh Chodesh bentching, we ask for yiras shomayim twice. Why? Because after asking for yiras shomayim the first time, we ask for "chaim shel osher v'chovod" - a life of wealth and honor. And once a person has wealth and honor, his previous level of yiras shomayim will not be enough to sustain him - he must ask again for additional yiras shomayim, so as to triumph the new nisyonos that will undoubtedly arise.
As we go through life, we must be sure that as our status in life changes, so must our level in Avodas Hashem. A person cannot "rest on his laurels", expecting his current spiritual level to carry him through life at a constant, positive pace. Rather, he must constantly ensure that his level of yiras shomayim is on par with his station in life. One must always strive to reach higher and higher.
The Divrei Shaul answers by quoting a story from the Chovos Halevavos. There was once a wise man who saw a group of soldiers returning from war laden with riches which they had conquered, joking and laughing about all the parties they were going to have now that the battle was won. "Fools!" he said to them, "you think the war is over? Quite the contrary, the battle has only just begun: the war you are returning from is a small, physical battle. Now you have to fight a much bigger battle - the battle of the Yetzer Hara! Now that you are rich from the spoils of war, your nisyonos are immeasurably greater!"
So too, says the Divrei Shaul, is the case over here. Although the soldiers were returning from the battle of Midyan victorious, the pasuk refers to them as "haba'im l'milchama" ("who were coming to war") - because indeed, their real battle was only just beginning. Now was when they would have to fight their evil inclinations and make sure to take the proper course of action in handling the spoils.
Indeed, this concept does not only apply to war, but to our regular daily lives as well: whenever a person's physical or monetary situation improves, his nisyonos grow as well. The Chofetz Chaim says that in Rosh Chodesh bentching, we ask for yiras shomayim twice. Why? Because after asking for yiras shomayim the first time, we ask for "chaim shel osher v'chovod" - a life of wealth and honor. And once a person has wealth and honor, his previous level of yiras shomayim will not be enough to sustain him - he must ask again for additional yiras shomayim, so as to triumph the new nisyonos that will undoubtedly arise.
As we go through life, we must be sure that as our status in life changes, so must our level in Avodas Hashem. A person cannot "rest on his laurels", expecting his current spiritual level to carry him through life at a constant, positive pace. Rather, he must constantly ensure that his level of yiras shomayim is on par with his station in life. One must always strive to reach higher and higher.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Parshas Pinchas
In this week's parsha, we find the story of Pinchas, who was the epitome of zeal on behalf of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. With one zealous act, he curbed Hashem's anger, and ended the plague that was raging through Klal Yisroel. The obvious question is, what was the source of this unusual display of courage? How did Pinchas have the fortitude to rise above the level of those around him, and do what no one else was brave enough to do?
The answer is that unfortunately, most people do not act according to what is right, but rather according to the way they feel society dictates they should. Even if people know that something is wrong, they will not speak out against it and protest it if they feel that people will look down upon them for taking the unpopular side. Pinchas, on the other hand, acted according to what was right, not what was popular. Pinchas realized that the situation called for an "out of the box" approach and took action accordingly, despite the risk that people would look upon him as a fanatic. He didn't care what people thought - his only concern was to do what was right, for the kavod of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. In fact, the pasuk does not say "tachas asher kino l'Elokim" (merely "to G-d"), but rather "l'Elokav" ("to his G-d"). Because in this case, his devotion to Hashem was singular to him. He was the only one who took a stand for what he felt was right, without factoring in the opinion of the rest of the world.
Taking action the way Pinchas did can only come from a very deep sense of devotion to Hashem. That's why we say the halacha in such a case is that although "kano'im pogim bo" (kano'im may take matters into their own hands, and administer vigilante justice), nevertheless "v'ein morim kein" (we do not instruct people to do so) - an act like that cannot be planned or rehearsed; rather, by definition, it must be spontaneous and unexpected. It must come from deep within a person, from a natural revulsion toward evil and a desire to do the right thing. That is why although the parshiyos of Chukas and Balak (the parshiyos immediately preceding Pinchas) may be paired as a "double-parsha", as well as Matos and Masei (the parshiyos immediately following Pinchas), the parsha of Pinchas always stands alone. It is to remind us that Pinchas is unique. His parsha is always by itself to highlight his individuality.
We each have challenges in our lives that we face. We must learn from Pinchas not to merely "follow the herd", but rather to make our own choices. We must always rise to the occasion, and do what we know is right.
The answer is that unfortunately, most people do not act according to what is right, but rather according to the way they feel society dictates they should. Even if people know that something is wrong, they will not speak out against it and protest it if they feel that people will look down upon them for taking the unpopular side. Pinchas, on the other hand, acted according to what was right, not what was popular. Pinchas realized that the situation called for an "out of the box" approach and took action accordingly, despite the risk that people would look upon him as a fanatic. He didn't care what people thought - his only concern was to do what was right, for the kavod of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. In fact, the pasuk does not say "tachas asher kino l'Elokim" (merely "to G-d"), but rather "l'Elokav" ("to his G-d"). Because in this case, his devotion to Hashem was singular to him. He was the only one who took a stand for what he felt was right, without factoring in the opinion of the rest of the world.
Taking action the way Pinchas did can only come from a very deep sense of devotion to Hashem. That's why we say the halacha in such a case is that although "kano'im pogim bo" (kano'im may take matters into their own hands, and administer vigilante justice), nevertheless "v'ein morim kein" (we do not instruct people to do so) - an act like that cannot be planned or rehearsed; rather, by definition, it must be spontaneous and unexpected. It must come from deep within a person, from a natural revulsion toward evil and a desire to do the right thing. That is why although the parshiyos of Chukas and Balak (the parshiyos immediately preceding Pinchas) may be paired as a "double-parsha", as well as Matos and Masei (the parshiyos immediately following Pinchas), the parsha of Pinchas always stands alone. It is to remind us that Pinchas is unique. His parsha is always by itself to highlight his individuality.
We each have challenges in our lives that we face. We must learn from Pinchas not to merely "follow the herd", but rather to make our own choices. We must always rise to the occasion, and do what we know is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)