Vayishlach

Parshas Vayishlach does not begin with the first verse of a new chapter. Instead, the chapter begins several verses earlier, at the end of Parshas Vayeitzei, with the introduction of what appears to be the theme of the chapter. Although we are enamored and engrossed by the dramatic confrontation between Yaakov and Eisav, the chapter evolves more around angels than anything else.

Vayifga'u bo malachei Elokim...vayikra shem hamakom hahu machanyim. Towards the end of Yaakov's return journey to Eretz Yisrael, he meets angels and, in appreciation of this event, names the place after that meeting. Rashi explains that Machanayim describes Yaakov's two camps: one of his family and the other of the angels. Vayishlach Yaakov malachim - Yaakov sends angels as his messengers. And, finally, we are told of the confrontation between Yaakov and the angel of Eisav and the subsequent blessing of Yaakov by renaming him Yisrael - ki sarisa im elokim v'im anashim vatuchal.

Aside from understanding the meaning for these multiple episodes involving angels, we need to understand Yaakov's apparent fear of Eisav. Hashem promised to protect Yaakov, so why is he so afraid? Even Yaakov's answer to this question is puzzling. Katonti mikol hachasadim - Chazal explain that Yaakov is concerned that his merits have already been leveraged through the success he has already achieved throughout his years away from home. (shema yigrom hachait) However, this is puzzling. The promise from Hashem was not only given upon Yaakov's departure from his parents' home twenty two years earlier, it was also given just a short time ago, prior to his departure from Lavan's home. Is it possible that in that short time Yaakov had done something to eliminate the benefits of the Divine promise?

A third question: early in Parshas Vayishlach we are told that Yaakov splits his camp into two - vayachatz es ha'am...lishnei machanos. A few verses later, Yaakov thanks Hashem for all the kindness bestowed upon him including the fact that he has returned to his homeland with two camps - v'ata hayisi lishnei machanos. If someone has an apple and he cuts it in half, he doesn't think he now has two apples. Yaakov has one camp that he split into two halves. What is the meaning of this statement of Yaakov?

A fourth question: Upon defeating the angel of Eisav, Yaakov requests a blessing from that angel. The angel blesses him by changing his name to Yisrael - ki sarisa im elokim v'im anashim vatuchal. Thereupon Yaakov asks the angel for his name. The angel does not give his name but blesses Yaakov - vayevarech oso sham. Why is the Torah telling us about a blessing that was already given? If it is a new blessing, why doesn't the Torah tell us what the new blessing is?

Immediately after this episode, Yaakov names the place of his confrontation with the angel, Peniel - ki ra'isi Elokim panim el panim. The Torah tells us that even Moshe Rabbeinu cannot see Hashem directly - ki lo yirani ha'adam vachai. So what is the meaning of this phrase by Yaakov?

In truth, Yaakov's fear is not of Eisav. Yaakov fully trusts Hashem's promise assuring him that he will not be harmed by Eisav. Yaakov's fear is that the implementation of the salvation will not be done directly by Hashem but rather through angels. Yaakov's life was dedicated to enhancing and growing his relationship with Hashem, and his desire was to solidify an intimate relationship with the Creator. Yaakov's fear is that he will be disintermediated with Hashem through angels. Therefore, when angels first appear to Yaakov, he is very appreciative. Nonetheless, he immediately sends them on a mission depicting the fact that he controls the angels rather than the reverse. The two camps that Yaakov refers to are not his split camp of people. Yaakov's prayer to Hashem is "I know that I am not worthy of two camps - the camp of my people and the camp of angels". Yaakov appreciates the gift of angelic accompaniment but, nonetheless, reminds Hashem that the promise was v'ata amarta heitev AItiv imach vesamTI - You (Hashem) said I (personally) will take care of you. Yaakov is not satisfied with angelic protection. He seeks intimacy with Hashem and a direct, unencumbered relationship with Hashem.

Indeed, this is the second blessing that Yaakov receives from the angel. It is the blessing that Klal Yisrael will always have direct protection and guidance from Hashem. The statement describing the second blessing from the angel - vayevarech oso sham - is connected to to the naming of the place Peniel. The name is not meant to imply a clear vision by Yaakov of Hashem. Rather, it is a blessing that Klal Yisrael will always be connected to Hashem directly - panim el panim. Thus, Yaakov's actions with the angels, prayers, and battle with the angel, result in the fulfillment of his wishes, assuring an everlasting, direct, intimate relationship between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem.

Vayeitzei

There are two interesting differences between the promise of Hashem made to Avraham and Yitzchak on the one hand and Yaakov on the other.

The first time that Hashem appears to Avraham He gives Avraham a command: lech lecha me'artzecha... Following the command is a blessing: v'e'escha l'goy gadol va'avarechecha... One seems dependent upon the other. If Avraham fulfill the commandment then he will receive the blessing. Similarly, when Hashem appears to Yitzchak for the first time He gives Yitzchak a command: al tered Mitzraymah shcon ba'aretz asher omar eilecha. Yitzchak is commanded to remain in Eretz Canaan and not travel to Egypt. Again, immediately following the command is a blessing: v'ehyeh imcha va'avarechekha. Here, too, one is dependent upon the other. If Yitzhak fulfills the commandment then he will receive the blessing.

However, Hashem's first appearance to Yaakov is quite different. Hashem 'introduces' himself (ani Hashem) and then immediately gives Yaakov a blessing: ha'aretz asher ata shoceiv aleha lecha etnenah ulezarecha. Vehaya zaracha ka'afar ha'aretz... Yaakov is not required to fulfill any commandment to procure the blessing.

Additionally, there is a distinction in the reaction to the blessing. Immediately following their blessings, Avraham and Yitzchak act. The Torah states vayelech Avram after Avraham is told to travel to the Land. Similarly, the Torah states vayeishev Yitzchak biGrar. Yitzchak fulfills the commandment by establishing a home in Gerar. However, after Yaakov receives his blessing he has an incredulous reaction. VAYIRA vayomar ma nora hamakom hazeh. He is stricken with fear. Vayasem osah MATZEVAH - he builds an altar. VAYIDAR Yaakov NEDER - he makes a vow. Why the differences between the initial interaction by Hashem and the subsequent reaction by the Avos?

Avraham and Yitzchak were free men and masters of their own destiny when Hashem appears to them. Yaakov, on the other hand, is fleeing for his life. He cannot return to his home fearful of his brother's wrath; he has just been mugged by his nephew Elifaz and travels with no possessions, destitute of possessions and familial support.

There is another famous story of a borayach - one who is on the run - in Tanach. Yona tries to run from his Divine mission and boards a ship. When a storm arrives endangering the ship it is determined that the fate of the ship is due to Yona's flight. The sailors throw Yona overboard and the sea immediately calms. The verse in Yona then states VAYIRU ha'anashim yira gedola es Hashem VAYIZBECHU ZEVACH laHashem VAYIDRU NEDARIM. The Metzudas David explains that their fear was caused by a realization of hashgachas HaMakom v'yecholto - Hashem's omnipotence and complete control over everything. Therefore, they decided to bring korbanos and, the Metzudas David continues, take vows to give charity. Why was this their reaction?

During the storm, the sailors and passengers were praying to any and all gods. Nothing worked. Yona explained that he served Hashem. They then toss him into the sea and the storm ceases. At that moment they all realized that Hashem controls the sea, the ship, the wind, the people, everything! The realization of the true power and control of Hashem gripped them with fear. The avoda of korbanos displays a recognition that everything belongs to Hashem and needs to be utilized in the service of Hashem. Similarly, giving charity is an act that displays a recognition that even one's possessions are not really his but rather gifts from hashem to be utilized to help others.

Hashem appears to Yaakov when he is fleeing as well. Yaakov's greatest fear at this point is that the holiness he experienced up to this point in his life would be missing. He is leaving the confines of Yitzchak and Rivka's home as well as the holy Land. Would the intimacy with Hashem be left behind as well? Hashem appears to Yaakov to comfort him in this regard. V'hinei anochi imach ushemarticha bechol asher telech...ki lo e'ezavcha... Hashem assures Yaakov that he will be with him everywhere and always. Avraham and Yitzchak were not fleeing and did not fear losing the intimacy with Hashem. Yaakov had these fears and, therefore, needed the comforting blessing before any commandment.

Yaakov's reaction to this assurance is also unique to his situation. Like the sailors, he is gripped with fear - vayira vayomar. It is the same fear that engulfed the people on Yona's ship. Yaakov now has a deeper realization that the omnipotence of Hashem will enable him to maintain his intimate relationship with Hashem even outside the confines of Eretz Yisrael and his parents' home. This fear is a display of yiras shamayim. Therefore, his reaction is similar to the men on the ship as well. Yaakov builds an altar to bring korbanos and he takes a vow to give charity - aser a'aserenu lach - to display his new-found recognition of and appreciation for the omnipotence of Hashem.

Reassured, vayisa Yaakov raglav. Rashi explains nasa libo es raglav. His mind and heart are at ease, confident in the protection and guidance of Hashem wherever he goes, certain of his eventual return to Eretz Hakedoshah.

Toldos

By way of introduction to Yaakov and Eisav, the Torah states vayehi Eisav ish yodea tzayid ish sadeh v'Yaakov ish tam yosheiv ohalim. Eisav was a hunter, a man of the field while Yaakov was a simple, complete man who sat in the tents. Rashi informs us that these tents refer to the tents of Torah. The very next verse states vaye'ehav Yitzchak es Eisav ki tzayid befiv v'Rivka oheves es Yaakov. We were just informed that Eisav was a hunter while Yaakov was sitting and learning and yet immediately after this - as if to emphasize that the knowledge of these facts was the cause - we are told that Yitzchak loves Eisav specifically because he was a hunter, seemingly choosing those qualities over the qualities of Yaakov. As if to further emphasize this point, the verse does not have a parallel structure. The latter part of the verse stressing Rivka's love for Yaakov does not parallel the previous verse by stating that she loved him because he was learning. This fact is conspicuously missing as if to further emphasize that even Rivka's love for Yaakov was not due to these qualities.

The medrash in Eichah tells us that just prior to punishing Bnei Yisrael, Hashem approaches the Avos to give them an opportunity to pray on behalf of their children. The medrash says that Hashem approaches Avraham  and informs him that his children are sinning. Avraham responds by telling Hashem to punish them for these sins. Hashem then approaches Yaakov and Yaakov has the same response. Finally, Hashem approaches Yitzchak and informs him too that his children are sinning. Yitzchak states "are they my children and not yours", prays on their behalf and secures forgiveness. Why does Yitzchak feel most compelled to pray on behalf of Bnei Yisrael, as opposed to Avraham and Yaakov?

All that Yitzchak had was because of Avraham. Early in parshas Toldos, Yitzchak is given a Divine promise of children and Eretz Yisrael. Hashem tells Yitzchak that this promise is in fulfillment of the promise made to Avraham. Avraham and Yaakov received this promise directly while Yitzchak seems to 'inherit' it from his father. Similarly, the Ramban states that Yitzchak's wealth was all due to his inheriting Avraham. Even the wells that Yitzchak dug were the wells of Avraham. Therefore, it is Yitzchak, more than anyone else, who understands how important it is for parents to do all in their power to help their children. After all, everything he had was due to his parents. As a recipient of so much from his parents, Yitzchak feels compelled to give to his children as well.

However, Yitzchak is also acutely aware of the potential pitfalls of this approach. Too much reliance on parents can lead to laziness and complacency. This fear is what gripped Yitzchak and influenced his attitude towards Yaakov and Eisav in their early years. Yitzchak saw Eisav as a hunter, a man of action, a man who could be independent and need not rely on parental support. Yaakov, on the other hand, sat in the tents presumably unable to fend for himself. Rivka's attitude was no different. That's why the Torah does not state that she loved Yaakov because he sat in the tents. The difference was that Rivka saw the underlying character of Yaakov and knew that, far from lazy, Yaakov was a man of action himself, ready to fend for himself when necessary and was using these years of study to prepare himself for his future. Yitzchak was blind to this deeper level of Yaakov's personality.

This, too, is why Yitzchak intends to give the blessings to Eisav. He does not feel that Eisav is more righteous than Yaakov. He just feels that these blessings would be better served by a man of action. Indeed, once Yitzchak realizes that Yaakov, too, is a man of action, he confirms that the blessings belong to him because he realizes that Yaakov has both the Torah learning traits as well as the proactive traits to be utilized in the betterment of society. Mi eifo hu hatzad tzayid vayavei li...gam baruch yihyeh. Once Yitzchak realizes that Yaakov was not lazy or complacent and took action to initially buy the brachos and then what was necessary to assure he obtains them, he reconfirms the validity of the blessing - gam baruch yihyeh.

Chayei Sarah

A large portion of parshas Chayei Sarah is devoted to the events surrounding the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivka. Avraham's initial discussion with Eliezer, upon appointing him messenger to effectuate the marriage, is intriguing. Avraham commands Eliezer to swear that he will fulfill Avraham's demand and not betroth a Canaanite woman on Yitzchak's behalf. Rashi explains that Avraham was concerned that if he were to die prior to the completion of Eliezer's task, Eliezer will then conclude a marriage for Yitzchak with a Canaanite woman. Therefore, he commands Eliezer to swear to prevent that from happening. Eliezer then poses a practical question. What if the girl refuses to accompany him back to Eretz Yisrael and insists on remaining in chutz la'aretz? Should Eliezer fulfill his mission and effectuate the marriage even under these conditions? Avraham responds that he need not worry about this eventuality because Hashem will certainly assure that this will not happen and everything will work out properly.

Avraham's attitude seems self-contradictory. If Avraham is so strong of faith and confident in Hashem's assistance then why does he feel compelled to have Eliezer swear to fulfill his mission? He should have had similar faith that Hashem would make sure that Yitzchak does not marry a Canaanite woman. If he felt the need for human participation rather than a reliance on Divine assistance then why does he refrain from delivering a practical solution to Eliezer's legitimate concern?

A second question is more linguistic. Avraham's expression of his faith is expressed through the phrase hu yishlach malacho LEFANECHA - Hashem will certainly send His messenger before Eliezer, assuring that his path towards fulfilling his mission is prepared for success. However, when Eliezer recounts his discussion with Avraham to Rivka's family, he describes Avraham's faith with the expression yishlach malacho ITACH - Hashem will certainly send His messenger WITH you, rather than BEFORE you. Why is there this subtle change in the language?

The generally accepted attribute of what Eliezer is seeking in a wife for Yitzchak is the attribute of chesed - kindness. Eliezer lives in the home of Avraham, the epitome of chesed, and, therefore, seeks a match for Yitzchak with a woman who will exemplify this trait and, thereby, easily acclimate into the home of his master. However, a simple reading of the text seems to imply that Eliezer was looking for something else as well. After all, subsequent to Rivka's acts of kindness to Eliezer and his animals, the Torah states v'ha'ish mishtaeh lah - Eliezer still waited to see if his wish of the signs he designated will be fulfilled. Rivka has acted in kindness beyond the call of duty and yet Eliezer waits while this young girl continues to race to and fro refilling water containers for Eliezer and his flock. Indeed, why does the Torah emphasize the haste in which Rivka was acting - vateMAHER vatored cadah...vateMAHER vate'ar cadah...vaTARATZ od? Why does the Torah emphasize Rivka's alacrity in her acts of kindness?

This was the additional trait that Eliezer was seeking. Avraham's greatness in acts of kindness was not just in the fact that he performed these deeds but also in the attitude he had while performing them. Avraham would determine if something was the right thing to do and, once determined, would perform those acts with great energy, enthusiasm, and commitment. The same trait of haste and unwavering commitment is expressed regarding Avraham. When the angels appear at Avraham's doorstep the Torah tells us vaYARATZ likrasam... vayeMAHER Avraham...vayomer MAHARI...v'el habakar RATZ Avraham...vayeMAHER la'asos oso.

Eliezer is waiting to see how Rivka performs acts of kindness, not just if she does. Eliezer wants to see the same alacrity, enthusiasm, and commitment that he witnessed in Avraham's home. This will certainly be a trait that will enable the future wife of Yitzchak to be part of the great home of Avraham and continue to fulfill its destiny.

This kind of attitude is achieved through great faith. One needs to understand the circumstances, determine a course of action, and implement everything necessary to facilitate a desirable outcome. When one is confident in his decision then he acts with great energy, enthusiasm, and commitment, confident in the righteousness of his actions and Divine support for its fulfillment. Kindness, alacrity, enthusiasm, commitment, and mostly, unwavering faith are the traits that Eliezer seeks in a wife for Yitzchak.

Avraham displays this attitude with his interaction with Eliezer. Confident that it was time to seek a wife for Yitzchak, believing that a woman of Canaan was an improper match, Avraham does all in his power to assure that the proper match for Yitzchak is found. Commanding Eliezer to swear to fulfill his mission is what Avraham can do. Once Avraham has done all in his power, he has complete emunah and bitachon - faith in Hashem -  that all will work out perfectly. Therefore, his response to Eliezer's question is one dripping with faith, unconcerned with human mishaps, confident in Divine guidance and assistance. His expression is, therefore, hu yishlach malacho LEFANECHA. Avraham is confident that Hashem will lead the way and has already assured fulfillment. Eliezer is not on that spiritual level. He believes that Hashem will help but only walking itach - with him.

Indeed, Avraham's level of faith is mirrored by Rivka later when she insists on accompanying Eliezer back to Yitzchak. She has analyzed the circumstances, acted appropriately, and now, with little knowledge of the ultimate outcome, accompanies Eliezer, confident that Hashem will assure that this marriage will be a foundation upon which Bnei Yisrael are to be built.

Vayera

Immediately following their departure from Avraham's home, the visiting angels head to Sedom. The verse tells us vayashkifu al pnei Sedom - they gazed upon Sedom. Rashi explains kol hashkafa shebemikra l'ra'ah chutz mehashkifah mimon kadsh'cha shegadol koach matanos aniyim shehofeich midas harogez l'rachamim - all places where the term hashkifa is used in the Torah it implies a negative gazing of evil, except when the Torah tells us (in parshas Ki Savo) that Hashem looks down from his holy abode. The reason why it is a positive gazing in that case is because the Torah there is discussing gifts to the poor and the power of giving to the poor enables turning Divine anger into Divine mercy. This Rashi belongs in parshas Ki Savo, not Vayera! It focuses on describing the power of gifts to the poor, which is discussed in parshas Ki Savo, and the unique positive nature of that rendering of the term hashkifa. The brief discussion of the negative connotations of the term in our verse seems to serve as merely an introduction to Rashi's main thesis.

In informing Avraham of the Divine plan, Hashem says to Avraham haketza'akasah haba'ah eilai asu kalah - if the cries are true then they will be destroyed. Bothered by the singular term haketzaakasah, Rashi explains that there was an incident involving a young girl who received a brutal execution for delivering food to the poor. Was the cause of destruction due to a single incident? Sedom was full of evil, absent even ten righteous people. Surely, a single act could not be the determining factor for the fate of the city.

Before destroying Sedom, Hashem decides to inform Avraham of his intentions. Hamechaseh ani me'Avraham asher ani oseh. Although this knowledge leads Avraham to pray for the people of Sedom, thereby implying that the reason for Hashem's disclosure of the plan is specifically to stimulate Avraham's prayers, the commentaries seem to take a different approach.

Rashi explains that Hashem felt it was only right to inform Avraham of his plan because He had already promised Avraham this land. Destroying the land without informing the human owner wouldn't be fair. Additionally, by instructing his family to act in mishpat u'tzedaka, Avraham is worthy of becoming a great nation. The Ramban explains that Hashem didn't want people to say that the great and righteous Avraham did not pray on behalf of others, therefore, Hashem gave him the opportunity to do so. Ultimately, the Ramban continues, this knowledge had even greater benefit to Avraham since it showed him that Hashem judges through righteousness - she'ani oseh mishpat rak bitzedakah. Avraham will then instruct his children to act similarly. The Sforno has a third explanation. The Sforno explains that Hashem informed Avraham of His actions so that - lema'an - he will instruct his children about what he witnessed. That is, Hashem performed great kindness with the people of Sedom by giving even these wicked people an opportunity to be saved if only they had even ten righteous people among them. Additionally, Avraham witnessed Hashem's judgment that if there is no righteousness then there is destruction.

All three commentators focus on the benefits that the revelation of the Divine plan delivered to Avraham. And all three commentators focus on the potential for acts of kindness to overcome even Divine wrath. Rashi's intent in conveying the story of the young girl's brutal execution is to inform us that even if that one act of kindness was left unpunished by the people of Sedom, it had the power to override the inevitable Divine retribution. Similarly, the Ramban and the Sforno are informing us that the key lesson of Sedom is the one given to Avraham's progeny, instructing us to always act in kindness to others. The lesson of the power of kindness is the essence of the events of Sedom.

With this understanding, Rashi's explanation of hashkifa fits in with the entire theme. The emphasis of the power of giving gifts to the poor is not just a lesson in parshas Ki Savo. It is the essential lesson of the incident in Sedom. Gifts to the poor by one young girl, prayers on behalf of a despotic city, actions by one individual on behalf of another all have the power to overcome Divine wrath and stimulate Divine mercy. Acts of kindness, concern for another, and instructing our children regarding the power of these actions assure Divine mercy and blessing.

Lech Lecha

Soon after Avram's arrival in Eretz Canaan, famine forces him to leave the land and head to Egypt. Upon their approach to Egypt, Avram, recognizing the beauty of his wife Sarah and the licentiousness of the people of Mitzrayim, makes a request of Sarah. Imri na achosi at lema'an yitav li ba'avuraich v'chaysah nafshi biglalaich - please tell all who inquire that you are my sister so that they will do good to me and I will live because of you. Avram understands the life threatening danger of entering Egypt as the husband of such a beautiful woman as Sarah. The first thing on his mind should be the saving of his life. Only after that might he consider additional benefits. Yet, first Avram states lema'an yitav li - they will do good things for me - and only afterwards does he state v'chaysah nafshi - and I will live. Wouldn't the proper priority be the reverse?

Prior to the plague of the firstborn, Hashem commands Moshe Rabbeinu dabeir na b'aznei ha'am v'yishalu ish me'ais re'ehu, etc. Hashem commands Moshe to ask Bnei Yisrael to borrow possessions from the Egyptians prior to their departure. Rashi explains: ain na ela bakasha, bebakasha mimcha hizhiram al cach, etc. Hashem , as it were, beseeches Bnei Yisrael to ask the Egyptians for their possessions so that Avraham Avinu will not have a claim against Hashem in that Hashem fulfilled the part of the covenant that promised slavery and persecution but did not fulfill the part that promised exiting the slavery in Egypt with great wealth - v'acharei chen yetzu birchush gadol. Therefore, Hashem requested that Bnei Yisrael seek recompense from the Egyptians for their centuries of slavery so that they can exit with great riches and this part of the covenant can also be fulfilled.

The Gemara in Brachos states that Bnei Yisrael initially refused to comply with the request. Ulevai shenaitzai b'atzmeinu - we just want to get out of Egypt alive. We are willing to forgo any riches and any promises made if only we can be freed from Egypt. If Bnei Yisrael were willing to forgo - to be mochel- the wealth part of the covenant, why is there a concern regarding Avraham's complaint?

The Ramban tells us that the theme throughout Sefer Breishis is ma'aseh avos siman l'banim - all that happened to our Forefathers foretells what will happen in future generations. Avraham's actions were done to assure future benefit for his children. Perhaps we can say that the promise of great riches was something due Avraham's offspring and, therefore, they had the right to forgo this benefit. However, they do not have the power to forgo a benefit that belongs to Avraham and not them.

Avraham's claim was also regarding the idea of ma'aseh avos siman l'banim. Avraham specifically validated the part of the covenant that promised riches before leaving with their lives when he made this request of Sarah. In an effort to assure the fulfillment of that part of the covenant, Avraham preempted the claim of Bnei Yisrael - if only we could leave with our lives - by requesting yitav li prior to v'chaysa nafshi upon his descent to Egypt. This request personalized the claim for rechush gadol even prior to having their lives saved through the exodus from Egypt. Perhaps this connection is hinted to by use of the word NA - imri NA and dabeir NA - implying Avraham's request that foregoing the promise of riches prior to exiting Egypt is not an option.

Noach

The Torah delineates ten generations between Adam and Noach and then, later, another ten generations between Noach and Avraham. The Mishna in Pirkei Avos informs us that this shows the erech apayim - patience, restraint, and forbearance - of Hashem, who endured ten generations of evil before bringing the punishment of the flood. Similarly, Hashem endured another ten generations of evil acts until Avraham arose and notal s'char kulam - obtained the reward for all of them.

There is an interesting linguistic difference between the way the verses describe the ten generations between Adam and Noach and the terms used to describe the lives of the ten generations between Noach and Avraham. In describing the former, the Torah tells us, for example, vayechi Shes chamesh shanim u'm'as shanah vayoled es Enosh. Vayechi Shes acharei holido es Enosh sheva shanim u'shmoneh meos shanah vayoled banim ubanos. Vayihyu kol yemei Shes shteim esreh shanah u'tesha meos shanah vayamos. This formula is used to describe the lives of each of the ten generations until Noach. The formula states (a) the particular person lived a certain amount of years prior to having a son, (b) he had a son, (c) he lived a certain amount of years after that son was born and had other unnamed children, (d) the total number of years that the person lived, (e) that person died.

In describing the ten generations between Noach and Avraham, the Torah alters the formula slightly. Vayechi Ever arba u'shloshim shanah vayoled es Peleg. Vayechi Ever acharei holido es Peleg shloshim shanah v'arba meos shanah vayoled banim ubanos. The formula is mostly similar to that used for the previous ten generations. However, it leaves out the final two points: the total years lived are not mentioned nor is their any mention of death. Why the subtle change?

The generations between Noach and Avraham did, indeed, improve upon the generations between Adam and Noach. The generations between Adam and Noach had nothing to do with previous nor subsequent generations. We see no interaction between any of these generations. The Torah emphasizes this by placing each generation in its own neat package, completely enclosed and separated from the generation before and the one after. The generation lived a certain amount of years and then died, leaving no legacy. Everything about their impact on the world was contained in the years that they lived. They had no influence upon subsequent generations.

The generations between Noach and Avraham were slightly different. Although innately evil, they did interact with one another and tried to influence future generations. Unfortunately, this influence was a negative one (i.e . the generation of dispersion) but, nonetheless, there is a positive element in generational interaction on a macro level. The Torah emphasizes the difference by leaving out the total years lived and the fact that they died to inform us that their influence went beyond the years of their lives and continued even after death.

The formula describing the generations between Noach and Avraham has one exception. Describing the life of Terach, father of Avraham, the verse tells us Vayihyu yemei Terach chamesh shanim u'masayim shanah, vayomas Terach b'Charan. Terach's life follows the formula of the generations between Adam and Noach. It is placed into a neat capsule including total years and death. Why the change?

Vayomer Hashem el Avram lech lecha me'artzecha u'mimoladtcha u'mibeis avicha el ha'aretz asher areka. The command of Hashem to Avraham was to remove himself from all influences of his land, his birthplace, and even his father. A new world order needed to be instituted, one bereft of the negative influences of the previous generations, to assure the survival of future generations. Hence, Terach's influence upon Avraham needed to end. Terach needed to become like the first ten generations, having no influence on Avraham and his offspring.

Perhaps this understanding can explain the differences of the previously cited Mishna in Pirkei Avos. The Mishna states that the result of the first ten generations was v'hevi es hamabul - Hashem brought the flood. The result of the second ten generations was that Avraham natal s'char kulam - Avraham obtained the reward of all the previous generations. The generations between Adam and Noach had no redeeming qualities. Therefore, after significant forbearance, the result was utter destruction. However, the generations between Noach and Avraham had the redeeming quality of generational interaction. The interaction and influence was negative but the concept of generations influencing subsequent ones was positive. Once someone arrived who would utilize this positive concept to deliver beneficial influence, he would redeem the negative aspects of the previous generations. Avraham's essential life goal was l'ma'an asher yetzaveh es banav v'es beiso acharav - Avraham positively influenced his children and grandchildren and, therefore, was able to receive the reward of all previous generations.

(The first two parshiyos of the Torah speak of twenty generations. The next fifty two parshiyos only deal with eight generations. Interestingly, there is no recorded conversation between father and son in the Torah until Avraham and Yitzchak. Connecting to previous and future generations is the lesson Avraham teaches us to assure our legacy and our future.)

Bereishis

The Talmud informs us that a hallmark trait of Divine reward and punishment is a concept known as midda k'negged midda - the reward or punishment is directly related to the act that caused the reward or punishment. Bereishis details the famous story of Adam and Chava eating of the Tree of Knowledge while residing in the Garden of Eden. Sins are perpetrated by both Adam and Chava, punishment is meted out, and banishment to a new life occurs. However, at first glance, it is a bit difficult to discern the midda k'negged midda connection between the sins perpetrated and the punishment received.

The Torah tells us that many trees existed in Gan Eden. Two particular ones emphasized in the verse are the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge - v'etz hachayim besoch hagan v'etz hada'as tov vara. Later, the Torah informs us of the commandment given to Adam - Vayetzav Hashem Elokim al ha'adam leimor mikol etz hagan achol tochel. U'me'etz hada'as tov vara lo tochel mimenu. Adam is commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. He is not commanded to refrain from eating of the Tree of Life. Yet the punishment given to Adam is that he will not live forever, he will need to work for a living - things that have a direct impact on life expectancy and quality. It seems that it would be more logical to deliver a punishment that impacted Adam's intelligence and knowledge as he violated the commandment of eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Chava's sin seems to lie in the fact that she violated the same commandment as Adam and then caused her husband to sin as well. Perhaps reliance upon her husband is a punishment that adheres to the concept of midda k'negged midda, but a core component of the punishment -childbirth and rearing - seems to be disconnected from the sin, not conforming to the midda k'negged midda principle.

Aside from the question regarding the relationship between the sins and the subsequent punishments, there also seems to be a difficulty in the flow of the verses. The prelude given to us is that Adam and Chava lived in Gan Eden unabashedly naked. The story proceeds to inform us of the events and the sins, the conversation between Hashem and the respective players in the story, Hashem's questioning of Adam's knowledge of his nakedness, Adam's response, and, ultimately the punishments given to each of the players. The section then concludes with two verses that seem to be in reverse order. The verse tells us vayikra ha'Adam shem ishto Chava ki he haysah aim kol chai - Adam names his wife Chava for she is the mother of all living beings. The next verse states Vaya'as Hashem Elokim l'Adam u'l'ishto kosnos or vayalbishem - Hashem clothes Adam and Chava.

The story begins by telling us that Adam and Chava's nakedness is essential to the upcoming events. This nakedness is what is understood following consumption of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; this nakedness is the fact that reveals the sin. Concluding the story with clothing the naked makes perfect sense. However, why does the verse that states Adam's naming Chava interrupt this flow? First the Torah should inform us that they are now clothed and then proceed to inform us of the next stage - Adam naming Chava. This verse does not seem to relate to the story at all. Yet, it is stated before the conclusion of the episode in Gan Eden!

Perhaps the punishment borne by Adam and Chava was not for the sin of violating the commandment to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge. After all, there are numerous instances in Tanach where sins occurred that were followed by repentance and forgiveness. Hashem always affords us the opportunity to repent. Repentance protects us from punishment. Indeed, the medrash explains that the reason Shaul Hamelech had the kingdom taken from him while David Hamelech retained it forever is a result of their reaction after each sinned. When confronted by Shmuel Hanavi regarding his violation of the commandment to destroy Amalek, Shaul responds by first denying he sinned and then blaming the people. In contrast, when confronted by Natan Hanavi regarding his sin with Bat-Sheva, David immediately responds chatasi - I have sinned. David's repentance enables him to keep his kingdom and be considered a model of a baal teshuva.

Here, too, Hashem gives Adam and Chava the opportunity to repent. However, after being confronted by Hashem, Adam immediately blames Chava - ha'isha asher nasata eemadi. Adam does not accept responsibility. Instead, he blames Chava. After Adam's concern about not having a mate and Hashem's gracious provision of one that was etzem me'atzamai - the perfect match, still Adam lacks appreciation for this great gift and blames his life mate for his actions.

Similarly, Chava didn't accept her responsibility. She, too, had a life mate. However, instead of accepting the blame after recognizing her actions, she chooses to entice Adam to sin as well so that she will not suffer punishment alone. It is this post-sin reaction displaying a lack of appreciation for one another that was the sin for which Adam and Chava were punished. The punishments, indeed, fit the crime.

Adam needed to learn to appreciate all that he had. He would learn to appreciate life because it would not last forever. He would learn to appreciate his possessions because he would have to work hard for them.

Chava would learn to appreciate and care for others even more than for herself. She would suffer the pain of childbirth, the difficulties of child rearing and, yet, her children would mean everything to her. She would do anything to protect them from harm to contrast her actions with Adam. Even after all the pain, she would love and cling to her family.

This is why the verse informs us of Adam's naming of Chava prior to completing the story of Gan Eden. Before receiving the blessing of clothing and the forgiveness it brought, Adam needed to show that he learned his lesson. Adam needed to show that he had a great appreciation for Chava and would work with her and for her going forward. Once Adam displays this sense of appreciation by calling her Chava because she is aim kol chai, forgiveness and blessing from Hashem can come.

Vayeilech

In the opening verses of parshas Veyeilech, there are two sets of phrases that have contradictory elements within them. Moshe begins by telling Bnei Yisrael that he will not accompany them on the rest of their journey as they enter and conquer the land of Israel. Moshe states "lo oochal latzes velavo, vaHashem amar elai lo sa'avor es hayarden hazeh". The first phrase explains that the reason Moshe cannot accompany them is simply that he physically is unable to do so. He is currently 120 years old and incapable of travelling further. The second phrase explains that the reason has nothing to do with physical capabilities but rather the reason he cannot accompany them is because Hashem has forbidden him to do so.

Rashi's approach to these verses is to explain them as statements of fact. Moshe Rabbeinu continues on his quest to prepare Bnei Yisrael for life in the Land of Israel and here, as introductory remarks to the words of encouragement about to come, Moshe states that he will not be accompanying them. Therefore, Rashi explains, these phrase are not contradictory. Rather, the latter phrase merely clarifies the former: Moshe is not able to go -latzes velavo - BECAUSE Hashem has forbade him to do so.

Sforno takes a different approach. The Sforno explains that these phrases - which Rashi explains as introductory remarks - are actually part of the words of encouragement from Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe is telling Bnei Yisrael that he needs to leave them now for their benefit. Firstly, he is too old to lead them and second, due to Divine decree, they cannot enter Eretz Yisrael with him. Therefore, it is better for them that he does not accompany them.

The next verse has a more blatant contradiction within it. Moshe Rabbeinu tells Bnei Yisrael "HASHEM ELOKECHA HU OVER LEFANECHA hu yashmid es hagoyim ha'eileh milfanecha virishtam YEHOSHUA HU OVER LEFANECHA ka'asher diber Hashem". First Moshe states that Hashem will lead the people into the Land, then he states that Yehoshua will lead them into the Land. Which is it?

The Sforno explains this seeming contradiction consistently with the explanation of the previous contradiction.  Moshe continues to encourage Bnei Yisrael by telling them that they should not fret the loss of his leadership because, in fact, a greater Being will lead them into the Land: Hashem himself. Yehoshua will merely act as His messenger - "bemitzvas ha-Kel" - in this regard.

Rashi, though, does not offer an explanation on these verses. Perhaps Rashi's explanation of the previous contradiction naturally flows to this one. The latter phrase merely clarifies the former. Moshe Rabbeinu is telling Bnei Yisrael that they were never really led by him. They were always led by Hashem. Therefore, it is obvious that this verse follows the natural course of events. Bnei Yisrael will continue to be led by Hashem. However, the physical manifestation of that leadership as they enter the Land will be Yehoshua.

Based on this explanation, perhaps we can say that Rashi's approach is similar to the Sforno's. Rashi, too, implies that even these opening verses are words of encouragement. However, his approach to these words of encouragement is slightly different. The Sforno focuses on the future. He explains that Moshe is telling Bnei Yisrael that they are better off without his accompaniment. He will only hold them back. Of course the Sforno agrees that Bnei Yisrael have always been led by Hashem. However, these words of encouragement focus on the natural course of human events that Bnei Yisrael need to accept as they enter the Land. Open miracles like those witnessed in the desert will be diminished. Sustenance will not come from the manna of heaven but rather from working the land. Therefore, the Sforno focuses on the physical, tangible benefits that Moshe is attempting to describe.

 Rashi focuses on the thread of Jewish history. These words of encouragement are statements of fact by Moshe Rabbeinu. They explain that our destiny has always been and will always be under the direct guidance and intervention of Hashem. Undoubtedly, life in Eretz Yisrael will be different than life in the desert. Open miracles will be diminished. Nonetheless, we must realize that the guiding, compassionate, loving hand of Hashem remains with us even if we do not always see it. Differing physical manifestations of leadership or life are merely different delivery mechanisms of Hashem's kindness and protection. Even what we might think are physical limitations are actually not. Indeed, anything can be accomplished as long as we fulfill the will of Hashem.

The combination of Rashi's and Sforno's approaches deliver a poignant message. Our lives need to be filled with hishtadlus, with great effort on our part to do everything in our power to achieve personal growth, help our communities, and Klal Yisrael. We must recognize that the physical things granted to us are for our benefit. We just need to find ways to use them properly, appropriately, and optimally. Nonetheless, we must always remember that the guiding, loving hand of Hashem is always with us, encouraging and aiding us on our endeavors to assure that we achieve our goals and attain shefa berachos.

Netzavim

The most essential part of the Selichos prayer is the portion stating the Thirteen Attributes which are interwoven throughout the Selichos. Chazal inform us that the covenant of the Thirteen Attributes is a covenant of kindness called upon to counteract the attribute of strict justice and enable us to attain forgiveness. Why do we need this special covenant of kindness to help overcome strict justice? After all, there is an initial covenant from Hashem that was integrated into Creation that performs this role. Chazal tell us that - kaviyachol - initially the intent was to create a world operating under the guidelines of strict justice. Ultimately, however, Hashem decided to incorporate the aspect of kindness into the operation of the world. That is why Bereishis begins with the name Elokim alone - signifying the attribute of justice alone - but eventually includes the name of Hashem that signifies the attribute of kindness as well. If the attribute of kindness was included in the creation and nature of the world then why the need for a special covenant of kindness implemented through the Thirteen Attributes?

Moreover, it would logically seem that Selichos should call upon the original covenant of inclusion of kindness made at the time of Creation. After all, it is on Rosh Hashanah when kol ba'ei olam ya'avrun lefanecha - every creature passes before Hashem for judgment. U'vamedinos bo yeameir eizo lara'av v'eizo lasova - all nations are judged as well. Rosh Hashanah is referred to as yom haras olam - the birthday of the world. Particularly, this birthday of creation, when the entire world is judged, seems to be the appropriate time to call upon the covenant of kindness made at the origin of Creation.

Perhaps we can say that the original covenant with Creation was a universal/communal one and on Rosh Hashanah each individual is judged. Therefore, a special covenant related to individuals is appropriate. However, this concept presents an additional conflict. The Halachah informs us that, although much of the Selichos can be said by individuals, the Thirteen Attributes must be said with a minyan quorum. Therefore, it would be difficult to posit that, on the one hand we are seeking a covenant that applies specifically to individuals while, simultaneously, we are choosing a covenant whose recitation cannot be done by individuals but specifically requires a minyan.

Atem nitzavim hayom kulchem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem...l'avracha bibris Hashem Elokecha u'v'aloso asher Hashem Elokecha koreis imcha hayom. The opening section of parshas Nitzavim describes a covenant between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael. A covenant has two sides. Presumably, each side is koreis their part. If that is so, then what is the meaning of the term 'l'avracha' - to pass over, as if to pass over to another covenant? It would make more linguistic sense to use a form of koreis, like lehachrischa to describe Bnei Yisrael's entry into this covenant.

The covenant of the Thirteen Attributes is the first covenant made after receiving the Torah on Har Sinai. There was something about that event that changed not only the status of Bnei Yisrael but the very nature of the world. Prior to receiving the Torah, Bnei Yisrael were just another part of the greater world. The exodus from Egypt made us into a People. However, there were many different People and Nations in the world. Receiving the Torah made us the Chosen People - asher bachar banu mikol ha'amim venasan lanu es toraso.

This change enables us to beseech Hashem on a dual level. We can beseech Hashem on the communal as well as the individual level. Chazal inform us that when we encamped around Har Sinai vayichan sham Yisrael - k'ish echad balev echad - we were a single unit, a People. Additionally, the singular term of vayichan can also imply that there is significance and importance to every individual of Bnei Yisrael. The events at Har Sinai enabled us to 'cross over' - l'avracha - to a different relationship with Hashem, enabling us to attain a covenant of kindness above and beyond the one given to the world at the time of Creation. The covenant of kindness of the Thirteen Attributes is both a communal and individual covenant designated specifically for Bnei Yisrael as an addition to the one received as a member of the community of nations.

It is particularly this covenant that we call upon at this time of year, as we beseech Hashem on both the communal and individual levels to grant us a happy, healthy, sweet year. May we all - as individuals and as Knesses Yisrael - be zocheh to a Shanah tovah umetukah umevurechet.

Ki Tavo

The parsha of Ki Tavo opens with two commandments: mikra bikurim - the commandment to express a specific statement upon bringing the bikurim to the Beis HaMikdash, and vidui maaser - the commandment to make certain statements upon the completion of separating the special maaser after the third and sixth year of the shemittah cycle. The commandments of actually bringing the bikurim and separating maaser were given earlier in the Torah. Why, then, are the commandments regarding the necessary statements not given until now?

The statement necessary when bringing the bikurim is one that connects the one bringing the bikurim to the history of the Jewish people. Upon completing the commandment of vidui maaser, Moshe Rabbeinu tells Bnei Yisrael that we need to obey all the commandments given. He then uses a phrase v'laleches bidrachav. The Ramban explains that this means that we must act kindly with one another - v'tigmalu chesed ish es re'ehu. What is the significance of the bikurim connecting us to our history and what is the connection of vidui ma'aser connecting us to each other?

Parshas Ki Savo is often the parsha read on the Shabbos before we recite selichos. In explaining the essence of the commandment of mikra bikurim - the requirement to make specific statements upon bringing the bikurim to the Beis Ha Mikdash - the Sefer Hachinuch states lefi sheha'adam me'orer machshevosav u'metzayer bilvavo ha'emes b'koach divrei piv. A person awakens and defines the feelings in the depths of his heart through the power of his speech. We firmly establish our appreciation for all that Hashem has done for us by articulating those feelings in words. Therefore, we are commanded to articulate the statement of our history, in appreciation of all that Hashem has done for us and our ancestors throughout history enabling us to reach this goal.

Perhaps the statement regarding vidui ma'aser is done for similar reasons. We articulate our adherance to the nuances of the commandments and communicate our desire for Divine blessings. These two commandments are both given so that we can articulate the true feelings in our hearts.

Although the commandments to perform the actual mitzva of bikurim and the mitzva of maasers are given earlier, the commandments regarding the statements specifically wait for the time of year when articulating the feelings in the depths of our hearts is of utmost importance. As we get closer to the High Holidays we enhance our prayers with selichos. Selichos are a method of pouring out our hearts before Hashem as we prepare for the Yom Hadin. Understanding the need to properly articulate these feelings (even if it's through the wordless method of tekias shofar) is essential at this time of year. Therefore, these mitzvos, which emphasize this trait, are given in Ki Savo, as we prepare for selichos.

Similarly, the Torah informs us of the right mindset to have as we enter selichos through these commandments. We are implored to remember where we came from and what we are part of. We must remember our history and become part of Knesses Yisrael. Associating with Knesses Yisrael does not merely mean to do so in the context of the present. It also means associating with the timelessness of the Jewish people, associating with its rich history, its trials and tribulations throughout history, and taking responsibility and pride in its optimistic, redemptive future. Mikra Bikurim prepares us for this association.

Additionally, we are implored to connect with our present Knesses Yisrael situation as well. Concern for one another is an essential element for forgiveness and success. The commandment of vidui ma'aser is immediately followed by the charge from Moshe Rabbeinu to do kindeness ish es re'ehu, one with another. Concern for our fellow is a prerequisite for all our upcoming requests.

Therefore, these two commandments were 'saved' for parshas Ki Savo, so that two essential elements assuring success in our prayers at this time of year - beginning with selichos - are articulated and established in our hearts and minds, assuring that we will be granted a Shanah tovah u'metukah, u'mevurechet.

Ki Tetzei

Towards the end of Parshas Ki Tetzei, the Torah delivers two commandments related to the ger, yasom, and almanah - the stranger, orphan, and widow. The first commandment relates to judgments. Lo sateh mishpat. The subsequent lesson delivered after the commandment states vezacharta ki eved hayisa b'Mitzrayim vayifdacha Hashem Elokecha misham al ken anochi metzavcha la'asos es hadavar hazeh - remember that you were slaves in Egypt and Hashem redeemed you from there, Therefore, I command you to perform this act.

Immediately following these verses, the Torah delivers the commandment to leave some of the harvest to the stranger, orphan, and widow. The subsequent statement is almost identical to the first: vezacharta ki eved hayisa b'eretz Mitzrayim al ken anochi metzavcha la'asos es hadavar hazeh. There are two subtle differences between this phrase and the one stated regarding judgments. This second phrase does not include the passage stating the Divine redemption from Egypt and, second, this second phrase includes the word eretz - land - when referring to Egypt whereas the first verse does not. Why are there these two slight differences?

Zechirah - remembering - is an integral part of Judaism. Often, we employ memory to remind us of events and stimulate us to action. Zechiras yetzias Mitzraym, zecher l'Mikdash are all memories that are utilized to stimulate action on our part. However, there are times when we are implored to remember not to spur us to action but rather to remind us what we should not do.

These verses do not refer to the exile from Egypt. Instead, they require us to remember our lives while dwelling in Egypt. The verses commanding us to act kindly in judgment ask us to remember our Egyptian experience. We are asked to remember the persecution and inequality that we suffered while enslaved and treated as a sub-human component of Egyptian society. Though, too often, upon removing the shackles of enslavement, a persecuted people lashes out and avenges its plight with as great a cruelty as they endured, the Torah commands us to do the opposite. We must remember the pain and suffering we endured while enslaved in Egypt specifically so that we will not do the same to others.     We are commanded to do so by Hashem Who redeemed us from that enslavement. As an act of appreciation for this salvation, we are commanded to adhere to the laws.

This command refers to a general outlook on life. We are required to remember the overall plight of persecution and enslavement. We are required to remember that we were fortunate enough to be redeemed from it by Hashem. Therefore, we must treat others in a way that will not inflict the pain that we had to persevere unto others.

The second commandment requires to remember not just the general picture of persecution and enslavement but also the daily life experiences while living in Egypt; the struggles for food, sustenance, basic life necessities. We need to remember the cruelty, the harsh laws, the corruption that occurred daily so that we will avoid those same pitfalls in our own society.

The first commandment includes a reference to the redemption from Egypt and refers to Mitzrayim not merely as a land but also as an idea. The general ideas of life in Egypt must be incorporated into our minds so that we do not develop a society that is similar to Egypt. The second commandment asks us to remember details of life in the land of Egypt itself. Therefore, it emphasizes the word eretz - land- and need not include the redemption. Focus is to be made on life in the land of Egypt so that we will institute specific laws and rules that avoid the cruelty experienced during Egyptian bondage.

The subtle differences implore us to remember the overall Egyptian experience as well as the details of that experience so that we will create a society and communities of justice and fairness, ultimately bringing the ultimate redemption.

Shoftim

Parshas Shoftim describes the laws of annointing a king. The Torah seems to imply that there is a need to have a king rule the people once we have established ourselves in the Land. Yet, in Sefer Shmuel, Bnei Yisrael are rebuked for requesting a king to rule over them. One of the answers to this apparent contradiction bases its reasoning on specific words used in the command in parshas Shoftim versus those used in the request in Sefer Shmuel. In parshas Shoftim we are told som tasim ALECHA melech - we are to place a king UPON us. Whereas the request in sefer Shmuel utilizes the term lanu - for us - rather than alecha - upon us. The term alecha implies an understanding that the king is above us. He is the ruler and we are his subjects. As long as he adheres to the laws of the Torah, his authority is unquestioned and final. However, the term lanu implies that the king works for us, for the people. Therefore, the request was that the king should do the people's bidding and submit to the will of the people rather than being the authoritative figure described in the commandment.

In further detailing the laws of the king, the Torah warns the king l'vilti rum levavo me'echav - not to become haughty and pompous and raise himself above his brethren. This concept seems to contradict the previously stated distinction of the words alecha and lanu and the underlying premise that the king is supposed to be 'upon' the people, above them as ruler. Which one is it? Is the king supposed to be with us or above us?

A bit later in the parsha, the laws of war are discussed. The Torah tells us that prior to embarking on a military campaign, a rallying speech is given by the Kohen hamashuach encouraging the people to be confident in victory for Hashem leads them in battle and will assure victory. The verse tells us that the opening phrase of the Kohen's speech is shema Yisrael. The Talmud explains that this informs Bnei Yisrael that even if they only possess the merit of reciting the Shema they are still worthy of Divine salvation.

After this speech, the officers of the people continue by informing Bnei Yisrael of those who should return home and not accompany the army into battle. The last category of the excused are described as mi ha'ish hayarei v'rach halevav - those who are afraid. The Talmud explains that this means that those who are afraid that their sins will prevent them from exiting the battle unscathed are excused. The Talmud then questions what sins would be ones to be afraid of and responds that even a sin as seemingly minor as speaking between putting on the tefilin shel yad and the tefillin shel rosh without repeating a blessing is one to fear.

Didn't the Talmud just state that even the merit of merely reciting Shema was sufficient to assure salvation? It seems that one need not do more than that. Yet, the Talmud then states that even the slightest sin could potentially ruin the other merits and prevent victory. Which is it?

Chazal explain that Jewish royalty is, in a sense, a manifestation of malchus shamayim. The role of the king is to assure that Bnei Yisrael properly observe Torah and mitzvos. The honor given to the human king aids us in honoring Hashem. Therefore, a king who attempts to pardon his honor ein kvodo machul - the pardon is not valid. After all, it is not his honor to pardon. It is the honor of Hashem. The result of this attitude towards Jewish royalty is that all - both the king and the people - are commanded to give the proper honor to malchus shamayim. The laws pertaining to the king as well as the laws pertaining to the people emphasize this point, they just manifest themselves in different ways. The people are required to accept the rule of the king upon themselves since this rule is actually malchus shamayim, which the king is charged with upholding. Asking the king to submit to our will is comparable to asking malchus shamayim to submit to our will. Nonetheless, the king is equally enjoined to sumbit to malchus shamayim. He must remain humble and modest and understand that, he too, must submit to the will of Hashem and is implored not to become haughty.

This idea is correlated to the preparations for war. War carries with it the danger of assuming kochi v'otzem yadi asah li es hachayil hazeh. People, armies, kings can assume that it was their power, preparation, or strategy that caused the victory. Therefore, the Torah informs us that the most important factoid for one to have upon entering the battlefield is that ultimate victory is in the hands of Hashem. Therefore, the opening phrase of the Kohen's speech is Shema Yisrael. If we have the merit of saying the Shema every day with unwavering belief and confidence, if we state that phrase with understanding that Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, if we accept ol malchus shamayim daily with belief that Hashem controls everything, then we can be confident of victory on the battlefield as well. That single merit, that unwavering faith and belief, is enough to overcome all other flaws, shortcomings, and mistakes.

However, if even after we have heard the words of the Kohen and are assured that unwavering belief and faith will win the day, we still are yarei and rach levav - we are still filled with fear and trepidation - then that is a sign that our belief is lacking. If our belief is lacking then even the slightest sin is one to fear. As with the appointment of a king, everything is determined by our commitment and submission to malchus shamayim.

If the king sumbits to malchus shamayim, the people do the same and manifest this through observance of Torah and mitzvos as well as adhering to the Torah-based instructions of the king, then the merit of reciting the Shema daily with belief and conviction will overcome all other shortcomings and assure Divine salvation in all of our endeavors.

R'eh

Parshas R'eh leads with a vision of the spiritual climax of the journey of Bnei Yisrael that began with the exodus from Egypt. V'hayah ki y'viacha Hashem Elokecha el ha'aretz asher ata ba shamah l'rishtah...ki im el hamakom asher yivchar Hashem Elokeichem mikol shivteichem lasum es shmo sham l'shichno sidrashu uvasa shamah. Bnei Yisrael are about to enter the Holy Land and are assured that there will be a special place in this special land: the place of the Beis HaMikdash.

As we reach this spiritual climax the Torah informs us of two interesting, seemingly mundane, laws. Firstly, although prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash people were allowed to bring certain sacrifices anywhere in the land, after the building of the Beis HaMikdash the bringing of sacrifices was restricted to the confines of the Beis HaMikdash.

Second, although prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash if one wanted to have a meal of meat he was required to bring a korban Shelamim (no meat was allowed to be eaten if it was not part of a korban), afterwards Bnei Yisrael would be allowed to eat meat through the laws of shechitah wherever they reside, rather than bringing a korban.

Why, at this wondrous moment of spirituality informing us of the building of the Beis HaMikdash where the shechinah will reside in this world, does the Torah limit the kedusha of korbanos to the one site and introduce the seemingly mundane laws of shechitah - laws that change the previous status of kedusha through the bringing of korbanos to the secular one of shechitah?

The Torah is teaching us two lessons. Once we enter Eretz Yisrael and are no longer constantly receiving overt miracles in every aspect of life, like the manna, or living under the ananei hakavod, then we need to grasp reality. This transition has two parts. The first is a realization that seemingly mundane, secular, unholy acts can actually be made holy and sacred. Shechitah, if done according to the dictates of halachah, raises the seemingly mundane act of slaughter into one that resembles a korban. Indeed, Chazal explain that this is the reason why the laws of shechitah are introduced here, in connection to korbanos. Therefore, it is specifically now when we enter the Land and are told of the building of the Beis HaMikdash that the Torah needs to inform us that the Beis HaMikdash is not the only holy place. We need to infuse kedusha into each and every part of our lives in each and every place that we are, even if it is the seemingly most physical, mundane act like eating.

But there is a second lesson. Even though every part of our lives needs to be infused with kedusha, we must recognize that there are times and places of greater kedusha. Therefore, we must set aside times and specific places to reach greater levels of kedusha. These times and places are to be the instruments to stimulate us to greater levels even after we are removed from those times and places. They are to be used to springboard us to the next plateau of holiness in which we can establish ourselves until we can move to a higher one.

Shabbos is holier than other days of the week. Batei Medrash, shuls are holier than our offices. We need to incorporate the holiness of Shabbos and the beis medrash into our weekdays and homes and offices so that we can bring greater kedusha to each part of our lives. And then, each Shabbos, each time we enter the beis medrash, we are implored to strive to reach the holiness it represents and raise ourselves, even slightly, to another plateau.

The Torah is not limiting the kedusha through these two laws. Instead, it is expanding it by introducing kedusha to our non-miraculous, everyday lives. It is giving us the formula to turn every facet of our lives into ones that are infused with kedusha.

Eikev

In parshas Eikev, Moshe Rabbeinu continues to recount events of the journey through the desert. A central part of Moshe's monologue is the description of events surrounding the giving of the first set of Luchos, the subsequent breaking of those Luchos, followed by the giving of the second set of Luchos. During this monologue, the Torah utilizes three different terms in describing the Luchos. At times, the Luchos are referred to as Luchos; at times they are called Luchos avanim- Luchos of stone; and at times they are referred to as Luchos Habris- Luchos of the covenant.

Before Moshe Rabbeinu receives the second set of Luchos, he is commanded to fashion an Ark in which the Luchos can be placed. Moshe builds this Ark prior to his ascent to receive the second Luchos. Interestingly, the Torah utilizes three different terms in describing the Ark. At times, the Ark is referred to as Aron; at times it is called Aron Etz- the Ark of wood; and at times it is referred to as Aron Bris Hashem- the Ark of the covenant of Hashem. It seems that the three terms utilized to describe the Luchos parallel the three terms utilized to describe the Aron. One term (Luchos and Aron) seems to be a bland description; one term (Luchos avanim and Aron etz) seems to focus on the physical attributes; and one term (Luchos habris and Aron bris Hashem) emphasize the spiritual significance of these items. What is the significance of these terms?

The first set of Luchos were given with great fanfare. Kolos uverakim, v'hahar bo'er ba'aish, Moshe yedabeir v'ha'Elokim ya'anenu vekol. The second set of Luchos were given with more modesty. They were received on Yom Kippur, a solemn day of introspection and repentance. Both events were great events in the annals of Jewish history. Bnei Yisrael did not react to the giving of the first Luchos properly but that does not diminish the awesomeness of the event. Nonetheless, lessons can be learned from each event independently as well as the totality of the rubric called Matan Torah.

The terms utilized to describe the Luchos as well as the Aron Kodesh are explaining something quite simple. The Luchos and the Aron are great in their own right. However, what one accomplishes through them is dependent upon his/her attitude towards them. The Torah has great potential within it. Nonetheless, it is given in as bland a way as something so special can be given. It is Luchos, placed in an Aron. The question that each individual needs to answer is: will I look at the Luchos and the Aron as stones and wood, as physical items that are placed in a shul or on shelves; or will I turn the Luchos and the Aron into Luchos Habris and Aron Bris Hashem, spiritual pillars that supply the sustenance to achieve the greatest levels of avodas Hashem? If the lessons of the Torah are not internalized then the Luchos are merely physical stones that can be shattered. However, if the Luchos become Luchos habris then even when attempts are made to destroy the physical manifestation of that covenant, we are assured that osyos porchos - the letters continue to live on, aiding and supporting us in our continuous avodas Hashem.

Moshe's charge to us is to accept the Luchos and place them in the Aron, to guard the physical manifestation of each and to internalize the spiritual potential that they deliver, turning that spiritual potential into actual, tangible actions so that our spiritual lives attach themselves to real, physical actions, and our physical lives are constantly imbued with spirituality and kedusha.

Va'eschanan

Parshas Va'eschanan begins with Moshe's plea to Hashem to rescind the decree denying him access to Eretz Yisrael. Moshe's plea is a personal one. Why doesn't Moshe resort to a communal plea? The medrash informs us that while Moshe was on Har Sinai receiving the Today's he witnessed a Shiur being given by Rabbi Akiva. Distraught by his inability to comprehend the discussion, Moshe asks why the Torah is not being given through the great Rabbi Akiva. Only when he hears a debate finalized with the term halachah l'Moshe misinai is he comforted. Moshe is the premier and optimal teacher of Torah. Why doesn't Moshe request entry into the Land to benefit Bnei Yisrael rather than merely for himself? Moshe informs Bnei Yisrael that immediately following his plea Hashem became angry with him because of Bnei Yisrael - vayisaber Hashem be l'maanchem. The end of the verse implies that Hashem's anger was not due to the original sin but rather due to the request. Vayomeir Hashem ailaiy rav lach al tohsef dabeir ailay od badavar hazeh. The anger was due to Moshe's personal request so why are Bnei Yisrael being blamed? Later in the parsha Moshe tells of the events surrounding Matan Torah. In introducing the awesome occasion and special opportunity, Moshe describes the Torah as aish - fire. The term aish is used to describe the Torah fourteen times in this parsha. Why is that the term chosen? When one throws a piece of metal into a fire, the metal does not burn. It gets hot, it might soften or harden but it does not burn. If one throws a piece of wood onto a fire in a short time it will burn. Paper will burn even quicker and straw almost immediately. The fire is no different for each of these items. The reaction is different not because the fire is different but rather because the items are different. Ultimately, the result is dependent upon the combustibility of the item. Similarly, the Torah acts as a fire. Its impact is dependent upon the willingness of the individual to be impacted by the fire. The more a person is willing to be influenced and guided by Torah, the greater the impact. Moshe is emphasizing this lesson to Bnei Yisrael. Understanding this idea leads Moshe to a personal request rather than a communal one. Emphasizing the ability for each individual to control Torah's impact on his or her life, defines the power of the individual to achieve the greatest growth in Torah. Although Moshe is unquestionably the greatest Teacher, the ultimate impact and influence that Torah has is dependent on us as individuals. How willing are we to be completely enveloped in Torah? Moshe is not blaming Bnei Yisrael for the denial of his request to enter Eretz Yisrael, he is complimenting them. Moshe recognizes that he cannot make a communal plea because the individuals in the community can reach greatness through their own efforts, irrespective of the awesome and incomparable teaching and influence of Moshe Rabbeinui. His claim must be a personal one and that is the one that is denied. At this tome too, Moshe Rabbeinu teaches us the formula to assuring that Toras Moshe remains with us forever.

D'varim

The popular question regarding the spies is: why were they wrong in delivering their report about the Land to Moshe and the people? After all, Moshe charged them with checking out the land and its inhabitants and they did just that and reported their findings.

A more specific question can be asked. Parshas D'varim repeats the episode of the spies but with some important enhancements. In recounting the episode, Moshe describes a dialogue that occurred upon the delivery of the spies' report. Moshe explains that after the spies delivered their report, he responded with an attempt to alleviate their concerns by telling them they need not fear the battle since Hashem...hu yilachem lachem - Hashem will wage the battle for us. This dialogue is not mentioned in the original description of the episode in parshas Shelach. If it happened then why is it not mentioned in the original description? If it did not actually happen then why is Moshe stating that it did?

Indeed, the statement by Moshe of "Hashem...hu yilachem lachem" was not mentioned at the time of the report of the spies. It was actually expressed weeks earlier, at the time of the splitting of the sea. At that time, Bnei Yisrael were facing the impassable sea in front of them, the powerful Egyptian army behind them, and the impenetrable desert on either side of them. Fear and despair ruled the day. Moshe, understanding this emotional state, informs the people "Hashem yilachem lachem v'atem tacharishun" - Hashem will wage battle for Bnei Yisrael, while you can simply remain silent and observe. Avi mori explains that the two verbs in this verse can have two different meanings. The verb LaCHeM can mean do battle but it also can mean bread or sustenance. The verb taCHaRiSHun can mean silence (like a cheresh is a deaf mute) and it can mean to plow. At that moment, Moshe Rabbeinu was delivering two essential lessons that are foundations of Judaism, lessons that are not merely applicable to the specific events at Krias Yam suf but lessons that are to be incorporated into the very fibre of Jewish life. The first lesson is the simple translation of the verse: Hashem will always do battle for us and protect us while we can remain silent, in awe and admiration. The second lesson is that Hashem will always provide sustenance for us and always take care of us but we need to plow. We need to put forth effort and toil and then we are assured that Hashem will provide our sustenance, wage our battles, and assure our success.

Moshe did not need to specifically restate these lessons during the episode of the spies. He merely implored them to remember the lessons of Krias Yam Suf.

The sin of the spies was that they misunderstood the charge from Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe's instructions were not to see if the Land could be conquered, or if its inhabitants could be defeated. Hashem yilachem lachem. Hashem had already assured them that they would conquer the Land. There need not be any fear of any army. Moshe just wanted Bnei Yisrael to feel confident that the Land was one in which they could fulfill their requirements of 'plowing'.

U'mah ha'aretz hatovah hi im ra'ah - is the Land good to be worked and plowed.
U'mah he'arim asher hu yoshev baheinah habemachanim im bemivtzarim - are the cities walled? Can the Land withstand buildings? Can we build homes, yeshivas, synagogues? The spies thought that a land whose cities are fortified is problematic. Moshe thought that a land with fortified cities was a positive as it would imply that after the inevitable victory over the inhabitants of the Land, communities would be built easily.
Hechazak hu harafeh - are the inhabitants strong or weak? When we live there, will we be able to be healthy and grow strong?
U'mah ha'aretz hash'meinah hi im razah - is the Land fertile so that we will be able to support ourselves and our families?

Moshe's charge to the spies was to witness how good and strong the Land and its inhabitants are so that after Hashem yilachem lachem - after Hashem has defeated them for us, then v'atem tacharishun, we will be able to fulfill our end of the deal with personal efforts. The spies thought they were supposed to determine whether or not the inhabitants of the Land could be conquered. This was a lack of faith in the original charge of Hashem yilachem lachem. The battle was already won. They were only charged with assuring the people that v'atem tacharishun, that Bnei Yisrael would be able to perform their duties, thereby, assuring the fulfillment of the first half  of the verse in all its meanings: Hashem waging battles for us and eternally sustaining us.

Matos-Ma'asei

At the end of parshas Matos we are told of the discussion between Moshe Rabbeinu and the tribes of Gad and Reuven regarding the inheritance of the land of the Ever HaYarden. The initial request of the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven is met with anger by Moshe Rabbeinu based on his concern that this request will destroy the morale and will of the People to enter Eretz Yisrael -v'lamah s'niun es lev ha'am - just as the spies had done many years before. The verse then states "vayigshu ailav vayomru" Bnei Gad and Reuven come near to Moshe and speak to him, clarifying their request and explaining that they have no intention of disheartening nor abandoning Bnei Yisrael and will, indeed, lead the charge into the battlefield to capture Eretz Yisrael. The term vayigshu seems strange. Bnei Gad and Reuven were in the midst of a discussion with Moshe Rabbeinu. They made a request and recieved a response. Presumably they were already standing right near him while in the midst of this conversation. Why is there a need to vayigshu - come near - if they were already there?

In the beginning of parshas Ma'asei we are told of 42 journeys of Bnei Yisrael during their 40 year sojourn in the desert. The verse tells us that they encamped and travelled at and through various places without any details of the events that occurred at these stops, even though Chazal inform us of some significant events that occurred at many of them. Of the 42 stops, the Torah only informs us of events that occurred at three of them: Ailim (there were 12 springs and 70 date trees); Refidim (where the people did not have water); Hor Hahar (where Aharon Hakohen died and was buried). Why are these three places singled out for description of events versus the other 39 stops?

There are two other places of interest where the term vayigash is used that can shed light on its meaning in general and its particular significance during the discussion between Moshe and the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven.

Vayigash ailav Yehuda. After the sons of Yaakov return to Egypt to face the wrath of the viceroy Yosef and the charges against Binyamin of stealing Yosef's goblet, the verse informs us that Yehuda approaches Yosef. The verses at the end of the previous parhsa (Miketz) began the story of the return of the brothers to Egypt and the initiation of the discussion between them and Yosef. It is specifically in the middle of this discussion that the verse informs us that Yehuda comes closer to Yosef - vayigash ailav Yehuda. Why does the verse tell us that Yehuda came near to Yosef if he was already near him for the beginning of their conversation?

Similarly, during the episode of Yitzchak's blessing to Yaakov, the term vayigash - coming near - is used quite often (g'sha na va'amushcha bni, vayagesh lo). Here, too, Yaakov is already in front of Yitzchak. Why does he need to further approach Yitzchak?

The term vayigash connotes two important ideas. First, it is an intimate discussion that might clarify matters but does not change from its original point. Yehuda does not waver from his original request to free Binyamin. Perhaps there is a more strenuous argument, perhaps even a different argument, nonetheless a steadfast commitment to the original plea of saving Binyamin from the hands of Yosef remains. Similarly, Yitzchak requests that Yaakov approach him but maintains his intention of delivering the blessings to the child before him. Perhaps he wants more clarity of the individual but does not waver from his original intent of blessing that child.

Second, the term vayigash recognizes a need for sensitivity to others around the conversation. Yehuda understands the sensitivity he needs to exhibit in his discussions with the viceroy of Egypt as he insists on a modification of the original decree against Binyamin. This modification could have a deleterious impact on the viceroy's authority. Similarly, Yitzchak is sensitive towards the feelings of the 'other' brother who will not be a recepient of these blessings.

These are the ideas expressed by Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven as well. They are reprimanded by Moshe in the strongest terms. They are accused of actions that can cause catastrophic events, as powerful as those caused by one of the most catastrophic moments in Jewish history: the episode of the spies. Yet, they approach Moshe with steadfast resolve to pursue their original goal: attainment and acquisition of Ever HaYarden. They do not waver or modify their argument or request. They merely clarify it. Nonetheless, they are sensitive to Moshe's concerns and, therefore, approach Moshe more quietly, sensitive to the danger that this request could cause.

The description of the journeys of Klal Yisrael offer a similar idea. The encampments that contain detail are of particular significance. First, we are told of Ailim. Ailim is a place with twelve springs, one for each Tribe, and 70 date trees, one for each of the Elders. Ailim is a place where the need for each individual tribe and individuals in general is considered. However, the second area with detail is Refidim - a place riddled with controversy, bereft of concern for other opinions and the consequences of machlokes for all of society. The consequences of the controversy led to the deaths of Moshe and Aharon. Hence, the description of the third place - Hor Hahar - explaining to us that if we violate the need for sensitivity to others and choose a path of machlokes then catastrophe follows.

These parshiyos are delivering the formula for success as we enter Eretz Yisrael. The formula for both immediate and sustained success is vayigash: unwavering commitment to Torah, mitzvos, and Jewish morals and ethics without sacrificing the highest levels of sensitivity and concern for the needs of every member of Klal Yisrael; as well as the the need to display the utmost sensitivity and concern for every member of Klal Yisrael without sacrificing our steadfast commitment to Torah, mitzvos, and Jewish morals and ethics.

Pinchas

The initial prerequisite for membership in the Kehunah was that Aharon, his sons, and all grandchildren born after the the command regarding the Kehuna would be Kohanim. However, any grandchildren already born at the time of the command would not be considered Kohanim. This excluded Pinchas who was already born at that time. Pinchas' zeal expressed through the episode of Zimri enabled Pinchas to acquire the Kehuna. Chazal tell us that Pinchas was rewarded with becoming the Kohen Mashuach Milchama and that many Kohanim Gedolim were from the line of Pinchas. Chazal imply that Pinchas was destined to be Mashuach milchama. If he had not acted as he did during the episode with Zimri, would the role not have existed? Did he take the role from another?

Later in parshas Pinchas, the process of the division of the land of Eretz Yisrael is described. The Torah informs us that large amounts of land would go to the larger Tribes while smaller amounts would go to the smaller ones. Yet, the Torah emphasizes several times that the division of the Land occurred through a lottery. The former description of the process of division was based on a logical, mathematical formula. The latter description leaves the results entirely to chance. If, ultimately, division of the Land was implemented via lottery then why the need for a calculated, mathematical approach? If final allotments were distributed through Divine intervention then why the need for any human element in the process?

A similar question can be asked of another episode in parshas Pinchas. The laws regarding inheritance are Biblical laws. Rashi explains kach kesuva parsha zu lefanai bamarom - the section of inheritance was already written. If so, then why do we not learn about those laws until the advent of Bnos Tzelafchad? The bnos Tzelafchad requested and were granted an exception to the laws of inheritance. However, Chazal inform us that those exceptions were already part of the Biblical laws of inheritance. We would have had those laws anyway so why the intervention of the bnos Tzelafchad?

Finally, a similar theme applies to yet another episode in parshas Pinchas. Moshe Rabbeinu requests of Hashem that a leader be chosen who will most effectively guide and lead the Nation. Rashi explains that Moshe wanted his sons to fulfill that role but Hashem had already chosen Yehoshua. If Hashem had already chosen Yehoshua for that role then why did the final decision need to wait for Moshe's 'official'
 request?

The theme of the parsha is evident in all of these questions. The Torah is informing us that there are things in the universe, things in one's individual existence that have potential. That potential may lay latent until someone actualizes it. The possibilities and potential are great but may not come to fruition without human effort. In all the above situations, the latent potential required human intervention to actualize it. There certainly would have been a Mashuach milchama but it might not have been Pinchas, it might not have been at that moment, it might not have been as important a role, and it might not have achieved as much if not for the heroic exploits of Pinchas which actualized the latent holiness of the role of Mashuach milchama.

The division of Eretz Yisrael was going to happen with or without the participation of Bnei Yisrael. However, their active involvement in calcculating the division of the Land solidified their attachment to it and, thereby, enhanced the holiness of the Land and created an everlasting connection between the Land and its People.

The laws of inheritance would have been part of the halachic code of Judaism irrespective of the request of Bnos Tzelafchad. Nonetheless, the timing of their request, corresponding to the division of Eretz Yisrael associated the importance of the inheritance not merely with standard material possessions but with the Land, further increasing the bond that all of Bnei Yisrael - men and women alike - have with the holiness of Eretz Yisrael.

Finally, Yehoshua's appointment would have occurred without Moshe Rabbeinu's intervention. However, Moshe's request symbolizes the concern that all Jewish leaders need to demonstrate to assure the continuity and sustainability of the Jewish People. Moshe's impassioned plea actualized the potential of all future Jewish leaders to put the needs of Klal Yisrael above all else.

The theme of the parsha emphasizes the responsibility that individuals have to actualize potential. Great potential lays latent awaiting an action, a stimulus by someone to break its shackles and free it from its caged existence of mere potential and deliver its benefits to the entire world. Pinchas epitomized actualizing potential. His actions were ones that Moshe Rabbeinu or anyone else witnessing the event could have taken. The verse tells us v'haima bochim - Bnei Yisrael were crying upon witnessing the actions of Zimri. They did not side with Zimri and were pained by his blatant, public sin. Yet, no one was willing to act to prevent this terrible sin from being publicly performed by Zimri. Alas, Pinchas entered the scene, full of courage and zeal and acted to defend the honor of Hashem, actualizing the great potential of a bris shalom - a treaty of peace - awaiting this very moment.

Balak

Parshas Balak describes Bnei Yisrael's confrontation with two antagonistic nations: Moav and Midyan. Although Jewish history is littered with nations launching ultimately unsuccessful campaigns intent on destroying the Jewish people, Moav and Midyan present unique challenges.

Rashi, basing his interpretation on nuances of specific words in the verses, explains that Moav did not intend on destroying Bnei Yisrael; she merely wanted to assure that Bnei Yisrael would not remain on her borders - lehasiyam me'alai - presenting an ever-present threat. Rashi, again explaining language that implies the Moabite messengers of Balak remaining with Bilam rather than the Midyanite messengers, explains that Midyan believed that success in their initiative to defeat Bnei Yisrael could only be achieved through immediate accommodation by Bilam. Any hesitation would doom the mission to failure. Upon Bilam's hesitation they absconded. Why was Moav willing to forego attempts at complete destruction and 'settle' for a partial military victory? Why was Midyan unwilling to persist in their efforts, instead choosing to abandon the mission upon the slightest setback?

Perhaps more than any other nation, Moav understood that the zechus of our Forefathers prevents complete destruction and annihilation. Moav's very existence is a product of that unique bond between Hashem and Avraham. A Divine decree was issued assuring the utter destruction of Sedom and its surrounding cities. All the people were to be annihilated and the city literally turned upside down. Yet, amidst the destruction, Lot and two of his daughters were saved. The zechus of Avraham was enough to overcome the Divine decree of utter annihilation to save Avraham's not-too-righteous relatives from that decree. Hahara himaleit. Lot and his daughters were spared. That night, the incestuous cohabitation of Lot with his daughter produced Moav. The people of Moav were living proof that Divine mercy always saves the offspring of Avraham. If Avraham's zechus could save Lot from the Divine decree against Sedom, then any attempt at completely destroying the Bnei Avraham was destined to failure. Understanding this, Moav chose another route; one that could assure their safety without attempting to achieve the impossible.

Similarly, Midyan was the nation that understood that any opening for Divine mercy available to a member of Bnei Yisrael would certainly be leveraged to achieve success for Bnei Yisrael. Parshas Vayeishev describes the events surrounding the sale of Yosef. The brothers decreed the death sentence for Yosef. He was flung into a pit, left to die. In a moment of compassion, regret, or practicality, Yehuda suggests an alternative punishment. Selling Yosef, rather than leaving him to die, would bring greater benefit to the brothers. And so, the brothers agreed to sell Yosef. The verse tells us that Yehuda suggested selling Yosef to the Yishma'eilim - l'chu v'nimkhrenu la'Yishmaeilim. However, after informing us of the brothers' acquiescence to this new decree, the verse tells us that a group of Midyanite merchants happen to be passing by and so they get involved in the sale of Yosef. The description of Yosef's sale is detailed and cryptic. Chazal explain that we are told of these details to inform us that Yosef was sold many times before ultimately ending up in Egypt. But why do we need to know the identities of all the intermediary acquirers? Does it really matter that the Midyanim were involved?

The Midyanite merchants involved in Yosef's sale witnessed the interaction of Yosef and his brothers. Death was decreed upon Yosef. Upon seeing merchants in the vicinity, Yehuda has a change of heart and suggests a reprieve for Yosef. The punishment will still be severe and probably lead to an untimely demise. Nonetheless, a reprieve is, indeed, granted. The Midyanim also witness Yosef's sale to Egypt, the beginning of a journey that ultimately leads to Yosef's attainment of the position of viceroy in the most powerful nation on earth. Midyan witnessed what occurs when a moment of reprieve is granted to Bnei Yisrael. Even the slightest reprieve, the most minute moment will stir up Divine mercy and compassion that doesn't merely overturn a decree of destruction but, ultimately, leads to boundless, unimaginable success.

Therefore, it is specifically Moav who recognizes that attempts at utterly destroying Bnei Yisrael is a futile endeavor. And it is specifically Midyan who recognize that even a moment's hesitation is sure to not only grant Bnei Yisrael a reprieve from any curse of Bilam but also assure unbridled, overflowing, eternal Divine blessing to rest upon them.

Chukas

The Haftarah of Chukas relays the story of the shofet Yiftach. The most obvious connection between the parsha and the haftarah seems to be the description of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael given by Moshe in the parsha and Yiftach in the haftarah. Nonetheless, there seems to be a more intertwined connection that connects Yiftach to an even earlier period in Jewish history, thereby delivering an additional message.

Yiftach is chased away from his home by his brothers and achieves great success on his own. There is obvious animosity between the family, yet when they come to him for help, Yiftach responds positively. Yiftach puts aside the history of animosity because he understands that, irrespective of any issues, one must answer the call of a Jew in need.

Avraham Avinu had a similar experience. Avraham understood that there was a riv bein mikne roeh Lot uven roeh mikne Avram - there was conflict between his people and Lot's. Avraham could no longer live in the same vicinity as Lot and so they part ways. Nonetheless, when Avraham heard of the trouble that befell Lot and the danger he was in, he sprang to action, putting aside all their differences to come to the aid of a brother in need.

The Navi tells us that Yiftach's family returned to ask him to be their leader. Yiftach responds halo atem s'naisem osi vategarshuni mibeis avi u'madua basem elai ata - you hate me and chased me away so why do you come back now. This same claim is made by Yitzchak Avinu. After Yitzchak achieves great success in the land of the Plishtim he is chased away and battles with the Plishtim about water wells. Upon witnessing the remarkable, heaven-sent success of Yitzchak, Avimelech approaches Yitzchak to suggest a treaty between them. Yitzchak responds madua basem elai v'atem s'naisem osi vateshalchuni me'itchem - why do you come to me? You hate me and chased me away from you. Yiftach's connection is not only with Avraham but continues with Yitzchak.

Just prior to Yiftach's commencement of the war against Amon, he prays to Hashem. The verse states vayidar Yiftach neder Lashem - Yiftach makes a neder (promise) to Hashem. If Hashem will grant him success in battle then he promises something in return. Yaakov Avinu acted similarly. Upon leaving his parents' home, Yaakov has a dream. Upon awakening, he realizes that he is in a special place and the verse states vayidar Yaakov neder - Yaakov makes a neder. He, too, says that if Hashem will watch over him and grant him success in his endeavors then he will do things in return.

These comparisons of Yiftach with epsisodes and acts of Avraham, Yitzvhak, and Yaakov are also acts that find comparisons in parshas Chukas. Moshe Rabbeinu is told that he will not be able to bring Bnei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. His role will end prior to their entry. Yet, immediately after this pronouncement by Hashem, Moshe begins the battles necessary to assure Bnei Yisrael's entry into the Land, even while knowing that the sooner they enter the land the sooner will end his role. He immediately confronts Midyan to assure Bnei Yisrael's success because when Bnei Yisrael are in need the call must be answered regardless of the personal consequences.

The idea of water wells also plays a prominent role in the parsha. The punishment of Moshe and Aharon occur through the well and Bnei Yisrael sing about the wonders of the well. The water well can cause great damage but it can also bring about miracles and salvation. The wells of Yitzchak brought about pain, anguish, and hatred but they also brought great bracha of success (Meah Shearim).

Lastly, Chukas also tells us of a neder made by Bnei Yisrael. After the battle with Canaan results in one Jew being taken captive, Bnei Yisrael seek salvation and make a neder to Hashem - vayidar Yisrael neder Lashem - if Hashem brings about their salvation then they will do something in return.

It is not merely that there are comparisons in both the parsha and the haftarah to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, but that they are the same comparisons. There are numerous stories of the Avos but parshas Chukas and the haftarah of Chukas make reference to the same specific stories of the Avos: Avraham's battle against those that harm his family, Yitzchak's episode with the well, Yaakov's neder. What is the lesson?

If anyone had reason NOT to battle against the goyim, it was Avraham. Avraham epitomized chesed. Avraham was widely accepted by his neighbors and countrymen as nesi Elokim. War against his countrymen and neighbors would surely diminish his standing, endanger his security, and impact his influence upon others, hence undermine his life's mission. Avraham could have easily rationalized that the long term benefit of maintaining peaceful relationships outweighed the short term requirements of coming to the aid of his family. Instead, Avraham acted as a warrior. His brother was in need and he did not hesitate for even a moment to come to his aid. The potential consequences of his actions were inconsequential relative to the importance of helping a Jew in need.

If anyone had reason to act in violence against Avimelech, it was Yitzchak. Yitzchak epitomized gevurah and mishpat. Avimelech expelled Yitzchak from his land and actively and overtly hated him. Yitzchak could have easily rationalized that there could be nothing positive from negotiation or reconciliation with Avimelech. Yet, Yitzchak acted in peace. Yitzchak chose the path of peace hoping that even a partial avoidance of confrontation would benefit his family.

Rarely are life's circumstances clearly black and white. We are often unsure of the proper path to take and there are often valid arguments for each side. Sometimes, the headstrong need to act in peace and the passive need to act with strength and aggressiveness. Our knowledge of the right path is limited. There is only one thing we can do to assure success: neder Lashem. We must seek out the guidance of Hashem and His Torah, ask for his kindness and protection so that whatever decision is made will procure positive results. The parsha is informing us that whether we choose to act forcefully or peacefully with the nations of the world, the formula for success is simple: neder Lashem. The Torah is informing us that if we make a neder Lashem, if we put our trust and faith in Hashem, if we earnestly pray for his guidance and protection then the decision made - regardless of the position in which it falls on the spectrum - will be a successful one. Whether the decision employs the chesed of Avraham or the battles of Avraham, the gevurah of Yitzchak or the peace treaties of Yitzchak, the battles of Moshe and Yiftach or the peaceful miracles of the well and the reconciliation of Yiftach and his family, ultimately, success is dependent upon the extent, the power, and the commitment of our neder Lashem.