Excerpt of Rav Itche Meir on Parshas Bereishis

Parshas Bereishis

Parshas Bereishis Tishrei 5780 Based on the Torah of our Rosh HaYeshiva HaRav Yochanan Zweig Weekly Insights Printer Friendly Format  Click Here This week's Insights is dedicated in memory of in loving memory of R' Moshe Chaim Berkowitz z'l - the visionary for whom our Yeshiva is named. "May his Neshama have an Aliya!"   To Sponsor an Issue of Insights Click Here   Death Becomes Us "Hashem Elokim created man from the soil of the earth" (2:7). Rashi (ad loc) quotes the Midrash (Tanchuma, Pekudei: 3), which explains that Hashem gathered soil from all four corners of the earth to create man so that, regardless of where a person should die, the earth would absorb him in burial. This is a highly perplexing statement. Ostensibly, one of the functions of the earth is to absorb any organic matter that is buried in it. Any living thing - a bird, fish, or other animal - that dies and is buried in the earth will decompose and be absorbed by the soil. How can the Midrash assert that man had to be formed specifically from earth from all over the world in order for the earth to absorb his body? Shouldn't the natural properties of the earth have made it inevitable that the body would be absorbed? The Torah (Bereishis 3:19) tells us that the phenomenon of death came about as a result of Adam Harishon's sin. Because Adam violated the prohibition against eating from the Eitz Hadaas, Hashem decreed that he and all human beings in succeeding generations would ultimately die. How are we to understand this decree? On the third day of creation Hashem commanded the earth to bring forth fruit trees (1:11). Rashi (ad loc) relates a remarkable event that took place on that day: Hashem decreed that the earth produce fruit trees with the unique aspect that the tree itself would taste like the fruit it was supposed to produce. But the earth, fascinatingly, refused. The earth produced trees that merely brought forth fruit, not trees that actually tasted like the fruit. Rashi (ad loc) notes that the earth wasn't punished until Adam sinned - at which point it was cursed. Hashem created a world that was supposed to have the illusion of being separate from Him. This was done to give man free will and the ability to make choices; thus providing the ability to earn reward and the ultimate good Hashem wanted to bestow upon mankind. Therefore, man was created as a synthesis of the physical and the spiritual. The physical component was the earth from which Adam was formed. In fact, the name Adam comes from adamah (earth). The spiritual component was, of course, the soul that Hashem blew into his nostrils. When Adam chose to violate the one commandment Hashem had given him, he was actually accessing the earth aspect of his makeup, the very same earth that had refused to heed Hashem's command regarding the fruit trees. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 90b) relates that Cleopatra asked Rabbi Meir if the dead will be wearing clothes when they are resurrected. Rabbi Meir responded by likening the resurrection of the dead to the growth of grain. A seed, he explained, is completely bare when it is placed in the earth, yet the stalk of grain that grows from it consists of many layers. Likewise, a righteous person will certainly rise from the ground fully clad. By comparing the burial of the dead to the planting of a seed, Rabbi Meir teaches us that when the deceased are interred in the earth, it marks the beginning of a process of growth and rebirth, a process that will reach its culmination at the time of the resurrection of the dead. The burial of a human being is not like the burial of any other living thing after its death; when a dog or a fish is buried the purpose is simply for the creature's body to decompose and be absorbed by the soil - for which any soil will suffice. But for a human being the process of death and burial is the process of shedding the physicality and reconnecting it back to the earth from whence it came. With that in mind, we can understand Rashi's comment that Adam had to be made from earth from every part of the world. Burial is not a mere disposal of the body, an act of discarding the deceased. On the contrary, it is the beginning of a process of recreation. Indeed, the Hebrew word kever also has two meanings: It is the term for the grave, but it is also a word for the womb. The grave, like the womb, is a place where the body is developed and prepared for its future existence.   Looking for more inspiration? Join one of Rabbi Zweig's live broadcast classes on RabbiZweig.com   Lights of Our Lives   "And God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night and the stars" (1:16).   Rashi (ad loc) relates the incident that caused the moon to become a "lesser light." The Gemara (Chullin 60b) explains how this came to be: Rabbi Shimon b. Pazzi pointed out a contradiction; one verse says: And God made the two great lights, and immediately the verse continues: The greater light [...] and the lesser light. The moon said unto the Holy One, blessed be He, "Sovereign of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?" He answered: "Go then and make yourself smaller." "Sovereign of the Universe!" cried the moon, "Because I have suggested that which is proper must I then make myself smaller?" He replied: "Go and you will rule by day and by night." "But what is the value of this?" cried the moon. "Of what use is a lamp in broad daylight?" He replied: "Go, Israel shall reckon by you the days and the years." "But it is impossible," said the moon, "to do without the sun for the reckoning of the seasons, as it is written: And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." "Go, the righteous shall be named after you as we find, Jacob the Small, Samuel the Small, David the Small." On seeing that it would not be consoled, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Bring an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller." This "atonement" is the sacrifice that is brought on Rosh Chodesh. What exactly is going on here? If the moon had a valid complaint then why did Hashem actually create them equally? If the complaint wasn't valid, why does Hashem try so hard to placate the moon, leading up to Hashem asking Bnei Yisroel to bring a sacrifice for His "transgression"? What the moon failed to recognize is that Hashem had created a perfect system of time, the sun would control days, weeks, and years, while the moon would control months and all the times of holidays. This wasn't "two kings sharing one crown." Hashem had created the perfect union, and the original intent was that the sun and moon would work in unison, much like a marriage. In a marriage there are different roles, each person with the responsibility for their part of the whole. Marriage isn't a partnership between two kings; it's a union of two individuals for the greater whole. The sun and moon were supposed to represent the ultimate man-woman relationship. But the moon didn't see the union for what it was, the moon felt that it needed its own identity. To that Hashem responds that if you don't see the value of the unified whole then you have to take a smaller role because you are absolutely right - "two kings cannot share one crown." But the moon's reduced role was really a function of its refusal to become one with the sun. Ultimately though, the moon gets the last laugh, so to speak. Much like in a marriage, when the woman feels wronged it doesn't make a difference if the husband is right or wrong; he's always wrong. That's why the Gemara ends as it does; when Hashem saw that the moon would not be consoled he asked Bnei Yisroel to bring a sacrifice as an atonement. This was a recognition (and lesson for mankind) that being right doesn't really matter. What really matters is recognizing another entity's pain and accepting responsibility for their feelings; and of course doing what it takes to rectify it. Did You Know... Chazal teach us that Hashem created the sun and the moon to rule the day and the night, and that originally they were both the same size. The moon then complained to Hashem that "two kings cannot share one crown" so Hashem ordered the moon to become smaller. Just how small did the moon become? It is interesting to note that the sun is a relatively small star in our galaxy and categorized as a yellow dwarf star. Still, you can fit almost 1,300,000 earths inside it. You can fit fifty moons into the earth. This means that the moon is approximately .0024 the size of the sun. Quite a reduction indeed! In Chazal, the moon represents the Jewish people and the sun represents the nations of the world. An example of this is the Talmudic teaching (Sukkah 29a) that a solar eclipse is an evil sign for the nations of the world and a lunar eclipse augurs evil for the Jewish people. Perhaps this is why the Talmud (Shavuot 9a) states that Hashem asked the Jewish people to "atone for him" for commanding the moon to become smaller by bringing a sacrifice on Rosh Chodesh, which is the beginning of the lunar cycle. In addition, the first mitzvah given to the Jewish people is that of Kiddush Hachodesh, sanctifying the new moon.

The Chasam Sofer zt”l, Upon His Yahrtzeit, Today, 25 Tishrei

COURTESY OF MATZAV.COM October 24, 2019

Rav Moshe Sofer – the Chasam Sofer – was born in 1766 to Rav Shmuel and Gittel Sofer of Frankfurt Am Mein. Rav Shmuel was an outstanding talmid chacham who traced his yichus back to the Yalkut Shimoni. At the age of three, he turned to his melamed in puzzlement and asked, “Why does the verse repeat itself in the expression ‘afar min ha’adama?'” The melamed tried to hurry on to the next verse, but the young Moshe would not be put off and demanded an answer straight away. Astounded by the child’s grasp, the melamed told Rav Shmuel what had happened. When Rav Shmuel repeated the incident to Rav Nasan Adler, one of the greatest gedolim of the generation, he insisted that Rav Shmuel teach the boy himself.

Rav Shmuel understood that he was grooming a future leader of klal Yisroel and invested all his energies into the boy’s chinuch, both of the intellect and of the character.

Judging by the following anecdote, his efforts obviously had an impact on the child. When Rav Moshe was just five years old, he discovered that there is a difference of opinion concerning which berachah should be recited over sugar. Then and there he resolved never to suck sugar again. This was a remarkable resolution when one takes into consideration the fact that candies were virtually non-existent in those days. At seven years of age Moshe completed Maseches Beitza and said chidushim at the siyum.

WITH RAV NOSSON ADLER

An incident occurred when Rav Moshe was ten years old that changed the entire course of his life. Rav Moshe was delivering a drashsa in Rav Nosson Adler’s beis medrash in the presence of Frankfurt’s most notable talmidei chachamim, when he refuted one of the insights of his grandfather, the Maharshach. Rav Moshe’s father became upset and publicly slapped his son in the face.

Rav Nosson called Rav Shmuel aside and said: “I command that Moshe leaves your home. I will care of him and teach him myself.”

Under Rav Nosson’s tutelage Rav Moshe’s knowledge of Torah and kabbala rocketed, and he imbibed his teacher’s saintly ways. In later years it was said that Rav Moshe never forgot a single chidush of his, and that he could do three things simultaneously – speak with someone, prepare his shiurim, and prepare answers to halachic problems. He studied in a small room near the main beis medrash near where Rav Nosson answered sha’alos, and in this way he witnessed Rav Nosson’s encounters with gedolei Yisroel and had “shimush.”

IN THE EYE OF A STORM

Rav Moshe studied in the yeshivah of Rav Tavil Shayer in Magentsa until the age of sixteen, at which point his parents called him back to Frankfurt. He returned to the German city in 1782.

Meanwhile, dissension had arisen in Frankfurt. There were those who resented Rav Nasan Adler’s leanings towards kabbala, and he was forced to leave and accept a position in the Moravian city of Boskovitz. As he left, accompanied by a huge throng, Rav Moshe plaintively cried out, “I wish to serve my teacher and rabbi in Boskovitz!” Suddenly, he realized that he’d forgotten to add the words “b’li neder” to his pronouncement, and he quickly asked Rav Nosson if this constituted a neder. Rav Nosson nodded affirmatively.

Without a moment’s hesitation, Rav Moshe tried to leap into Rav Nasan’s wagon, but there was no room for him. Desperate, he raced after the wagon for a few miles until he caught up with it at a crossroads. Impressed by his talmid’s mesirus nefesh, Rav Adler made a place for him in the wagon and took him along to Boskowitz.

After three years Rav Nasan was forced to return to Frankfurt because of an informer, but Rav Moshe stayed on, opened a yeshiva, and married the daughter of the rav of Prosnitz who had recently passed away. Rav Moshe also learned with Rav Pinchos Halevi Horowitz, the Ba’al Haflo’oh, whom he also considered his Rebbe Muvhak. Rav Pinchos was sent to Frankfurt by his Rebbe, the maggid of Mezeritch.

For seven years Rav Moshe was supported by his brother-in-law, Rav Hirsch, and he devoted himself totally to Torah until Rav Hirsch lost all of his money. When Rav Moshe saw that his wife was forced to sell her head-covering to buy wine for kiddush he reluctantly accepted an offer to serve as rav in the Moravian city of Dresnitz.

Soon afterward, his brother-in-law’s finances improved and he quipped to Rav Moshe: “It appears that my financial downfall came min hasShomayim just to force you to accept a rabbinical position.” After five years in Dresnitz, Rav Moshe moved to Mattersdorf, where the community undertook to feed and supoort the bachurim of his yeshivah.

NEXT STOP: MATTERSDORF

The Chasam Sofer’s next stop was Mattersdorf, one of the seven most prominent Jewish kehillos in Hungary, where he served as rav of the kehilla. His yeshiva there expanded to hundreds of students and produced many gedolei hador. But after four years of his yeshiva’s exponential growth rate, even Mattersdorf was unable to support Rav Moshe’s talmidim.

Rav Moshe did not see this as a problem, since there were many large and wealthy Jewish communities in Europe that were vying with each other for the privilege of having the Chasam Sofer as their rav. Neustadt, one of those communities, agreed to accept the Chasam Sofer’s strictest conditions regarding support for his yeshiva.

But a week before the Chasam Sofer’s departure from Mattersdorf to Neustadt, on the 18th of Adar, 5562 (1801), a huge fire broke out in Mattersdorf’s Jewish quarter, and all of Rav Moshe’s plans had to be changed. The fire did not claim any lives, but all of the community’s properties and assets went up in flames. As the fire leaped from one house to the next, the residents noticed that only one house still remained intact – the Chasam Sofer’s.

In his house were stored large sums of money that people had entrusted to him in his position as rav of the community, as well as all of his precious manuscripts, which were later to form the Chasam Sofer’s chiddushim and responsa literature. The people realized that it was vital to secure sufficient water to combat the fire and protect the Chasam Sofer’s house at all cost.

However, the only local well of water in the area was a few minutes walk distant from the Chasam Sofer’s house, and time was of the essence.

While everyone stood around wondering what to do, a new student in the Chasam Sofer’s yeshiva walked over to the old and rusty well in the Chasam Sofer’s backyard, which had been dormant for years, and he threw a bucket into it. A huge jet of water burst forth, providing enough water to douse the fire. Immediately after the fire was put out, the well returned to its previous defunct state.

Seeing the destruction all around him, the Chasam Sofer canceled his plans to move to Neustadt, and remained in Mattersdorf to help renovate and restore his beloved city of Mattersdorf.

After finding lodgings for the homeless, the Chasam Sofer organized a rescue campaign, sending letters to all of the Jewish communities in Europe. Soon money, clothing, food, seforim and religious articles streamed into the city and were promptly distributed to the needy and the homeless.

At this time the Chasam Sofer forgot about his own needs. There were times when he couldn’t even afford paper to write his chiddushim. Instead, he recorded them on the empty pages at the beginnings and the ends of the seforim in his possession.

The Chasam Sofer’s grandson, Rav Shlomo Sofer, rav of Bergsas, recalls that during this entire period, his grandfather never slept in a bed out of sympathy with the suffering of the rest of the Jews of Mattersdorf.

Throughout his life, Rav Moshe’s attitude was one of complete dedication to the Jewish people. A money-forging press was once discovered near Pressburg and the police arrested a number of communal leaders, stipulating that they would be freed only if the local rav swore to their innocence. But the local rav was terrified to make an oath even on what he knew to be the truth, and so he went to ask Rav Moshe what he should do.

Drawing himself up to his full height, the Chasam Sofer shouted, “Jews have been thrown into jail for weeks on end, and families have been left with no source of livelihood, and you’re worrying about your olam haba?

Believe me, my dear friend, that in Hashem’s eyes, freeing a Jew from a dungeon is more important than your eternal reward.” On another occasion Rav Moshe called a talmid into his study on Erev Yom Kippur and said, “I want you to agree to my suggestion. There is an orphan girl who has reached marriageable age. No one is making any effort to help her, and I want you to marry her.”

The talmid agreed. Rav Moshe’s face lit up with joy, and he announced, “With this merit I will enter the day of judgement!” Rav Shimon Sofer writes that his father said three things about himself:

“From the day I gained intelligence, I never had an alien thought in my prayers; I never felt a sense of pride, whether publicly teaching or whether making chidushim, except once in my first derasha in Dresnitz, and that was to show that I could learn and so that they should hold me in awe and obey my words; and I ran my house and the community with regal dignity, purely leshem Shamayim.”

FIGHTING THE REFORM MOVEMENT

Once Mattersdorf was rejuvenated, the Chasam Sofer, sought another position and soon an offer came from Pressburg, whose rav, the esteemed Rav Meshulam Igra, had passed away.

Over the years, Pressburg’s leaders had reviewed numerous candidates for the rav of their city, but no actual appointments had been made. Yet when the Chasam Sofer’s name was mentioned, all of the city’s leaders approved the proposal despite his stipualtion demanding full support of his yeshiva.

However, his appointment was opposed by a small group of Pressburg maskilim who feared the Chasam Sofer’s firm insistence that every halacha and minhag be scrupulously observed.

An anonymous letter was sent to Rav Moshe saying among other things: “If the rabbi shames no man or woman and brings no stringencies from the place from where he comes, the honorable rabbi will live in peace and will never lack a livelihood. But if not, then the rabbi will be attacked and he will live in disgrace.”

In later years Rav Moshe wrote, “My enemies set an ambush for my soul until at night I said, ‘Would that it were day,’ and at morning I said, ‘Would that it were night.’ Nevertheless, I never left the beis hamidrash and I never missed even one shiur and I did not cease to make fences for the law. Had Hashem not helped me, I would have been sent to prison for life.”

In one of his famouse responsa Rav Moshe writes “that he is so harried that he does not even have tome to swallow his own saliva!”

RAV OF PRESSBURG

The Chasam Sofer was officially appointed Rav of Pressburg in Tishrei 5567 (1806), and he occupied that position for thirty three years. He rapidly became regarded as the rav of the entire Diaspora, to whom questions from all over the world were addressed. Meanwhile, his yeshiva continued to expand, spreading Torah to thousands of talmidim.

Siyata D’Shmaya was very apparent in Rav Moshe’s halachic opinions. On one occasion he was asked a question involving an agunah whom many prominent rabbonim had allowed to remarry. “According to strict halacha,” said Rav Moshe, “I cannot argue with them. But my heart tells me that her husband is still alive.” The woman accepted Rav Moshe’s opinion and, sure enough, her husband returned not long after.

His son, Rav Shimon Sofer of Cracow once asked Rav Moshe how he managed to answer halachic questions with hardly more than a quick review of the related issues.

“”It is true,” replied Rav Moshe, “that halachic decisions normally require deep analysis. But in every generation Hashem designates a person who holds the keys to all hidden things, and this person is endowed with special siyata diShmaya. With great efforts I have prepared myself to be ready to solve halacha problems and I have, baruch Hashem, freed myself from all personal bias. Therefore it is not possible that I will err in a ruling. At the most I will err in my choice of proofs.”

Similarly, Rav Nasan Adler once stated, “I know that Rav Moshe Sofer is constantly cleaving to Hashem. For this reason he has been endowed with such great siyata diShmaya to rule according to halacha.”

Baron Rosthchild was a great admirer of the Chasam Sofer. He tried to institute the position of Chief Rabbi in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and he intended Rav Moshe to be the one to fill this position. But with his far-sightedness, Rav Moshe rejected the idea.

“When a person does a public action in our times,” he explained, “he must be sure that no mishap will arise from it. As I long as I filled the position [of Chief Rabbi] I could hope for this, but who knows what would happen to the person who came after me?”

After the petira of his first wife, Rav Moshe married the daughter of Rav Akiva Eiger. She bore the previously childless Chasam Sofer seven daughters and three sons: Rav Avrohom Shmuel Binyomin, the Ksav Sofer; Rav Shimon Sofer, the Rav of Cracow; and Rav Yosef Yuzpa Sofer.

In Pressburg, his main efforts focused on enriching and expanding his yeshiva. His students eventually went on to lead prominent communities in Europe. It may be said that the majority of the gedolei haTorah and rabbanim who led European Jewry in that generation and the ensuing one emerged from the Chasam Sofer’s yeshiva.

While the Chasam Sofer maintained rigid acceptance standards and discipline in his yeshiva, he was nonetheless like a father to his students, attending to all of their needs with genuine love. It is said that not one of his talmidim left the path of Torah.

Once Rav Moshe spotted a group of talmidim going outside with unclean clothes and unpolished shoes. “A person who is particular about his appearance and not about his soul,” he told them, “is like a garbage bin covered with roses. But a person who is worried about his soul and not about his appearance is like a vase of roses covered in garbage. Anyone seeing the garbage is disgusted and turns away.”

Once, he firmly rejected a youth who had applied to be accepted to his yeshiva. When Rav Moseh was asked the reason for this, he replied: “I looked out the window and saw the bachur step on some palm branches lying in the courtyard which I had used for my sukkah thus showing disrespect for something used for a mitzvah.” Even a person’s trivial actions spoke volumes to Rav Moshe.

Rav Moshe taught his talmidim to learn gemara according to its plain meaning and was violently opposed to a method of pilpul know as “chilukim” which tended to obscure the true intent of Chazal and forced talmidim to concentrate on a few scattered sugyas rather than learning the whole tractate.

MASKILIM

The Chasam Sofer waged a valiant and mighty battle against the maskilim of his time, using every means available to counter them. “If their judgement was put into our hands,” he wrote, “my opinion would be to drive them from our midst. Our daughters would not be given to their sons, nor our sons to their daughters, lest they be drawn after them. Their communities would be like the communities of Zadok and Baisus, they for themselves, and us for ourselves.”

Rav Moshe’s famous war cry was: “Chadash [new philosophical ideas] is forbidden by the Torah!”

On one occasion the Chasam Sofer warned a wealthy couple to perform their wedding ceremony under the open sky, as per Jewish tradition, and not inside a shul, in accordance with Reform custom. When the bridegroom refused, Rav Moshe announced, “I doubt that the children of this couple will remain Jews!” Years later his warning came about when the couple converted.

“It is true that my father could foretell the future,” explained the Kesav Sofer, the Chasam Sofer’s son, “but in this case he was guided by his wisdom. My father knew that it is not the external sprinkling of holy water that converts a Jew into a gentile, but his internal desire to deny his Jewish identity. Whether this desire is great or small makes no difference. The point is his desire to imitate the gentile.” Despite his fierceness in this war, Rav Moshe tearfully begged Hashem to pity His nation, and to cause the errant to repent their sins and return to a Torah way of life.

He was joined in this battle by his father-in-law, Rav Akiva Eiger, as well as by Rav Mordechai Banet of Nikolsberg, Rav Yosef Shaul Natanson of Lemberg, Rav Betzalel Ranceborg of Prague and other gedolim of the time. The Chasam Sofer continued waging this battle until his final day.

Although the maskilim tried to undermine the yeshiva and to bring about the Chasam Sofer’s downfall, their efforts failed.

LOVE OF ERETZ YISROEL

The Chasam Sofer was imbued with a deep love of Eretz Hakodesh, and was one of the staunchest supporters of the yishuv. Regarding those Jews who regarded the emancipation of Jews in Europe as a lessening of our urgent need to return to Zion, he would repeat the following parable: A prince was once driven far away from his father’s palace, but as the years rolled on he never lost the hope that his father would one day call him back. But one day a royal wagon arrived and a team of architects and workers jumped out and began building the prince a beautiful mansion in his remote village. “Woe is me!” cried the prince.

“It seems that my father intends me to stay here for ever!” So too, emancipation in Europe would perhaps make the Jews’ exile easier, but it was no replacement for their ancestral home in Eretz Yisroel. Due to the love he instilled in his students for Eretz Hakodesh, many of them settled there. As president of Kollel Shomrei Hachomos of Rav Meir Baal Haness, the Chasam Sofer labored tirelessly for the sake of the yishuv in Eretz Yisroel urging the community to contribute generously.

His offspring inherited the position.

During World War I, more than 75 years after the petira of the Chasam Sofer, when famine raged throughout Eretz Yisroel, Hungary’s Jews were still among its staunchest supporters, rallying to the aid of their brethren there.

HIS PETIRA

On Succos of 5600 (1839), the Chasam Sofer became ill. He asked for his bed to be moved to the Succah, and there he lay, unable to move. On the night of Hoshana Rabbah, the pain-wracked tzadik overcame his suffering and began to study Torah with amazing hasmada. Towards morning, he ran to shul and davened with the congregation. But in the middle of the davening, his illness overcame him, and he was forced to return home.

On Simchas Torah, he held a minyan in his home and was called to the Torah as Chassan Torah. Then in his tranquil voice, he said some remarkable chiddushim, astounding the doctors present with his superhuman stamina.

On the 25th of Tishrei, his situation took a drastic turn for the worse.

Surrounded by his students, he cried out “Shema Yisroel,” and returned his pure soul to Maker.

Klal Yisroel was bereft, for it had lost one of its great Torah leaders, but his profound influence and teachings in his many sefrom (Shailos and Teshuvos, Chiddushim on Shas, and Sifrei Chasam Sofer on Torah) will guide and inspire us forever.

Yehi zichro boruch.

The Kotzker Rebbe on Simchat Torah

Dvar Torah By Rav Shimshon Nadel

The Kotzker Rebbe on Simchat Torah

One Simchat Torah, Rav Menachem Mendel of Kotzk saw a jew standing by the sidelines during the Hakafot. When the Kotzker inquired as to why this jew was not dancing, he replied that he felt inadequate dancing and celebrating with the Torah, as he was not learned, and had not learned much during the past year.

The Kotzker responded that on Simchat Torah there are two Chatanim: Chatan Torah and Chatan Bereishit. The Chatan Torah represents onewho has accomplished much in his learning over the past year. But Bereishit is about beginnings. The Chatan Bereishit celebrates one who is going to devote this new year to the study of Torah.

In his Shem Mi-Shmuel, Rav Shmuel Borensztain quotes his grandfather, the Kotzker, as having said that on Simchat Torah we do not celebrate the completion of the Torah, for who can say that he has studied the entire Torah? Instead, Simchat Torah is a celebration of what we will accomplish in the future (See Shem Mi-Shmuel, Simchat Torah 5662).

Chag Same'ach!

Dvar Torah Sefas Emes AL Chag Hasukkos By Dr. Nosson Chayim Leff 

5634

Let’s work with the first ma’amar of 5634.

A central feature of the sukka — indeed, the feature that gives the sukka its name — is the sekhach (the materials used to make the roof of the sukka). The Sfas Emes begins by showing us something that is totally obvious once he has pointed it out; but was totally non-obvious until he did so.

Thus, the Sfas Emes notes that the sukka resembles a chupa (wedding canopy). And just as the wedding ceremony under the chupa completes the binding of a wife and her husband together, so, too, the sukka completed the sanctification (the kiddushin) of our special relationship with HaShem. For, continues the Sfas Emes, HaShem’s taking us out of Egypt was in the nature of a marriage. Thus, HaShem says (Vayikra, 22:32-33): “Ani HaShem me’kadish’chem, ha’motzi es’chem meiEretz Mitzrayim … “. (ArtScroll: “I am HaShem Who sanctifies you, Who took you out of the land of Egypt …”)

As you see, faithful to its mission of presenting the pshat pashut — the simple rendering of the text — ArtScroll reads the word “me’kadish’chem” as “sanctifies”. By contrast, faithful to his mission — giving us access to new, mind-stretching insights — the Sfas Emes is reading “me’kadish’chem” as “Who has taken you as His wife”. This is standard usage for the word “me’kadesh”; for example, in the expression “chupa ve’kiddushin”. And with the Sfas Emes’s reading of me’kadish’chem, the sekhach on top of the sukka becomes the chupa of Bnei Yisroel with HaShem.

But in the Heavenly Court, kitrug (criticism) is heard: Why should Bnei Yisroel be selected over all other nations for this special relationship with HaShem? Looking objectively at the proposed shidduch, one might conclude that it was unfair. Even worse, the shidduch did not seem to make sense as a viable long-term relationship. Note that the issue of Klal Yisroel’s special relationship with HaShem — our being the “chosen people” — continues to bother some people to this very day.

The Sfas Emes draws our attention to the way HaShem — the presumptive choson (bridegroom) — dealt with this criticism concerning His singling out Bnei Yisroel to be His kallah (bride) The Choson reacted not with words or with reasoning. Rather, recognizing that what was involved love — which can be impervious to words or to reasoning — the Choson reacted by proceeding swiftly to the wedding ceremony. That is, by having us come forward immediately to the chupa! Thus, recounting what happened soon after the Exodus, HaShem tells us (VaYikra 23, 43): “Ki ba’sukkos ho’shavti es Bnei Yisroel behotzi’i o’sam MeiEretz Mitzrayim”. (“For when I took Bnei Yisroel from the Land of Egypt, I had them dwell in Sukkos”.)

***********************************************************************************************

The Sfas Emes has given us a powerful “take-home” lesson to deepen our understanding and enjoyment of the Yom Tov. The message is simple: when we enter the Sukka, we should feel the sentiments that a choson (or a kallah) feels when he/she stands under the chupa.

What might those sentiments be? Three possibilities come to mind. One possibility is a feeling of great joy. That state of mind comes from being next to one’s beloved, with whom he/she is about to commit for a lifetime together.

Another possibility — these are not mutually exclusive — involves one’s relationship with HaShem. That is, standing under the chupa, a person may feel great gratitude to the One Who made the shidduch . In turn, this sense of gratitude can bring the person extraordinarily close to HaShem. Indeed, so close that this is a very favorable time to daven for any special request.

A third possibility for a person’s feelings under the chupa also comes to mind. He/she may be quivering with doubts about the wisdom of the step they are taking. This case resembles the experience of HaShem and Bnei Yisroel — the case that the Sfas Emes discussed earlier in this ma’amar. There, too, there was cause for much uncertainty about the suitability of the marriage.. Chazal tell us that bringing a couple together in marriage is similar to the miracle of splitting Yam Suf. As we know, that miracle had to be triggered by a leap of faith: “Nachshon kofatz le’soch hayam”. So, too, recall how the choson and kallah discussed earlier in this ma’mar dealt with their uncertainty and doubts about the shidduch. Thus, undoubtedly they had doubts and unanswered questions. . They dealt with their uncertainties by plunging forward, committing to a deeper, more solid relationship, one which — history has shown — could be made to last forever.

******** A Post Script.

As we have seen, the Sfas Emes views the choson and kalla coming together under a canopy as a symbol that concludes acquiring something. In that case, he had in mind HaShem’s kinyan of Bnei Yisroel. But to conclude his discussion of this issue, he cites another case in which someone completed a kinyan by providing sukkos.

That other case is Ya’akov Avinu’s return from Lavan to Eretz Yisroel. The Sfas Emes quotes the pasuk in Bereishis (33:17): “… u’lemik’neihu ahsa Sukkos”. (“ArtScroll: “… and for his cattle, he made shelters.”) The Sfas Emes notes the “sound-alikes” (“mi’kneihu” = “his cattle”; “kinyan” = “an acquisition “). Accordingly, he makes the obvious word-associations. Thus he reads this phrase as saying: ” … he made sukkos for what he had acquired”. The Sfas Emes offers us this non-pshat in support of his idea that a sukka can complete and solidify a relationship. Truly a thought to bear in mind when we dwell in our Sukka this Yom Tov.

---

Text Copyright © 2005 by Rabbi Dr. Nosson Chayim Leff and Torah.org.

A Fresh Start Sukkos

A Fresh Start

Sukkos

A Dvar Torah By Rabbi Yochanan Zweig 

“You shall take for yourselves on the first day…” (23:40)

The Tur records a custom among Ashkenazim to fast on the eve of Rosh Hashana.1 As the source for this custom, he cites a Midrash which questions why the Torah identifies the time for taking the lulav as “the first day” – “bayom harishon”; should the day not be identified as the fifteenth of the month? The Midrash concludes that the first day of Sukkos is “rishon l’cheshbon avonos” – “the first day for the accounting of our sins” and therefore Sukkos is identified as “yom harishon”.

The Midrash offers the following parable: There was once a city that owed the king a large sum of money in taxes. As a result of the residents’ failure to pay, the king marched against the city with an armed garrison. Prior to reaching the city, a delegation consisting of the elders of the community was sent to appease the king. After meeting with the delegation the king discharged one-third of the debt, but still continued to advance. Fearing for their safety, the city sent a second delegation comprised of common-folk to meet with the king.

They succeeded in convincing him to discharge another one-third of the debt. However, the king continued to advance towards the city. Finally, all of the residents of the city emerged from their homes to beseech the king, who had already reached the city gates, to deal with them kindly. Moved by this display, the king discharged the remaining one-third of the debt. Similarly, the Jewish people amass a large number of sins throughout the year. On the eve of Rosh Hashana the men of distinction fast and Hashem absolves the nation of one-third of their sins. During the “aseres y’mei teshuva” – “ten days of repentance”, another one-third of the sins are absolved. The entire nation fasts on Yom Kippur, absolving them of their remaining transgressions. With the onset of Sukkos a new account of sins for the year begins.

Why is Sukkos, rather than the day immediately following Yom Kippur identified as the “first day for the new accounting”? Furthermore, Sukkos appears to play no part in Bnei Yisroel’s atonement. Why does the Midrash use this parable to extol the virtue of Sukkos?

The Beis Yoseif asks why the fast on the eve of Rosh Hashana appears to have the same efficacy as the fast of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, each one discharging one-third of the sins.2

The Bach notes that there are three chapters concerning aspects of Sukkos recorded in the Torah, sitting in the Sukkah, bringing the festive offerings and finally, taking the four species. Why does the Torah specifically choose the four species to relate the message that Sukkos is the “first day for the new accounting”?

In English common law a person who defaulted on a debt was subject to incarceration. However, in the modern era almost every civilized society has bankruptcy laws which allow a person to discharge debts that he is unable to repay by declaring bankruptcy, protecting him from his creditors. What is the logic behind the institution of bankruptcy? Why would society allow a person to sidestep accountability for his actions?

A person who is mired in debt, unable to extricate himself from his predicament, eventually ceases to be a productive member of society and becomes a liability. By allowing this person to discharge his debt either partially or completely, we are enabling him to stand on his own two feet, once again contributing as a productive member of society. Great care must be taken however, to ensure that this institution is not abused. The potential danger of a person using bankruptcy as a crutch to protect him from his own negligence and irresponsible behavior always exists.

It is a mistake to think that Hashem forgives us only because of His great benevolence. What we must realize is that His absolution is not a crutch upon which we can continuously rely, to discharge our irresponsible behavior. Rather, we are given a respite so that we can become, once again, functioning members of society, earning our keep, unburdened by our great number of transgressions. If we fail to view atonement in this manner, instead of being a tool which allows us to become responsible for our actions, it will have the opposite effect. Atonement becomes a crutch which breeds irresponsibility.

If a person is responsible for at least a portion of his debts, the danger of bankruptcy being used to encourage irresponsible behavior is smaller than if the entire debt were discharged. Therefore, although Yom Kippur discharges the same amount of sin as Rosh Hashana eve, there exists a great difference between the two absolutions. After Rosh Hashana a person is still responsible for a portion of his sins. On Yom Kippur, when complete absolution occurs, the danger of misusing atonement is greater, and only a day such as Yom Kippur can afford such a service to the Jewish people.

For atonement to be complete it must be accompanied by a commitment to begin paying our debts and accepting responsibility for our actions. Sukkos is the time when new responsibilities are placed upon us and therefore serves as the litmus test for the veracity of our commitment. Consequently, Sukkos is identified as “the first day for the accounting of our sins”.

The Ran cites the Yerushalmi which disqualifies a dried-out lulav based upon the verse “lo hameisim yehallelu kah” – “the dead cannot praise Hashem”.4 The lulav is a symbol of freshness and vitality, reflecting the new lease on life that we have gained following Yom Kippur. We therefore use the lulav as the tool to praise Hashem for His beneficence. The Torah most appropriately delivers the message concerning the beginning of a new accounting in the chapter of the four species which symbolize this concept.

1.Orech Chaim #582 2.Ibid 3.Ibid 4.Sukkah29b

As seen on Torah.org

The Difference Between Emunah and Bitachon

Rabbi Ben Tzion Shafier

   

Reprinted with permission from TheShmuz.com.

The Rambam defines emunah as the knowledge that Hashem created and continues to run all of Creation.

In Shemoneh Perakima, he delineates the first of the Thirteen Principles of Faith: “The Creator, blessed be He, created and orchestrates all activities, and He alone did, does and will do all actions.”

Simply put, nothing can exist and no activity can occur without Hashem.

There is no such thing as happenstance. There are no random occurrences. Hashem is intricately involved in the running of the world.

Emunah is the understanding that Hashem is involved in the big picture issues. Life and death. War and famine. Disease and disaster. Which countries will go to war? Which will enjoy peace? Which economies will expand? Which will collapse?

But even more significantly, emunah is the knowledge that Hashem is involved in the minutiae of my daily life. Hashem is there with me, 24/7, 365, all day, every day, from morning to night. No human being or other power can change my destiny. Hashem decrees the fate of man, and Hashem is there on the scene to carry out that decree.

That is emunah—the clear understanding that Hashem runs the world, from big to little, from global to local, across all platforms and situations. Hashem is there controlling every outcome.

Definition of bitachon
Bitachon, however, is quite different. Bitachon means trust. The Chovos HaLevavos defines bitachon as relying on Hashem, trusting Hashem. It is a sense of depending on Him to watch over and protect me.

Hashem is kind, loving and merciful. Hashem created me in order to give to me. And Hashem wants what is for my best. While I am responsible to be proactive, I am not in charge of the outcome, and I am not the determinant of the results. That is Hashem’s role. And so, while I do my part, I rely on Hashem to care for me. I take my
heavy burden and place it on Hashem.

Emunah is a state of understanding. Bitachon is a state of trust. Emunah comes from studying this world and seeing that there is a Creator. Bitachon is the state of trust that comes from recognizing that that Creator is good, kindly and wise—and that He cares deeply for His creations.

A person can have emunah and not bitachon
Amazingly, a person can have emunah and not bitachon. He can know that Hashem runs the world, but not necessarily trust in Him.

Pharaoh was a classic example.

The Jews were multiplying at a fantastic rate, and the Egyptians feared that they would soon be outnumbered. Pharaoh had the solution: throw the Jewish boys into the Nile as soon as they’re born. The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 1:18) explains that this wasn’t a flippant reaction—it was highly calculated. Pharaoh said to his
people, “Hashem pays back measure for measure. If we burn the babies—Hashem will burn us. If we hang them—Hashem will hang us. Hashem, however, promised Noach that He would never bring another flood. If we drown the babies, Hashem will want to punish us by drowning, but He won’t be able to. So we are safe.”

Clearly, Pharaoh understood the power of Hashem. He realized that Hashem watches over the world. He also understood that Hashem acts with justice. Pharaoh had no problem with emunah, but he didn’t trust Hashem—he rebelled against Him.

He had emunah, but no bitachon. Hashem is out to get me

I had a chance to see an example of this distinction in a setting closer to home. For many years I was a high school rebbe. One day, I was speaking to a young man about some things that were going on in his life, when he exclaimed, “Hashem is out to get me!”

I didn’t know what he meant, but then he explained. “Don’t you see? It’s all part of a plan. I was doing so well, and then this and this happened. Just when things were starting to get better, that guy came over and did such and such. And that sent me into another tailspin. Then, just when I was getting back into things, this and this
happened. Don’t you see? Hashem is out to get me!”

From then on, at least once a week, he would show me how “Hashem was out to get him.”

This fellow saw Hashem in his life. But, he didn’t trust Him. Quite the opposite—Hashem was the problem.

The point is that a person can understand that Hashem runs the world, and still not trust Him. Even though he sees the puppeteer pulling the strings, he still may not trust the one running the show.

This Article is courtesy of OU.org