Divrei Chaim

It’s easy to get all caught up in Chanukah and forget there is parshas ha’shavua too. I want to share a beautiful Zohar and a question.

The Beis Yosef famously asks why we celebrate the first day of Chanukah. There was enough oil for one day, so the miracle really started from the second day onward.

The Sefas Emes writes that the eight nights of Chanukah represent the tikun of the seven midos/sefiros that make up the natural world, and the eighth is the l’ma’lah min hateva of the supernatural.

Every person has a particular midah that is predominant -- some people tend towards chessed; other people tend towards din/geduvah, etc. -- but you can’t serve G-d with one midah alone and no single midah can exist alone.Every single midah needs to have within it elements and shades of all the others as well.

Let me give you a very bad analogy.You may like vanilla ice cream; I like chocolate.If you look at the ingredients on the containers, it turns out that most of what goes into either one is the same stuff.You can’t say, “I like vanilla ice cream so get that stuff that goes into the chocolate out of there.”You can’t make vanilla ice cream without those ingredients – you just need to accentuate the vanilla flavor so it is dominant.Same with the midos.

Now we can answer the Beis Yosef's question. Chanukah is not eight days of celebration; it's one celebration spread across eight days. If the ability for the menorah to be lit on night 2, 3,… 8, i.e. for the tikun of the midos going down the line for all eight days did not exist, then the menorah would not have been able to be lit on that first night either. Since every midah/day/candle requires the others to be present as well, the lighting of the candle on the first night presupposes and includes the potential for there to be a miraculous lighting on all the other nights as well.

Just to clarify the previous post a little bit -- Yesh lachkor whether the idea of kavsah ain zakuk lah means a partial kiyum hamitzva is sufficient, or whether it means it is k’ilu the whole mitzvah has been completed already.

I told this to my son l'chidudei: the famous Nimukei Yosef in B”K 2^nd perek asks how are we allowed to light Shabbos candles if isho m’shum chitzo.Just like when an arrow hits its target and destroys someone’s property it is as if the shooter went over and smashed that property, so too, when fire burns on Shabbos, it is as if the person who lit the fire is mechalel Shabbos.

Ya’aov loved Yosef because “ben zekunim hu lo.”The Ba’al haTurim writes that “zekunim” is a hint in roshei teivos to the orders of Mishnayos that Ya’akov taught Yosef: Zeraim, Kodshim, Nashim, Yeshuos (Nezikin), Moed.The obvious question: Seder Taharos is missing?The Imrei Emes explains that taharah is not something that can be given over and taught – it’s something you have to achieve yourself.

1. Rashi quoting Midrash interprets the word “vayashav” in the pasuk “VaYashav Reuvain el ha’bor…” as referring to teshuvah – while Yosef was in the pit, Reuvain was engaged in doing teshuvah for whatever he did or might have done wrong with respect to Ya'akov.When Reuvain came back to try to get Yosef out, he discovered that Yosef had already been sold into slavery and his efforts to save him were seemingly for naught.





The Beis Yisrael suggests that the malach may have been hinting that it’s “mah” -- Mah Hashem Elokecha sho’el… ki im l’yirah… -- that you always need to be searcing for.

1. Earlier in the week I wrote regarding Ya’akov’s tefilah, “ki b’makli avarti es haYarden hazeh” that the word “zeh” conveys a sense of immediacy and presence.Micha reminded me in a comment that Chazal tell us that Moshe Rabeinu’s prophecy b’ispaklarya hamei’ra, with complete clarity, was characterized by the use of the word “zeh,” as opposed to other prophets, ispaklarya she’aina me’ira, whose prophecy was characterized by the use of the word “koh.”

Chazal tell us that Yosef was punished and had to spend two extra years in prison because he asked the Sar haMashkim to remember him and try to help him.Even though a person has to make a hishtadlus to better his/her own situation and not simply sit back and rely on G-d, Yosef’s request smacked of desperation.Considering the log odds of success in relying on a drunk for help, his actions showed a lack of faith, a lack of confidence (Chazon Ish).

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but wanted to follow up on my post from yesterday in light of some other reactions to the same topic. R’ Yitzchok Alderstein is in favor of providing more and continued support to the chareidim who choose not to work, arguing that, “The children are indeed innocent victims. Our reaction in the past as frum Jews has always been to alleviate pain, regardless of blame.”

I could not agree more that innocent children are suffering due to this terrible situation. HOWEVER, I have to ask, “Mai chazis d’dama didach sumak tfei?” Are the children of those suffering from self-inflicted poverty more deserving of help than children in my own backyard? The yeshivos in my neighborhood need cash. Parents in my neighborhood cannot pay tuition and cannot afford Shabbos meals. These are people, who, as I wrote yesterday, did not ask to be in this situation and most of whom have made every effort to find jobs. But times are tough. It can take months to find a job (been there, done that) and salaries are much lower than in times gone by. These innocent victims of economic downturn surely also deserve our help to get back on their feet.

The question is not, “Shouldn't we help the poor?”

The question is, “Which poor should we help?”

It would be wonderful if we could alleviate poverty for all and children did not have to suffer for their parent’s mistakes – but we can’t. If funds are available, then too I join Rabbi Adlerstein’s call to fund more kollelim and yeshivos, to provide more help and support for all those who are in need. But the money is not there! Unfortunately cuts are needed, and difficult decisions must be made as to how to cope. And unfortunately, rather than foster much needed and meaningful discussion of where to cut corners, how to spread available resources, how to encourage people to alleviate their own situation and how to provide resources for them to do so, instead, the only talk that came out of the Agudah convention was a demand for more money for an ever expanding number of poor.

Giving tzedaka to person A comes at a direct cost to person B, who is also in need. Our community is getting poorer, not richer. There is only so much wealth that can be spread around, and the more it is spread, the thinner the portion will be. Rabbi Adlerstein, if you have one imaginary dollar to spend, but two people who are in need, what do you propose to do? Is it fair to ignore the person who has acted responsibly and made their hishtadlus but has not been blessed yet with success and instead give money to someone who has willfully chosen to inflict poverty on himself and his family?

Rabbi Adlerstein points to the fact that there are 1000 students in Hareidi College as an indication that attitudes are changing, and that we must allow time for the process of change to unfold. But by his own admission, only 1/3 of those enrolled are men. So let’s say there are 400 men currently getting an education that would provide them with skills needed for employment. By comparison, there are about 6000 or so people learning in the Mir, and that is just one yeshiva of many! The change he points to is a mere drop in the bucket and is completely inconsequential in the overall picture.

Rather than prove that change – albeit slow change – is on the way, as R’ Adlerstein posits, the Agudah convention only reinforced the opposite perception. R’ Ephraim Wachsman shlit”a reminded us in a keynote address that Am Yisrael is an “am k’shei oref” – we stubbornly refuse change. Rabbi Wachsman was not decrying the situation and demanding that we do commit to necessary sociological and educational changes -- to the contrary, he was lauding this stubborness as a virtue and reinforcing committment to the status quo.

The implication that those who do not agree with preserving the status quo want children to suffer in poverty or care less about Torah than others is wrong. It is precisely because we care so much that we want to see changes made that will enable those who should be learning to be able to do so without starving, that will enable those who should be working to gain the skills to do so, and that will enable out children to grow up in the safe and healthy environment that they need.

וימאן ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו וגו' יהודה ב"ר אמר בדבר מצוה ממאנין בדבר עבירה אין ממאנין בדבר מצוה ממאנין מאן יבמי בדבר עבירה אין ממאנין וימאן ויאמר הן אדוני וגו' אמר לה למוד הוא הקדוש ברוך הוא להיות בוחר מאהובי בית אבא לעולה לאברהם (בראשית כב) קח נא את בנך אשמע ליך ושמא אבחר לעולה ואפסל מן הקרבן ד"א ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו א"ל למוד הקב"ה להיות נגלה על אוהבי בית אבא בלילה אברהם (שם טו) אחר הדברים האלה היה דבר ה' אל אברם במחזה יצחק (שם כו) וירא ה' אליו בלילה ההוא יעקב (שם כח) ויחלום והנה סולם אשמע ליך ושמא יגלה עלי הקדוש ברוך הוא וימצא אותי טמא

The Midrash puts all kinds of explanations in Yosef's mouth to justify why he turned down Eishes Potifar's advances. Let's be honest -- some of these excuses are downright flimsy. "Maybe I will be chosen as a korban olah and this will disqualify me" -- Did Yosef really anticipate there being another akeidas Yitzchak scenario? "Maybe G-d will appear to me this night and I will be impure" -- is nevuah something that happened so often?

Why does the Midrash even see a need to make excuses? Yosef refused -- it was an aveira and the wrong thing to do. Period, end of story. Moreover, the pasuk (38:8-9) itself tells us Yosef's justification for refusing. Yosef's told Eishes Potifar that he could not repay the trust her husband had placed in him by committing such a terrible sin with his wife. Why does the Midrash have to add to what the pasuk itself tells us?

For now I'm just throwing out questions...

Usually when the Torah uses the word “zeh” it is referring to a specific item at hand, e.g. Rashi writes that when Moshe was told, “Hachodesh ha’zeh lachem,” Hashem showed him exactly what the new moon was supposed to look like.What did Ya’akov mean when he said, “Ki b’makli avarti es hayarden ha’zeh” – how could he use the word “zeh,” this river, when he was standing nowhere near the Yarden?

The Sefas Emes answers that Hashem’s chessed was so real to Ya’akov that even though he was not near the Yarden, in his mind’s eye it was as if he was there again. It was not that he was remembering some event of the past; it was as if Hashem was doing it for him at that moment.

At the Agudah Convention (which I have never attended) there was apparently a video and much talk about the economic hardship in Eretz Yisrael.The solution – please provide more support.

Rashi in last week’s parsha quotes from Midrash that Rachel’s death during childbirth was a direct result of Ya’akov’s curse that whoever took the terafim of Lavan should die.Ibn Ezra (31:32) is very critical of this idea.He points to the fact that we are told early in Sefer Shmuel that the wife of Pinchas, Eli’s daughter-in-law, died in childbirth when the aron was taken by the Plishtim. Ibn Ezra challenges us: if we are going to point to Ya'akov's curse as the cause of Rachel’s death, whose curse do we point to as the cause of Eli’s daughter-in-law’s death?

Ya'akov was fearful of his encounter with Eisav despite Hashem’s previous promises of protection.At the opening of our parsha Ya’akov says, "Katonti m'kol hachassadim," which Rashi explains to me that he worried shema yigrom hacheit, maybe he had sinned and was not worthy.Yet, he then continues, "V'atah amarta heiteiv eiitiv imach..." reminding Hashem that he had promised Ya’akov protection.Ramban asks: if Rashi is right that Ya'akov was worried shema yigrom hacheit, then what good is mentioning the promise of "heiteiv eitiv imach...?"He thought he wasn't worthy of that promise?!

The latest PEW study will undoubtedly bring out the usual tired proposals and suggestions on how to thwart the rapid assimilation of large segments of the Jewish community, most of which have been tried before with little to show for the effort. Evelyn Gordon, writing for Commentary Magazine, has a proposal that is remarkable for its simplicity, yet hits the nail right on the head:

I’d like to offer a much simpler proposal: Just stop dumbing down Judaism. American Jews overwhelmingly receive excellent secular educations; they are exposed to the most challenging, rigorous, thought-provoking material available in science, philosophy, history, and literature. Yet they rarely encounter Judaism at a level more intellectually challenging than a kindergarten class. And as long as that’s true, Judaism will never be able to compete with the secular world for their attention.

The author goes on the attribute the sustaining power of Orthodoxy to the seriousness which we devote to study. She writes:

But in the non-Orthodox community, Jewish education never comes close to the intellectual rigor of secular studies. Almost every American Jew who has attended a non-Orthodox Hebrew school can attest to this; just last week, the Forward ran a piece by an associate professor, Michah Gottlieb, deploring the lack of opportunities for serious Torah study at his childhood synagogue. My own experience is equally typical: During 12 years of Hebrew school, the numbing boredom was punctured by only two classes that offered comparable intellectual stimulation to my secular public schools–and both were taught by Orthodox rabbis. The difference was that they took classic Jewish texts seriously, insisting that we read, analyze, and debate them with the same rigor I encountered in secular history or literature classes.

The problem is that it’s hard to make the effort to delve into texts when you’ve been constantly told that these same texts reflect no more than the imaginative fancy of misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, superstitious males whose agenda was the preservation of their own power within a hierarchical and patriarchal system. When you are so busy reforming and reconstructing what you don't like about Torah and mitzvos, it's hard to make an about face and think that there is something there worth paying attention to.

This is not meant as a political comment as the point has nothing to do with politics.This past weekend the world came very close OKing an agreement that would inevitably have led to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.Only a blind fool (read: John Kerry) would think otherwise.Amazingly, France stepped in and put a stop to the deal – for now.But make no bones about it, we are far from out of danger.

“Vayizkor Elokim es Rachel” (30:22) – Rashi explains that Hashem remembered Rachel’s having given Leah the special signs that Ya’akov made up with her to prevent Lavan from pulling a switch.Rachel was unable to stand by idly while her sister suffered the embarrassment of being exposed and rejected by Ya’akov.In that merit, Rachel was able to conceive and give birth to Yosef.

A Rabbi in New Haven bought a desk on Craig's list and discovered 98,000ドル stashed in a drawer. (Don't ask me how someone can forget about 98,000ドル.) Aviedas aku"m, right? Well, he returned the money and the kiddush Hashem made the news:

http://www.wtnh.com/news/new-haven-cty/new-haven-man-finds-98k-in-desk-he-bought-on-craigslist

Yerushalmi (B.M. 2:5): The talmidim of Shimon ben Shetach bought a donkey for their teacher from a non-Jewish merchant and they discovered a jewel on the donkey. Shimon ben Shetach insisted on returning it. They asked, "But aviedas aku"m is permitted?" To which is answered, "Is Shimon ben Shetach a barbarian!"

Public service announcement: Now that we’ve changed the clock sof zman kri’as shema is much earlier, e.g. in NY the zman is now around 9:00 (acc to GR”A), so if you start davening at 9:00, or even 8:45, you are not going to make it.The M”B (Sha’ar haTzion 241:4) writes that it is better to daven b’yechidus than to daven outside the zman (as is the view of RYBS), but I’m not your Rabbi, so don’t ask me what to do.I never understood why so many shuls have 9:00 start times, but that’s just me.

The Torah tells us that Rachel gave up being with Ya’akov for a night in exchange for Reuvain’s dudaim and as a result of this time Ya’akov spent with Leah, Yisachar was born (30:14-18).I want to share with you two insights from this parsha that both revolve around the same point: showing sensitivity for others.


“Vatomer Leah nasan Elokim es sechari asher nasati shifchasi l’ishi…”

Let me describe what my polling place was like last night: the front door of the City Hall building was broken, so everyone had to enter around back – it really boosts your confidence and appreciation of government when your first impression is a broken door. Symbolic, isn't it? Our polling area was manned by four senior citizens, a proportion of about one worker for every voter (at least while I was there). Each person who came to vote had to give his/her name and be looked up manually in a registration book.Another worker then s-l-o-w-l-y wrote out each name by hand on another piece of paper along with your address and party affiliation (who knows why they need this).I guess a duplicate copy was also needed, because the polling worker had a sheet of carbon paper on his pad (I don’t recall seeing that stuff since elementary school in the 1970’s – does my town have a stockpile from back then, or is some company still making this stuff?)Finally, you are handed a ballot.Now, NY State has advanced to the point that we no longer enter booths and pull a lever – we have these scantron sheets that are fed into a computer that scans the ballot.Problem is, the machine coughs back a good percentage of the ballots it is fed.My wife kept trying to get hers to work and it kept failing. Same for another gentleman who was there.There was a nice poll worker who came over to look at her ballot (so much for privacy) and try to get the machine to take it, but even he had to give up and just give her another ballot to fill out.




I was listening to the radio this morning in the car and the interviewer asked someone whether he thought the New Jerseyians who voted to increase the minimum wage realized it would mean they would have to pay more when shopping.The answer: of course not. The government can just print some more money, can't they?

Dear candidate: next election please don't bother me. Just do einey-meeney-miney-moe and coronate someone.

There are two fundamental disputes in hil tefilah that seem to go hand in hand:

1) There is a machlokes Rambam and Ramban whether tefilah is a mitzvah d’oraysa once a day every day (Rambam) or whether tefilah is a takakah derabbanan to be fulfilled multiple times a day (Ramban).

2) The gemara has a machlokes whether tefilas arvis is reshus or not, i.e. whether the obligation to daven ma’ariv carries the same weight as the obligation to daven the other tefilos.

Putting two and two together: According to the Rambam, who holds that tefilah is d’oraysa, the first opportunity in the day to fulfill that chiyuv is ma’ariv. It doesn’t seem to make sense to say that ma’ariv, which is potentially a kiyum d’oraysa, would be only a reshus, but other tefilos would be chovah! The view that holds ma’ariv is reshus seems to only work if you hold tefilah is derabbanan; the view that holds ma’ariv is chovah fits nicely if you holdstefilah is d’oraysa.

In one of his recent Motzei Shabbos shiurim, R’ Yitzchak Yosef pointed out that while the lomdus sounds nice in theory, it's dead wrong. As noted, the Rambam paskens that tefilah is d’oraysa (hil tefilah 1:1):
מצות עשה להתפלל בכל יום

Yet the Rambam also holds that tefilas arvis is reshus (hil tefilah ch3):

תפילת הערב--אף על פי שאינה חובה--המתפלל אותה, יש לו להתפלל מתחילת הלילה עד שיעלה עמוד השחר.

Somehow you need to explain how to fit the two together. That’s a homework question.

Why is it that tefilas arvis is reshus as opposed to the other tefilos?

According to one view in Chazal, our tefilos correspond to the avodah done in the Mikdash: shacharis corresponds to the korban tamid done in the morning; mincha corresponds to the tamid in the afternoon; ma’ariv corresponds to the fats and flesh left burning on the altar during the night. I think we can agree that it makes sense for there to be a distinction between teflios that correspond to the korbanos tamid, where there was a mitzvah to offer a korban and sprinkle the blood on the mizbeiach, and ma’ariv, where there was nothing to do other than leave the remaining fats and meats on the altar to burn.

But Chazal also tell us that tefilos were instituted by the Avos. Avraham instituted shacharis; Yitzchak instituted mincha; Chazal darshen from the pasuk “Vayifga ba’makom” in this week’s parsha that Ya’akov instituted tefilas arvis. According to this view, why is ma’ariv different than the other tefilos?

The Shem M'Shmuel answers by quoting the Midrash on "Tzamah lecha nafshi, kameh lecha besari” that explains that just as Ya’akov’s nefesh thirsted for G-d, so too did the 248 limbs of his physical body. Ya’akov succeeded in obliterating the divide between guf and nefesh. There was no longer within him a dichotomy, a struggle, between physical self and spiritual self – it was all one unit dedicated to avodas Hashem.

This level of avodah is one that only the elite can reach; it cannot be a chovah incumbent upon all.

Rather than see these as two different approaches -- tefilos as representative of avodah in the Mikdash vs. tefilah as an institution of the Avos -- the Shem m’Shmuel suggests that there is an underlying harmony between the views. Avraham and Yitzchak succeeded in worshipping G-d with all their soul; Ya’akov succeeded in worshipping with his entire being. The most essential avodah of all korbanos, including the twice daily tamid, was the zerikas ha’dam, splashing the blood on the mizbeiach. “Ki ha’dam hu hanefesh,” blood represents the soul, spiritual self-sacrifice. At night, however, it was the flesh and fats, even the physical elements of the animal, that were able to be consecrated and burned on the mizbeiach. This is tefilas ma'ariv, the avodah of Ya'akov, who was able to unify body with soul in his worship.

Last week I mentioned the Midrash that says that because Ya’akov caused Eisav to scream over the loss of Yitzchak’s brachos, his descendent Mordechai ended up screaming because of Haman’s decree.Why was Ya’akov held accountable for causing his brother Eisav to scream, but not for causing his father to panic in fear, “Va’yecherad Yitzchak…?”The Neztiv answers that Ya’akov was committing an aveirah lishma in order to receive the brachos and an aveirah lishma is permitted only when one has the purest motives and receives no personal benefit or enjoyment.The gemara (Nazir 23) writes that when Ya’el seduced Sisra in order to kill him it was an aviera lishma, and the gemara still asks how she could do such a thing when she might have gotten some pleasure from the act.Ya’akov took no pleasure in deceiving his father; however, he did not have any similar qualms about causing Eisav to cry.