Deuteronomy 21:18 - The Rebellious Child and Ishmael

July 5, 2020 - 13 Tammuz 5780

The following may be taken as the Torah's implicit reference to Ishmael's rebelliousness through the unique juxtaposition of words (in the Hebrew):

If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them...

כִּי־יִֽהְיֶ֣ה לְאִ֗ישׁ בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה אֵינֶ֣נּוּ שֹׁמֵ֔עַ בְּק֥וֹל אָבִ֖יו וּבְק֣וֹל אִמּ֑וֹ וְיִסְּר֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמַ֖ע אֲלֵיהֶֽם... 

Notice the text that I highlighted below from the verse above:

כִּי־יִֽהְיֶ֣ה לְאִ֗ישׁ בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה אֵינֶ֣נּוּ שֹׁמֵ֔עַ בְּק֥וֹל אָבִ֖יו וּבְק֣וֹל אִמּ֑וֹ וְיִסְּר֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמַ֖ע אֲלֵיהֶֽם... 

The last three words in the verse above mean "does not listen to them." The parts of the words that mean "listen to" spell out the name "Ishmael."

When Life Gives you Lemons, Eat Locusts

September 9, 2020 - 19 Elul 5780

In the story of the Exodus the Egyptians get a bad rap, and rightfully so because they are so clearly the perpetrators of evil.

However, we occasionally can attest to the attempt of even evil people to bring order into chaos, to bring some good into the equation when all they see is bad.

The Midrash Shemos Rabbah 13:7 says that the Egyptians tried to catch the locusts in barrels during the eighth plague:

...and the Lord reversed a very strong west wind, why does it say that "not one locust remained?" Rabbi Yochanan said "Because the Egyptians rejoiced when the locusts came, saying 'Let us gather and fill up barrels with them.'

וַיּהֲפֹךְ ה' רוּחַ יָם, מַהוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אַרְבֶּה אֶחָד, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא אַרְבֶּה שָׂמְחוּ הַמִּצְרִיִּים, אָמְרוּ נִקְבֹּץ וּנְמַלֵּא מֵהֶם חָבִיּוֹת

Locusts were (and in some places are) a delicacy, and so the Egyptians saw an opportunity in the destructive onslaught of the locusts for some fine dining. And it may certainly be that this is a redeeming factor among the Egyptians, for although they brought great evil upon the Jews they at least sought to minimize their own suffering and to "turn lemons into lemonade." It attests to the human will to survive, which is part and parcel of what it means to be "made in the Image of God."

Further, we cannot completely ignore the attempts of even evil people with evil motivations to find construction within destruction, and we may even learn from them. For as we know, the Midrash says that although the people who built the Tower of Babel were, in their minds, declaring war on God, their one redeeming factor was their express unity with each other in this literally misdirected endeavor. To this end we may appreciate the attempts of the Egyptians to improve their dismal situation in any way they knew how. Contrast this with the behavior of the generation of Noach, who manipulated and cheated each other, for which God brought destruction upon the entire face of the earth in contrast to one lone edifice in the generation of Babel.

But therein lies the rub - it is not always appropriate to look for the good in the bad. This is specifically true when God is sending the bad for the purpose of inspiring repentance, which was one of the reasons for the ten plagues. So while it is generally true that one should look for whatever good he can find in whatever difficulties he experiences, sometimes the most appropriate action is to pause, think, and introspect as to what may be causing him to experience this particular set of hardships, and to plot out a plan of reconciliation and improvement.

The continutation of that Midrash is as follows:

The Holy One, Blessed is He, said, 'Evil ones! This plague that I brought upon you, and you rejoice in it,' He immediately reversed a very strong wind," this is an easterly wind. "And picked up the locusts." What does it mean that "not one locust remained?" Even those that were in their jars and barrels, which were pickled, flew away and went away, and God hardened Pharoah's heart.

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רְשָׁעִים בַּמַּכָּה שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי עֲלֵיכֶם בָּהּ אַתֶּם שְׂמֵחִים, מִיָּד וַיַּהֲפֹךְ ה' רוּחַ יָם חָזָק מְאֹד, זֶה רוּחַ מַעֲרָבִית. וַיִּשָֹּׂא אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה וגו', מַהוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אַרְבֶּה אֶחָד, אֲפִלּוּ מַה שֶּׁהָיוּ בַּקְּדֵירוֹת וּבֶחָבִיּוֹת מְלוּחוֹת פָּרְחוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם, וַיְחַזֵּק ה' אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה

And now the folly of the Egyptians becomes clear, as it says in Koheles (Ecclesiastes), "A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones." (Koheles 3:5) By their frenzied focus on gathering as many barrels of locusts as possible they missed the meaning of the experiences that was right in front of their faces - the call to teshuva, repentance.

The Pirkei Avos (Ethics of the Fathers) says,

"Ben Zoma says, 'Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it says (Psalms 119:99), 'From all my teachers I gained understanding...'"

בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר, אֵיזֶהוּ חָכָם, הַלּוֹמֵד מִכָּל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קיט) מִכָּל מְלַמְּדַי הִשְׂכַּלְתִּי כִּי עֵדְוֹתֶיךָ שִׂיחָה לִּי

The Relationship Between Circumcision and Death

August 5, 2020 - 15 Av 5780

Is Circumcision Most Painful on the Third Day?

I recently heard in a shiur by Rabbi Manis Friedman the following:

The mourning period (aveilus), which I think is very fascinating: there's the seven days, the thirty days, the year, in the seven days the first three are more intense than the last four. Why is all that?

When I heard this I was not aware that the first three days are considered to be the most intense of the mourning period. The Jewish tradition speaks of the soul's departure from the body as a gradual process of detachment. As I just learned, the first three days of this detachment are the most intense.

I cannot help but notice just as the first three days after the soul's departure from the body are the most intense (or painful) that the pain of the first three days following the circumcision are as well the most painful.

There are two references to the pain experienced on the third day after the circumcision in the Torah, the first being Genesis 18:1 (Vayeira):

Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot.

Rashi says that God's reason for coming was "to visit the sick (Tan. Buber, Vayera 1). Said Rabbi Chama the son of Chanina: It was the third day from his circumcision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired about his welfare (B. M. 86b)."

In Genesis 34:25 (Vayishlach) we have an explicit reference to the third day of circumcision being painful as well:

Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that Jacob's two sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword, and they came upon the city with confidence, and they slew every male.

While neither of the verses above state that the third day was the most painful, the Ibn Ezra's opinion is that the pain reaches a crescendo on the third day:

ביום השלישי – כי אז הכאב גדול ביותר; השווה מסכת שבת, פרק ט׳ משנה ג׳ ותוספות יו״ט שם

What circumcision and death seem to have in common is the fundamental transition made between two different states. For example, the circumcision is associated with allowing the person to exist in a spiritually elevated state as related in Deuteronomy 10:16 (and 30:6), which says "You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, therefore, and be no more stiffnecked."

Both as well involve a departure from the flesh. The foreskin represents the difficulty, or inability, in reaching an elevated spiritual state. To this end King David in Samuel 1 17:26 states "...for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the ranks of the living God?" Just as the foreskin acts as a barrier to an elevated spiritual state, the body, left unchecked, does as well. The circumcision seems to weaken the body's power over the soul so as to allow it to function properly, achieved through the bris milah.

However, it should be noted that the body was not designed to be a barrier to the soul, demonstrated by the fact that God placed a body in the soul in the first place. This is a topic that requires further discussion.

That the transition between both states is most keenly felt on the third day suggests a fundamental relationship between them.

Notes

Verse Genesis 34:25 is the basis for the permission to heat up water on Shabbos, indicating that the pain involved may be a risk to life (Shabbos Perek 9 Mishna 3):

?מנין שמרחיצין את המלה ביום השלישי שחל להיות בשבת

The University of Mississippi Medical Center published an article titled What To Expect After Circumcision which says the following:

Children usually get through surgery very well and have little pain. We suggest giving ibuprofen every eight hours for the first three days after surgery; this may prevent pain before it begins and reduce the need for stronger medications. This occasionally can upset the stomach, so it is a good idea that your child eat or drink something at the same time as taking the medication. After 3 days, your child can take this medication as needed.

Devarim (Deuteronomy 1:1–3:22)

July 22, 2020 - 30 Tammuz 5780

The following are my notes and observations of Devarim.

A Judge of Stature

לֹֽא־תַכִּ֨ירוּ פָנִ֜ים בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט כַּקָּטֹ֤ן כַּגָּדֹל֙ תִּשְׁמָע֔וּן לֹ֤א תָג֨וּרוּ֙ מִפְּנֵי־אִ֔ישׁ כִּ֥י הַמִּשְׁפָּ֖ט לֵֽאלֹהִ֣ים ה֑וּא וְהַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִקְשֶׁ֣ה מִכֶּ֔ם תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו

You shall not favor persons in judgment; [rather] you shall hear the small just as the great; you shall not fear any man, for the judgment is upon the Lord, and the case that is too difficult for you, bring to me, and I will hear it." (Deuteronomy 1:17)

Rashi explains this verse as follows:

לא תכירו פנים במשפט: זה הממונה להושיב הדיינין, שלא יאמר איש פלוני נאה או גבור, אושיבנו דיין, איש פלוני קרובי, אושיבנו דיין בעיר, והוא אינו בקי בדינין נמצא מחייב את הזכאי ומזכה את החייב. מעלה אני על מי שמנהו כאילו הכיר פנים בדין:

You shall not favor persons in judgment: This refers to the person who appoints judges, that he should not say, “So-and-so is handsome or strong; I will appoint him as a judge” [or] “So-and-so is my relative; I will appoint him as a judge in the city,” even if he is not expert in the laws, and consequently he condemns the innocent and acquits the guilty. [God says:] I will hold it against the one who appointed him [this judge] as though he [himself] had shown partiality in judgment (Sifrei).

The following is a short story called Appearance and Worth from the book Touching Heaven Touching Earth; Hassidic Humor and Wit published by Sadan Publishing House Ltd. in 1976.

The members of a certain town came to the Rabbi of Wischnitz and asked him to recommend one of his best students so that they could appoint him as the rabbi of their community. He did so, recommending to them a student who was an outstanding scholar and a person of exemplary character. However, when they were shown the candidate, they turned him down because he was very short and frail. In their opinion, they informed the Rabbi, the spiritual leader of their community should be a man of impressive appearance, tall in stature, and broadly built.

The rabbi of Wischnitz listened quietly to their complaint, and then said: "I have another candidate who I feel sure is just suited to your requirements," and he gave them the name and address of a man who lived in an adjoining town.

The men at once left for that town, but when they traced the address, it transpired that the Rabbi had sent them - to the local butcher.

Present Your Case

The same verse gives us insight into the way God, Who is a Judge, "hears cases:"

לֹֽא־תַכִּ֨ירוּ פָנִ֜ים בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט כַּקָּטֹ֤ן כַּגָּדֹל֙ תִּשְׁמָע֔וּן לֹ֤א תָג֨וּרוּ֙ מִפְּנֵי־אִ֔ישׁ כִּ֥י הַמִּשְׁפָּ֖ט לֵֽאלֹהִ֣ים ה֑וּא וְהַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִקְשֶׁ֣ה מִכֶּ֔ם תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו

You shall not favor persons in judgment; [rather] you shall hear the small just as the great; you shall not fear any man, for the judgment is upon the Lord, and the case that is too difficult for you, bring to Me, and I will hear it."

If something is too difficult, either a commandment or an experience, "bring [it] to Me, and I will hear it." This approach is referenced in Psalms 145:18 (Ashrei):

.קָרוֹב יהוה לְכָל קֹרְאָיו, לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָאֻהוּ בֶאֱמֶת

The Lord is near to all who call Him, to all who call Him with sincerity.

Exaggerations Along the Way

Deuteronomy 1:19 says the following:

וַנִּסַּ֣ע מֵֽחֹרֵ֗ב וַנֵּ֡לֶךְ אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַמִּדְבָּ֣ר הַגָּדוֹל֩ וְהַנּוֹרָ֨א הַה֜וּא אֲשֶׁ֣ר רְאִיתֶ֗ם דֶּ֚רֶךְ הַ֣ר הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּ֛ה יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ אֹתָ֑נוּ וַנָּבֹ֕א עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ:

And we journeyed from Horeb and went through all that great and fearful desert, which you saw, by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the Lord, our God, commanded us; and we came up to Kadesh barnea.

Rashi explains this verse as follows:

המדבר הגדול והנורא: שהיו בו נחשים כקורות, ועקרבים כקשתות

...[that] great and fearful desert: [It is termed fearful] because in it were serpents as [thick as] beams and scorpions as [big as] bows (Sifrei).

Rashi explains verse 1:28 as follows:

ערים גדולות ובצורות בשמים: דברו הכתובים לשון הבאי:

The cities are great and fortified up to the heavens: The Scriptural text here is talking in exaggerated terms (Sifrei; Chullin 90b).

This may be related to the general manner in which the spies exaggerated about the size of the people they observed in Israel during their reconnaissance mission:

וְשָׁ֣ם רָאִ֗ינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִ֛ים בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָ֖ק מִן־הַנְּפִלִ֑ים וַנְּהִ֤י בְעֵינֵ֨ינוּ֙ כַּֽחֲגָבִ֔ים וְכֵ֥ן הָיִ֖ינוּ בְּעֵֽינֵיהֶֽ

There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, descended from the giants. In our eyes, we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes. (Numbers 13:33)

The difference between these verses is that the Jews considered themselves small, and everything else to be big. These are not contradictory because if you think that you are small, everything else seems big.

Yehoshua's Inheritance Not Mentioned

אִזֽוּלָתִ֞י כָּלֵ֤ב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה֙ ה֣וּא יִרְאֶ֔נָּה וְלֽוֹ־אֶתֵּ֧ן אֶת־הָאָ֛רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר דָּֽרַךְ־בָּ֖הּ וּלְבָנָ֑יו יַ֕עַן אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִלֵּ֖א אַֽחֲרֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:

...except Caleb the son of Jephunneh he will see it, and I will give him the land he trod upon, and to his children, because he has completely followed the Lord."

Why does this verse omit Jehoshua bin Nun, who along with Caleb spoke positively about Eretz Israel? Could it be that because Yehoshua was Moshe Rabbeinu's successor, and that his teacher was prohibited from entering Eretz Israel, that God showed him respect by not mentioning Yehoshua's inheritance?

Shortness of Breath

וָֽאֲדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֣א שְׁמַעְתֶּ֑ם וַתַּמְרוּ֙ אֶת־פִּ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וַתָּזִ֖דוּ וַתַּֽעֲל֥וּ הָהָֽרָה

So I spoke to you, but you did not listen, and you rebelled against the command of the Lord, and you acted wickedly and went up to the mountain.

This verse seems similar to the following:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר משֶׁ֛ה כֵּ֖ן אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֤א שָֽׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵֽעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה

Moses spoke thus to the children of Israel, but they did not hearken to Moses because of [their] shortness of breath and because of [their] hard labor.

Could it be that they were in the same state of mind as they were while in Egypt due to shortness of breath - קֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ) in both of these times? My father once suggested that the complaints of the Jews in the desert were actually a good sign. Even though it would have been better for them to accept their struggles without complaining, it was nevertheless an indication that they, perhaps for the first time, had reached the stage that they were able to focus on their future instead of their past. They complained given their uncertainties about the future, which although not perfect, was a sign that their minds had become uprooted from their slave mentality.

Rashi explains "shortness of breath" as follows (Exodus 6:9):

מקצר רוח: כל מי שהוא מיצר, רוחו ונשימתו קצרה ואינו יכול להאריך בנשימתו

...because of [their] shortness of breath: Whoever is under stress, his wind and his breath are short, and he cannot take a deep breath.

Thought Precedes Action - סוֹף מַעֲשֶּׂה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה תְּחִלָּה

July 12, 2020 - 20 Tammuz 5780

לִקְרַאת שַׁבָּת לְכוּ וְנֵלְכָה, כִּי הִיא מְקוֹר הַבְּרָכָה, מֵרֹאשׁ מִקֶּדֶם נְסוּכָה, סוֹף מַעֲשֶּׂה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה תְּחִלָּה

The stanza above comes from Lecha Dodi, which is said in Shabbos in shul.

The end of the second stanza (in orange above) seems to be peculiarly out of order. The meaning of these words is “The deed comes at the end, the thought comes at the beginning.” Would it not have made more sense for this to read “The thought comes at the beginning, the deed comes at the end?” In other words, shouldn’t the parts of the sentence follow the chronological order that it is trying to convey?

Perhaps the parts of the sentence are sorted according to priority and not to order. This would explain that although the act of Creation was based on the intent to do it, that nevertheless the act preceded the thought in terms of importance. This is the idea explained by “God sought a dwelling place in the lowest worlds.

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, נִתְאַוָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ דִּירָה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים. (מדרש תנחומא, נשא ט״ז:א׳)

The act of Creation is an expression so dear to God that it overrides the natural way of describing things in the order that they occurred.

This can further be applied to Shabbos itself. The whole apex of Creation was Shabbos, and so even though it occurs at the end, it was mentioned at the beginning.

The purpose of Shabbos is to try to migrate into this holy space and out of the mundane. It follows that the Shabbos davening is itself designed to facilitate that mental and emotional process, as a form of meditation. Perhaps then this wording can be used as a tool for concentration on God's initial motivation for the Creation, which can in turn help us derive pleasure from Shabbos.

Psalm 97:12 - The Price of a Good Life

July 9, 2020, updates made July 12, 2020 - 17 Tammuz 5780, Tammuz 20 5780

Summary

A phrase pattern commonly found in Tehillim (Psalms) is as follows:

[A] has been done for [B], and for [C], [D].

In case that made no sense, here's a made-up example:

Danny ordered pizza, and Sam, coffee.

The sentence above omits the word "ordered' in the second phrase, but we know that it means that Sam ordered coffee:

Danny ordered pizza, and Sam [ordered] coffee.

Application

We can apply the above to the verse below from Tehillim:

---

א֭וֹר זָרֻ֣עַ לַצַּדִּ֑יק, וּֽלְיִשְׁרֵי־לֵ֥ב שִׂמְחָֽה

Light has been sown for the righteous, and for the straight-of-heart, joy.

---

As in our made up example above, the words "has been sown" are omitted from the second phrase, but we know that it means "...and for the straight of heart, joy has been sown."

Here's what it looks like if we plug in the omitted word:

---

א֭וֹר זָרֻ֣עַ לַצַּדִּ֑יק, וּֽלְיִשְׁרֵי־לֵ֥ב זָרֻ֣עַ שִׂמְחָֽה

Light has been sown for the righteous, and for the straight-of-heart, joy has been sown.

---

However, we can reason that the word זָרֻ֣עַ (sown) was omitted to convey a deeper hidden meaning. Consider that the word זָרֻ֣עַ indicates an action that occurs now, but comes to fruition at a later time just as a seed is planted now and blooms later. Perhaps this explains why the word זָרֻ֣עַ is not used for יִשְׁרֵי־לֵ֥ב, implying that they experience שִׂמְחָֽה immediately. Surely an appropriate bonus!

In other words, if זָרֻ֣עַ can be taken to mean in the World-to-Come, the צַּדִּ֑יק receives his light (for being a צַּדִּ֑יק) in the World-to-Come, while those who are יִשְׁרֵי־לֵ֥ב receive joy in the here-and-now. These, by the way, are two different spiritual prototypes and it seems clear that one individual can be both.

The Downside

That's great news, but it may leave the צַּדִּ֑יק wondering if his reward for living a life of righteousness is suffering and misery. Not exactly a compelling perk to fight for the light side:

---

זו תורה וזו שכרה?! (מנחות כט:)

Is this the Torah and is this its reward?! (Menachos 29b)

---

Perhaps to the tzaddik's chagrin, the Torah itself confirms this:

---

 רַ֭בֹּות רָעֹ֣ות צַדִּ֑יק וּ֝מִכֻּלָּ֗ם יַצִּילֶ֥נּוּ יְהוָֽה׃ (תהילים לד:כ)

The troubles of a righteous person are numerous, and Hashem shall rescue him from all of them. (Psalms 34:20)

---

The Resolution

And so the very next verse comes to explain that the righteous do receive joy in this world:

---

שִׂמְח֣וּ צַ֭דִּיקִים בַּֽיהוָ֑ה וְ֝הוֹד֗וּ לְזֵ֣כֶר קָדְשֽׁוֹ

Rejoice, you righteous, with the Lord, and give thanks to His holy name.

---

Their joy, however, is attained by leading a Godly life. This may also underline the difference between יִשְׁרֵי־לֵ֥ב and a צַּדִּ֑יק; the former derive joy from their pure intent, while the latter derive it from a direct connection to God. It may also be that the former is a gateway to becoming the latter.

Further (and no more "furthers" after this), יִשְׁרֵי־לֵ֥ב  is in the plural and צַּדִּ֑יק is in the singular, which may be taken to mean that the former is more common than the latter.

So don't worry, if you want to be a צַּדִּ֑יק not only would it certainly be worth your while, God (Who designed it) apparently seems to think that you can do it!

---

לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַֽעֲלֶה־לָּ֤נוּ הַשָּׁמַ֨יְמָה֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַֽעֲשֶֽׂנָּה: (דברים ל:יב)

It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" (Deuteronomy 30:12)

---

Yeridas Hadoros

July 5, 2020 - 13 Tammuz 5780

Introduction

In Judaism there is a concept, or doctrine, known as yeridas hadoros, which roughly translates to “generational decline.” The concept of yeridas hadoros refers to the decline in humanity’s spiritual level over the passing of time. More specifically, it states that this decline began from the moment that the Torah was given and has continued, and will, until the Mashiach comes. The outcome of this process is the intensification of everything negative that you can think of attributed to human behavior and thought; the onset of idolatry, loss of moral direction, increased violence, and self-aggrandizement, etc. This decline occurs on both the social and personal level, affecting communities and individuals, and ultimately the entire human population. Moreover, there is no way to fully inoculate yourself against it, although steps can be taken to protect yourself against the effects in some capacity.

The Contradiction

The weekly portion of Noach starts with the verse:

These are the generations of Noah, Noah was a righteous man, he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God (Genesis 6:9).

.אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ (בראשית ו:ט)

The commentator, Rashi, focuses on the verse’s usage of the words “in this generations” to mean the following:

Some of our Sages interpret it [the words “in this generations”] favorably: How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. Others interpret it derogatorily: In comparison with his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered of any importance. [Sanhedrin 108a, Genesis Rabbah 30:9, Tanchuma Noach 5]

Rashi’s second opinion above (in which it is understood derogatorily) seems to violate the concept of yeridas hadoros in action. The verse states that Noach was a righteous man, righteous enough, for the record, to warrant preserving him and his family and the entirety of the world along with him. However, in a comparison between himself and Noach, this opinion states that he would not have amounted to anything. And yet, according to yeridas hadoros, Abraham, who lived a full ten generations after Noach, would have been a product of the negative influence of his day. It therefore seems impossible that Avraham could have been more righteous than Noach, which is a violation of our current understanding of yeridas hadoros.

To better understand this I have put together the following visual model of yeridas hadoros:

---

---

The descending rectangles represent generations, with the top and bottom of each representing the possible range of movement within a given generation. Notice that although Avraham may have been spiritually greater than Noach in an absolute sense, that the ceiling in Noach's generation was higher than in Avraham's. This means that technically speaking Noach could have become a greater tzaddik than Avraham.

The Resolution

It seems likely that this is what Rashi means when says, "How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous [than Abraham]." The influence of the righteous people in his generation would have pulled him to greater heights than he was able to reach on his own, and he would have surpassed Avraham.

This model also explains the converse opinion, namely how a person living in a later generation can become more righteous than a person who lived in a previous one. Notice that even though Noach was the most righteous person in his generation, that as long as he has not reached the ceiling of his generation it is possible for him to be less righteous than someone in a later generation, namely Abraham. This must be the correct way to understand Rashi’s second statement in light of the concept of yeridas hadoros. Further, because Rashi says that had they both lived in the same generation that Noach “would not have been considered of any importance,” Noach would probably appear much lower in his generation than the model above shows.

Summary

To summarize, this model seems to fully explain both of Rashi's views while complying with the demands of yeridas hadoros. The spiritual ceiling in Noach's generation was higher than in Avraham's, and the presence of other tzaddikim in Noach's generation could have led him to surpass Avraham. However, because Noach's generation was void of tzaddikim other than Noach, he was pulled down to a level lower than the greatest tzaddik of a later generation.

The phenomenon of negative influence is a recurring theme in the Torah.

Constructive vs. Destructive Criticism

The parsha of Korach introduces us to a member of the Jewish nation who sought to usurp Moshe Rabbeinu's position as leader. Under the guise of a call to equality among the entire nation, careful attention to his words indicates that he in fact was driven by jealousy and a twisted understanding of truth.

Nevertheless, his striking accusation contained an element of truth. "They assembled against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, 'You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord's assembly?'" (Bamidbar 16:3) The entire nation was holy, and God did reveal His Will to the whole nation en masse. As it says in Mekhilta D'Shira, "The Rabbis of the Talmud said, 'At the sea, the maidservant saw even what the prophet Ezekiel the son of Buzi did not see.'"

I must admit that I find myself temporarily wooed by Korach's emotionally-charged reasoning. However, I snap myself out of his hypnotic argument and consider the bigger picture.

For instance, in addition to the content of this accusation, the manner in which something is said and the words used make the difference between night and day. Take, for example, Yisro's (Jethro's) famous counsel to Moshe Rabbeinu: "Why do you sit by yourself, while all the people stand before you from morning till evening?'" (Shemos 18:14) Is it just me, or does it sound like Yisro is presenting a challenge to authority as well? Taking this verse in isolation from the context there is room to notice a similar challenge to Moshe Rabbeinu's leadership.

What Yisro's and Korach's points had in common was the need for Moshe Rabbeinu to divide and distribute his authority to the rest of the congregation. Where they differ, however is in their motivation: Yisro envisioned a judicial multi-tier system with Moshe Rabbeinu acting as the "supreme court." Korach envisioned deposing Moshe Rabbeinu and enacting a complete redistribution of his unique state to everybody in the nation. The difference is that Yisro's vision sought redistributing power in a constructive manner, whereas Korach's was destructive in nature.

This observation may be used in successfully navigating a number of social and professional scenarios. In our dealings with our families and friends, and in larger environments such as work, this difference can be used as a methodology of constructiveness. Do we seek to build up and engage all members of the whole, or do we seek to topple and liquidate the existing structures to forcefully replace them with our own expectations?

The Compassionate Philanthropist

The Parable

If you had one minute to run knowing that each step won you a 100 dollars, would you care that you got the finish line wheezing and coughing?

There once lived a philanthropist, a compassionate, intelligent, creative one.

One day he decided that he would invite all those wanted to run in a race that he oversaw. The goal of the race was to run as far as possible in one minute, and the man announced that he would give every runner 100 dollars for each step that he took.

Of course, scores of people lined up to join this foolishly easy race - who wouldn't join for a way to make such quick, easy cash? The line-up was a miscellaneous hodge-podge of people; fit ones, fat ones, slow ones, fast ones, all eager to run 'till their lungs collapsed for one full minute. Certainly this was not a time for moderation - they were willing to endure the discomfort knowing that they fully potentialized this one, short minute.

If you ask how this man knew how much to pay each runner, he had invented a patent for a sensor/counter that fit inside the sole of the shoe. As the runner took a step, the sensor sent a message to the counter, which took a tally of the runner's steps.

And so the gun was fired and they were off. But, as you might have predicted, there were some clever souls who sought to get lots of money for no effort, and they crouched down and banged their shoes on the ground. Alas, the man was smart and he preempted such tomfoolery. His team of engineers designed the sensor/counter such that a particular amount of pressure per square inch had to be placed on the sensor for it to register a step. That amount of pressure perfectly corresponded to the typical amount of pressure placed on the sole of the human foot when a person is running.

In other words, the participants had to be actually running to get the money.

The Explanation

The philanthropist, a kind, intelligent, creative one is God. The race is life. The minute is your lifespan. The steps reflect your personal growth. The 100 dollars are the reward you receive for growing. The sensor/counter is God's Omnipotence. The clever souls are those who try to receive reward while avoiding true growth. Only true growth yields results.

What would you do?

Comment below.

The Bus Driver

There are three times during each bus trip that you recognize the bus driver. The first is the moment in which you first step on to the bus. A courteous hello, an exchange of money, a wish for a good day. As you sit down and as he navigates through traffic and highways, you settle into the comfort of your seat and forget about him. Along with you, the illusion quickly settles in that the bus is driving itself.

The other time that you recognize the bus driver is when you get off the bus. A courteous goodbye and a thank you as your foot hits the street.

There is one other time when you are jolted into the realization that a driver is controlling the bus, and that's when he does something wrong. Through your justified outrage, you suddenly become aware that somebody's driving the bus, and how bad he is. Why did he take that left turn so fast? Didn't he see that curb? There is a speed limit, you know.

There are three times during your life when you recognize your Creator. The first is the moment that you are born. Slowly you gradually set into the illusion that the world operates itself.

The other time that you recognize your Creator is when you die.

There is one other time that you are jolted into the realization that the Creator is controlling the world, and that's when something goes wrong in your life. Through your perceived justified outrage, you realize that a Creator exists.

Comment below.

Woe to the Bad Chip, and Woe to its Neighbor!

A brief background of my job description is necessary. At the time of writing this I worked as a technical writer for a company specializing in collecting data from machines that test chips. These machines (called "testers") test chips that go into your phones or computers. Because bad chips cause malfunctions, chip-producing companies want to avoid them as much as possible. The company I work for designed a software that helps identify issues with chips. The semiconductors collect volumes of chip-testing data, which is uploaded into the software. The software then displays this data as graphs and charts to make it very easy to interpret. In other words, if you've got a bad chip, you can see almost immediately what factors cause the problem.

Before chips are packaged, they are placed on a round disk often known as a wafer. When a bad chip is found, except for under extenuating circumstances, it is likely that other bad chips are also found in that region of the wafer. The following is a reworking of a description actually used in a training presentation:

The Cluster algorithm is similar to the concept of Good Die in Bad Neighborhood, and assumes that good chips within/close to a bad population are more likely to be outliers. A cluster is therefore defined as a contiguous region of bad chips.

Chips on a Wafer Being Tested

The people who engineered this algorithm certainly didn't intend to write a commentary on parshas Korach, but they might as well have! The description in the training material immediately brought to mind the first Rashi in parshas Korach (16:1). There, Rashi wrote, "Since the tribe of Reuben was settled in the south when they camped, thus being neighbors of Kohath and his children who were also camped in the south, they joined with Korah in his rebellion. Woe to the wicked, and woe to his neighbor!" Those people who became associated with Korach might have been good people, but they were "more likely to be outliers" because they were "within/close to a bad population." Ultimately, they formed a "contiguous region of bad chips."

The following image is from FromStevesWorkdesk.

 Woe to the bad chip, and woe to its neighbor!

What is equally, or even more (morbidly) funny, is that the industry uses the word "kill" to describe to destroying chips that are deemed bad. In some cases, if the majority of chips in a particular region of the wafer are bad, all of the chips in that region will be destroyed. In this case, however, we see a polar contrast between the algorithm that destroys chips and the point of Abraham's plea to God. Good chips are destroyed along with the bad, but Abraham plead the following:

And Abraham approached and said, 'Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked? Perhaps there are fifty righteous men in the midst of the city; will You even destroy and not forgive the place for the sake of the fifty righteous men who are in its midst? Far be it from You to do a thing such as this, to put to death the righteous with the wicked so that the righteous should be like the wicked. Far be it from You! Will the Judge of the entire earth not perform justice?" And the Lord said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous men within the city, I will forgive the entire place for their sake.'" (Genesis 18:23 26)

Abraham certainly wouldn't have been very popular on the quality analysis team, refusing to kill good chips even though surrounded by bad ones. He relied on one of God's algorithms, which preserves bad chips as long as some good chips are found among them. The bad chips receive a chance of becoming good. When the user defines the algorithm to either kill or preserve chips in a certain region of the wafer, he can "select whether to kill all good chips within a particular closed shape."

Again, it seems that Abraham wouldn't have been very popular on the engineering team. I'm sure he would have gotten strange looks for being ever-so-slightly over-dramatic about saving individual chips. But alas, Abraham bargained in souls, not chips. A good thing too - I can just imagine his interviewer for such a position. "Umm, Abraham, it's clear that you're a very talented individual with a real drive for justice. It seems that you're a bit overqualified for this position? Have you tried applying for a more altruistic career?" Thank God his resume for being the father of the Jewish People was accepted instead!

Abraham Davens Shacharis

I believe the Akeidah has an imbedded message about davening. Genesis 22:3 states, “And Abraham arose early in the morning, and he saddled his donkey, and he took his two young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for a burnt offering, and he arose and went to the place of which God had told him.”

Abraham arose early in the morning, alluding to the ideal time and attitude to have when davening.

Now the Hebrew word for “donkey” is chamor, which shares a root with the word chomer, meaning “material” or “base.” This can be seen as a reference to man’s body, his physical side, which sometimes gets in the way of spiritual pursuits. But Abraham saddled his donkey, he took control of his body, and got up and pursued his spiritual goal.

Then verse then says that “he took his two young men,” his toldos, or that which issued forth from him. This can be seen as a reference to his two yetzarim, for as it says in the Shema, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your hearts (levavcha) (Deuteronomy 6:5).” Many commentaries note that the dual usage of “your hearts” refers to both the yetzer hatov and the yetzer hara – Man’s ideal state is to serve God with his spiritual and physical components.

I haven’t exactly yet fit in what “he split wood for a burnt offering” could mean, but perhaps it can refer to the items that a Jewish man takes with him when he davens, such as his tallis and tefillin. Or perhaps it can refer to the internal preparation for davening, such that Man must “split” himself as a “burnt offering,” i.e., complete offer himself to his God.

Finally, “he arose and went to the place of which God had told him,” the place of davening, his shul.

You are the Fire, I am the Wood

Near the beginning of the Akeidah (binding of Isaac) we see the dialog above between Abraham and Isaac. The literal translation of these verses is:

And Isaac said to Abraham his father, saying, “My father.” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the ram for the complete offering? And Abraham said, “God will provide the ram for Himself for the complete offering.” And they both went together. (Genesis 22:7-8)

I would like to suggest an additional way of understanding the dialog that took place between Abraham and Isaac. In this understanding, the fire and the wood respectively represent Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is traditionally associated with the midda of chessed, which is an attribute connoting outwardly directed expansive behavior. It is a characteristic that spreads out and surpasses boundaries. This is as well a characteristic of fire, for as we see in Bava Kama 22b, Rav Yochanan describes fire as being “similar to arrows,” when Reish Lakish describes it as “property belonging to an individual.” When the Gemara cross examines each to explain why they reject the view of the other, Reish Lakish answers that while arrows require an initial burst of energy (without which arrows cannot move, and which gradually dies out), fire does not. Rashi explains this statement by saying that, “fire moves independently, igniting over a large distance.” Fire has a property of a perpetual and consuming power capable of going to great lengths. Abraham was like an ever-burning ember that could not be put out, did everything for his belief, and set off a great distance from his home. I can't think of any better way to describe Abraham than as an unstoppable consuming blaze. It is interesting to note that Abraham was thrown into a fire for his belief.

Isaac is traditionally associated with the midda of gevura, which corresponds to the ability to withhold oneself and exhibit astounding self-control and discipline. We can compare to this wood, which stays affixed in one location regardless of its surroundings. Even when they sway back and forth, branches and twigs maintain their upright, unchanging posture. Interestingly, this property does not prevent them from growing and reaching out to new locations. The relationship between fire and wood is clear; fire consumes wood, and wood is fuel for the fire. According to this understanding we can now rephrase the verse as follows; “And Isaac to said to Abraham his father, saying, “My father.” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “here you are (the fire, ready to consume me), and here I am (the wood, ready to be consumed), but where is the ram for the complete offering?

What, then, can we make of the next part of the verse, “And Abraham said, “God will provide the ram for Himself for the complete offering?” If the verses refer to Abraham and Isaac, there must also be a reference in some way to Jacob. The complete offering refers to Jacob because he was the only patriarch whose entire lineage became devoted to God, just like no part of an ola is left aside. So now the verse is rendered, “And Isaac to said to Abraham his father, saying, “My father.” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “here you are (the fire, ready to consume me), and here I am (the wood, ready to be consumed), but if you kill me, from where will Jacob, who is destined to be the father of the Jewish Nation, come?” And of course Abraham's answer is, “God will provide the ram for Himself for the complete offering.” In other words, “we have been commanded today to complete his sanctimonious task, and it is not beyond God to see to it that His promise comes true.”

But the verse can be seen in another way, depending on how we separate the words. If we read it literally, Abraham tells Isaac that God will provide the ram for Himself. But if we change the cadence, the verse can be rendered:

“And Isaac said to Abraham his father, saying, “My father.” And he said, “Here I am.” And he said, “here is the fire and here is the wood, but where is the ram for the complete offering? And Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself, the ram for the complete offering is my son.” And only with this final, mutual, submissive understanding did the two advance together completely united in this most holy goal.

The Jews Control the Banks

At the beginning of parshas Shemos, the Torah says, “And a new kind arose who did not know Joseph...” (Exodus 1:8) Rav and Shmuel, amoraim, apply two slightly different understandings to this verse. One of them applies a literal understanding, saying that a new king was appointed (usually implying the death of the previous). The other maintains that it was fact the same king, but that he acted as if he did not Joseph, i.e., he had a change of heart and became hostile to him.

What is peculiar about the king's new attitude towards the Jews was the way in which he chose to oppress them. The Torah says that he made them built the storage cities of Pithom and Rameses. The Torah records the following:

He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we are. Get ready, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they increase, and a war befall us, and they join our enemies and depart from the land." So they appointed over them tax collectors to afflict them with their burdens, and they built store cities for Pharaoh, namely Pithom and Raamses. (Exodus 1:9-11)

Rashi explains that these storage cities “were originally unfit for this [storage], and they strengthened them and fortified them for storage.”

While the king's choice of punishment seems random, the elements come together in a rather curious, yet telling, manner; there is an inherent relationship between Joseph and the store houses. In parsha Mikeitz (Genesis 41:1–44:17), Joseph saved all of Egypt by proposing that grain be stored during the years of famine. Storage implies store houses and demonstrates the fundamental link between them and the Jews. As an expression of his new found hatred, the king decrees that the Jews must build the very items that saved Egypt. This is a clear indication that the days of glory had passed.

But something deeper bubbles beneath the surface. In Derech Hashem, the Ramcha”l states:

God thus made the rectification and elevation of all creation totally dependent on the Jews. To the extent that this can be expressed, we can thus say that He subjugated His Providence to them. Through their deeds, they can cause [His Light] to shine forth and have influence, or, on the other hand, hold it back and conceal it.

The deeds of the other nations, on the other hand, do not add to or subtract from the state of creation, nor do they cause God to reveal Himself or withdraw. All they can do is bring about their own gain or loss, and strengthen or weaken their own directing angel. (Part 4 2:4:9)

The king's choice of punishment was an expression of this Providence. The king unknowingly adhered to his Divine programming to lash out against the Jews for their sins. In another way, however, it was an unpremeditated act of desperation, for through “their deeds (the Jews), they can cause [His Light] to shine forth... (or) conceal it. If light isn't coming to the world, if the storage houses aren't being filled, lash out against those responsible. I'm suggesting that the “store houses” represent the reservoirs or banks of spiritual accumulation that were running dry. Because the Jews apparently failed in their role of causing the banks to be filled up, the king forced them to build “store cities for Pharaoh.” Little did he know that biting the hand that feeds you is not the way to go. What we learn from this is that the Gentiles need this light just as much as the Jews do and that they'll do what they need to get it.

The Jews control the banks!

Speak at the Rock

Yom Kippur

During the Yamim Noraim I often wonder if I will be able to really connect during the long Rosh Hashanah and the very long Yom Kippur services. I wonder if in the midst of confessing my sins from my machzor and singing heartfelt, solemn songs about the breaches I’ve allowed to distance myself from my Creator, I sometimes feel hopeless that my Yom Kippur is passing in vain. I know that this my chance to scrape my slate clean, to be like an angel, to genuinely regret my sins, to long for closeness with my Creator. And yet many times I am plagued by discomfort and desires to see how many pages are left in the machzor. How can I do it right? Sometimes our heart is hardened like a rock, insensitive to the elements around us. Some people say that a heart of gold is the most important thing, but as shiny as it is, gold is still a rock as any other. A heart of gold is a heart of stone. Moshe Rabbeinu was punished for striking the rock. The overt force that he used for breaking it was not the ideal method. All God told him to do was to speak at the rock and it would have obediently spout forth a gush of water. The words that he used killed a man while standing, surely they possessed the power to cleave open this hard, solid thing and miraculously issue forth a stream. Our machzorim and our mouths are full of words. If we could just speak at the rock which has become our heart we will be able to release life-giving water. While we strike our hearts repeatedly during the service, hoping that the force will shatter them, all we need to do is to speak to them and they should part.

How hard we have to hit to break it depends on what we've done with ourselves in the past year. Depending on the severity level of impurity to which a man has exposed himself, he will have to be cleansed in one of the following ways. If his sins are light, then he can go through the gentle cycle of the mikvah to clean himself. God enacts minimal force to return him to a pure state. If his sins are moderate and he has experienced heavier transgression build-up, God ups the ante to libun to remove all that crusty chametz. Some pain is required to return him to a pure state. But if his sins are severe to the point that they have soiled him from the inside out and he has become tamey, he must be broken before he is once again fit for use.

But of course he has some say in this matter. To some degree he can choose which type of cleansing process he must experience. Is he the willful returner or the stubborn returner?

Let us first discuss the willful returner. He is the one who seeks to go through the process of teshuva so as to become once again close to his Creator. He actively decides to do teshuva, realizing his error and seeking out God's direction and cooperating with Him, and his teshuva is much easier. He wants to regret his sins, confess them to his Creator, take measures against doing them again, and commit to rectifying his behavior and thoughts. It is like a man running down the street being aided by the wind. Since God and he are in the same mindset, they are partners in teshuva and he can accomplish what he needs with relative ease. He readily agrees that he must be broken and so he can accomplish his teshuva with minimal discomfort, if any. And God responds in kind, helping him soften up to minimize the force needed to remove his illusions of control over his world.

And then there is the stubborn returner. He is the one who delays his teshuva repeatedly, telling himself that he can do it later, that he has time, that his sins have justifiable motivations. He feels bad about doing them, but he gives in to his weaknesses, he loses hope, courage, or focus, and sometimes his patience. He fights against teshuva every step of the way, acting half-heartedly or kicking and screaming and rebelling. His teshuva has to be performed for him against his will. The worst case of the stubborn returner is the one who doesn't even realize that he sins and has estranged himself from God. Whereas if he is just stubborn, more force is required to shake him from his path, but if he is completely oblivious to his sins, he needs a great deal of Divine intervention to get his attention. How do you inform someone that he is in a cage if he doesn't even believe that cages exist? In his obstinacy he fails to comprehend the truth he learns and the messages he receives. His view of the world must be flipped over, which is not often a pleasant experience.

A man must see himself as being fit for use in the service of his Creator, like a knife or a havdalah candle or a clay vessel. A human being is (generally) a functional, stable structure. He lives day in day out with nominal control of his behavior. He continues relatively unchanged through the varying events of his days. He is cyclical. He settles into a behavior and thought pattern in which he forgets that God is running the show. Every day, but specifically during the Yamim Nora'im, he can choose to lose this illusion, or it can be snatched away from him, but either way it must go.

Comment below.

Go Tell it On the Mountain (Moriah)

Mount Sinai Versus Mount Moriah

In Parashas Terumah, the Ramban explains the relationship between the Aron Hakodesh and Mount Sinai. The relationship is that the same Voice with which God spoke to Moses when revealing the commandments was the Voice that spoke from atop the Aron HaKodesh, In effect, this created a portable Mount Sinai that the Jews took with them through the desert on their way to Israel. When they arrived to Eretz Israel they installed the Mount Sinai program on the Beis HaMikdash hardware and could plug in whenever they wanted.

What this means is that the Aron HaKodesh links Mount Moriah to Mount Sinai, two locations pivotal to the Jewish religion in different ways. The Voice from Mount Sinai was heard on Mount Moriah. However, this link as well raises a serious question.

If God spoke to the Jews from Mount Moriah with the same Voice as on Mount Sinai, why didn’t He reveal the Torah to them on Mount Moriah instead? In other words, we can imagine God taking the Jews out of Egypt and instead of giving them the Torah on a mountain in the desert, giving it to them in (or near) the Kadosh HaKedoshim in Jerusalem. Certainly that seems to put all of the holy elements together in one neat little package. It would have been a nice way to bring the promise of Abraham into fruition.

It also raises some issues.

Go Tell It on the Mountain

Issue 1
The Torah is the heart of Judaism and is applicable to the Jews wherever they may live, whether in Israel or anywhere in the world. If God chose to reveal the Torah in Jerusalem, i.e., in Eretz Israel, this might have been taken to mean that the Torah is only applicable when in Eretz Israel. It would have been overpoweringly tempting to come to this conclusion. While the Torah takes on particular properties in Israel, it is applicable to the entire world.

Issue 2
The second reason is related to the first. If it ever came to pass that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, people might come to the erroneous conclusion that the Torah had been abrogated along with it. The converse is true, even after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, the Torah continued to be operative for the Jewish People, which is perhaps what the separation between Jerusalem and the Torah was intended to teach.

Issue 3
The third issue is that the land of Israel does not tolerate impurity, as it says in Vayikra, “And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you.” (18:28) The Jews required spiritual sensitivity training before entering because the Land of Israel is sensitive to the behaviors that take place on its soil. If the Jews had been brought into it without it, they might have sullied it and would not be able to last there even for one moment (אפילו שעה אחת). Therefore, God prepared the Jews by giving them the Torah before entering Eretz Israel.

Issue 4
The fourth issue is that if the worship of the Golden Calf was a reason to wipe out the Jews, it seems that partaking in a similar act in the holiest place on earth would have been significantly worse. We can suggest that perhaps God “avoided” this experience by giving them the Torah in a place that was less holy.

Issue 5 - Addendum
I wrote this post originally on 1/5/2015. Today (6/8/2025) my almost 10-year-old son came up with his first (hopefully of many) chiddush on why God gave the Torah outside of Eretz Yisroel. Because God didn't allow Moshe Rabbeinu to enter Eretz Yisroel, he wouldn't have been able to receive the Torah for the Jews if it had been given there. This can be expounded upon a bit further, demonstrating the conflict between two fundamentally important things alluded to in my son's observation.

1) Allowing Moshe Rabbeinu to enter Eretz Yisroel would have tolerated the chillul Hashem that he created by hitting the rock, weakening the peoples' resolve in Hashem's judgment. 2) The Jews' reliance on Moshe Rabbeinu entering Eretz Yisroel was essential for receiving the Torah. Therefore the only way to meet both conditions was for God to give the Torah outside of Eretz Yisroel.

Conclusion

Taking into account these reasons (and many more which must exist), God's choice to reveal the Torah outside of Eretz Israel reflected His Will in a way that revealing it in Eretz Israel could not.

A Different Kind of Nuclear Power

How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel! (Numbers 24:5)

In Parshas Balak (Numbers 22:2-25:9), the appointed Moabite king, Balak, joins forces with the Midianite powerhouse of prophetic impurity, Bilaam, to hatch an evil plot against the Jews. The goal? To somehow bring a Divine curse upon the Jews. The reason? Fear of annihilation after their defeat of Og and Sichon, two nations of whom Moav was a protectorate. The method? Hit 'em where it hurts, their purity.

Let us focus, if we may, on a practical application of Bilaam's maxim in a way that can pertain to our daily lives.

After the Moabite king relentlessly and unsuccessfully sends Bilaam to place a curse on the Jews, his final failure occurs when the Midianite prophet utters these words - "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!" Rashi explains Bilaam's comment as:

"He saw each tribe dwelling by itself, not intermingling [with other tribes], and he saw that the openings of their tents did not face each other, so that they should not peer into each others' tents." (Bava Basra 60a, Midrash Aggadah)

I propose that we can extract and use lesson in a way that can improve our interactions with others. Not "peering into each others' homes" can be applied in our own lives as "giving each other privacy," on the interpersonal level, but specifically on the familial level.

That privacy is a holy abode that resides within each of our homes, and if preserved, can produce fantastic results in the lives of our spouses and children. It helps us turn our nuclear family into a "nuclear generator" of the safety and creativity required for healthy development.

As has been pointed out by many in the past and present, nuclear power can be a source of great curse, but of great blessing as well.

This is ever relevant as well on the technological front, where "windows" permit "virtual peering," i.e., "following" people and keeping track of their mundane activities. Obviously technology as well can promise much good, but the "how goodly" doctrine helps ensure that its capabilities doesn't overextend its designed reach into the most important private sector aside from our hearts, i.e., our homes.

See the following chilling social media experiment:

All of the Families of the Earth

Introduction
"I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse, and all of the families of the earth shall be blessed by you." (Genesis 12:3)

If look more closely at this verse we can break it down into three parts:

• Phrase A - I shall bless those who bless you
• Phrase B - and those who curse you I shall curse
• Phrase C - and all of the families of the earth shall be blessed by you

The above verse is one of the promises that God gave to Abraham upon calling him to leave his household and to settle in Canaan.

At a glance, the message of the verse is simple and straightforward – those who bless Abraham will be blessed and those curse him will be cursed. A valid assumption can be that since Abraham is a source of blessing for the families (nations) of the earth, that those who bless him will be blessed and vice-versa. While that is true, a deeper glance shows an added dimension of complexity.

The verse clearly tells us that “all of the families of the earth shall be blessed by” Abraham , which has to include those who curse him as well. How can it be that those who curse Abraham will be blessed? If this is true, it seems that Phrases A and B are independent of Phrase C; Phrases A and B, which are particular, are true in and of themselves and have nothing to do with the information in Phrase C, which is universal in scope. In other words, the reward for blessing Abraham is a blessing and the consequence for cursing him is a curse – nothing more needs to be said. Phrase C is there to convey an additional piece of information, that all of the families of the earth will be blessed by Abraham regardless of their attitude or behavior towards him.

Further, for the people in Group A (those who bless Abraham ), the blessing of Phrase C simply heaps on an element of blessing in addition to the one they already receive for blessing him on their own accord. For the people in Group B (those who curse Abraham ), the blessing of Phrase C simply acts as a mitigating factor for the curse they receive for cursing Abraham . They too benefit from the universal blessing that Abraham has on the world even though as individuals they have cursed him.

A Useful Metaphor

The following metaphor can be used to explain this concept:

Imagine 20 people standing in a room full of cigarette smoke. Half of the people in the room are healthy individuals who eat, exercise and sleep well. The other half doesn’t take good care of its health. Now imagine that an individual enters and clears all of the smoke out of the room. The new presence of fresh air has a positive effect on everybody in the room, whether they take care of their health or don’t. His action benefits everybody in the room regardless of their individual decisions.[1]

The same is true of Abraham, who strived in and succeeded in embodying the attribute of giving, or chessed. The place that Abraham contributed in turning the world into benefits everybody, whether they bless him or curse him.

What is also interesting is the alternating order of the subjects mentioned in each phrase. The verse says, "I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse…" In Phrase A, the active verb "bless" appears at the beginning of the phrase, while in Phrase B, the active verb "curse" appears at the end. If we keep in mind that God Himself is the speaker of these verses, we can suspect that the order indicates God's eagerness to bless rather than curse. Indeed, the Kli Yakar on this verse states the following:

An appreciative person feels and thinks about something in his heart and mind before expressing it with his mouth. This is because he expresses appreciation first in his heart and mind. In the same manner, God juxtaposes thought to deed only for the sake of good, but not for the sake of evil (Kiddushin 40a)…

This is the reason the verse says, “I will bless those who bless you,” because he who blesses you thinks in his heart before saying the blessing with this mouth, and a beneficent thought is considered equal to a deed, therefore, I will bless him before he even utters the blessing with his mouth. But such is not true with curses, rather, I will curse you only after you utter the curse with your mouth – only then will I curse him, and not before he utters the curse, because God doesn’t juxtapose an evil through to His deed.

In other words, a blessing comes to those who bless Abraham as if without delay. The placement of "I will curse" at the end seems to allow those who curse Abraham some time to change their ways.

The Kli Yakar also offers another explanation, as follows:

Emptying out a heaping container isn’t the same as emptying out an almost empty container. During Birkas Cohanim, the shaliach tzibur says the words before the Cohanim say them, which brings down inspiration to the Cohen, who then distributes it to the Jewish People. A person has to be blessed himself if he is to bless, which is why the verse says, “I will bless those who bless you.” Before they bless Abraham they themselves have to be blessed, so God blesses them first. The same is not true with curses, which is the reason the verse says, “and those who curse you I shall curse,” and not the other way around.

Conclusion
The larger picture comes together to suggest that God uses Abraham as an instrument of blessing in the world, which is supported by Abraham association with the attribute of giving. In order for Abraham to be able to bless others, he must first be blessed by them, hence completing this happy circle of blessing. This extremely intimate and unique relationship between God and Abraham is also conveyed in our praying, which says, "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My beloved." (Isaiah 41:8) It also seems that this type of intimate language is seldom used in the Torah as a way to describe the relationship between God and a human being. A similar usage is used with regards to Moshe - "And God spoke to Moses face-to-face, as a man speaks to his friend." (Exodus 33:11)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The Kli Yakar notices that the subject of Phrase A is written in the plural and the subject of Phase B is written in the singular, which renders the verse as follows, “I shall bless those who bless you, and he who curses you I shall curse…” According to his explanation this means that, “Many will bless you, but those who curse will not be large groups, but rather marginal and scant individuals, such as Nimrod and his companions, and nobody cared what they believed.”