 |
 |
|
|
Back to This Week's Parsha | Previous Issues
Volume I, Issue 22
PARSHA INSIGHTS At the beginning of the Parsha, Yacov sends angels to Eisav and instructs them to say, "I have sojourned (gartee) with Lavan and have lingered until now" (Vayishlach 32,5). Rashi cites the words of Chazal which expound on this statement of Yacov as follows, "The numerical value of gartee is six hundred thirteen, as if to say 'I sojourned with Lavan, the evil one, yet I kept the six hundred thirteen commandments and I did not learn from his evil actions.' " How is it possible for Yacov to have spent so many years with a rasha such as Lavan and leave unscathed and untainted?Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt"l, Yerushalayim, explains that the Torah actually provides us with an answer in the very next passage. Yacov further instructs the angels to tell Eisav that "I have acquired (va'yehee lee) ox and donkey, flock and servant…." (Vayishlach 32,6). Though "va'yehee lee" is commonly translated as "I have acquired," the literal translation is "and it was to me." With these words, Yacov was essentially stating his assessment of Lavan. Yacov viewed Lavan as an animal - an "ox and donkey." Since Yacov considered Lavan no better than an animal, he was able to protect himself from acquiring the negative qualities of Lavan. Would a person eat off the ground or roll in the mud because he observed this behavior in an animal? Using this insight, the word "it" in the verse "and it was to me" refers to Lavan and assessing him as having the spiritual value of an ox or donkey. One must remember, that upon observing someone who relinquishes his status as a "person" with actions of an animal, he must perceive his essence as that of an animal. With this approach, one guarantees for himself that he will not learn from that behavior.
It is important for us to remember that our ancestors which are discussed in the Torah, were righteous beyond our comprehension. It is, therefore, improper to think that they were motivated and driven by the same pettiness and trivialities that control our actions. The manner in which the story of Dina and Shechem is often understood, places Dina and her avenging brothers in a bad light. The Chasam Sofer, however, offers some penetrating insights into this incident, casting positive understanding into Dinah's character and her subsequent actions. The Torah relates that "Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Yacov, went out to look over the daughters of the land" (Vayishlach 34,1). Rashi comments that Torah describes Dinah as the daughter of Leah, as opposed to the daughter of Yacov, because just as Leah "went out," so did Dinah follow in those ways. This statement can be understood in two opposite ways, one describing Leah and Dinah negatively and the other in a positive light. In Parshas Vayeitzei (30,16) the Torah states that "Leah went out to meet Yacov" after she procured the right to spend private time with him. This action by Leah can be understood as improper, since she was discussing a private matter publicly. Based on this interpretation, it seems that Rashi is saying that just as Leah "went out" in open pursuit of private matters, so too Dinah "went out" amongst the daughters of the land with a similar objective, portraying her in a negative way as well. However, upon a closer examination of Leah's "going out," the Torah is actually revealing the purity of Leah's actions. The Chasam Sofer observes that the outcome of this incident with Leah was the birth of Yissachar. The tribe of Yissachar became the talmidei chochomim of B'nei Yisroel. If Leah had acted improperly, then a product such as Yissachar would not have resulted. Therefore, when Leah "went out" to meet Yacov, it was not for selfish reasons. Leah's meeting with Yacov was driven by holy and pure intentions, which produced a major foundation upon which Jewish life is built. In comparing Leah to Dina, Rashi is actually informing us that Dina "went out" with pure motives. The Chasam Sofer explains that Dinah "went out" in order to observe the "daughters of the land" and learn from their actions which behavior to avoid. A similar idea is stated in Chazal (Avoda Zora), about a Tanna who stood by the door of a house of ill repute to learn how "not to behave." Dinah would not, however, have ventured out "into the world" unless she felt that her father's merit would protect her, as we find that Avrohom's merit protected Sorah from Pharaoh and Avimelech. Unfortunately for Dinah, she did not realize that Hashem would only prevent her from becoming defiled if the perpetrator and not only the "defiled" merited divine intervention. Sorah was saved because Pharaoh and Avimelech had merit, which caused Hashem to protect them from sinning. Shechem, on the other hand, had no merit at all, so Hashem did not prevent him from acting.
TABLE TALK THE DILEMMA Today, Boruch would like to return to the office to complete personal work that on other days he had been doing at the office after the end of the workday. Is it permissible for Boruch to return to the office at 4:00 and do personal work, since he did have permission to go home and not return to the office? Is there a problem of maaris ayin since Boruch's co-workers and boss may think that he is tending to personal matters on company time?
(Consult your Rav for a proper halachic ruling) WHO AM I?
1. My name was my contents.
(Please send us your answer by e-mail to gkrainess@adelphia.net. The answer will appear in next week's issue) Last week's clues and answer: I am praised for my praises; My ancestor was from my father; I fired the "shot" heard around the "world;" The despised rock became the cornerstone - Dovid HaMelech (King David) Congratulations to The Bein brothers, Morry Glicksman, Yitzchok Matitia, Mr. Neil Parks, Mrs. Ahuva Schabes and The Solomon brothers
CAN YOU SAY THAT? Is there ever any circumstance where Reuven may tell others that Shimon had embarrassed, damaged or robbed another person? Answer: Yes; based on the following seven conditions: 1) Reuven has first hand knowledge of the misdeed, such as Reuven must have seen it occur himself. 2) Reuven must determine that the act that he saw was indeed improper. 3) Reuven must have first attempted to correct the wrongdoer. 4) Reuven must not exaggerate any part of the story while relying it. 5) Reuven's intention to report the misdeed must be for a good purpose, such as
a) Reuven desires to help the person who was damaged or robbed recover compensation; 7) Reuven must be sure that the consequences to the wrongdoer, which will result by Reuven's discussing the matter with others, will not be more severe than the penalties that a beis din (Torah court) would impose. (Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - hilchos loshon hora)
TORAH RIDDLE Is it possible for someone to be half Cohen and half Yisroel? (Please send us your answer by e-mail to gkrainess@adelphia.net. The answer will appear in next week's issue) Last week's question and answer: Is it possible for a bechor (first born male) not to receive a double portion of his father's inheritance? Yes. If the bechor is an only child; if the bechor dies before his father and the bechor is childless; or if the bechor chooses to not take a double portion. Congratulations to Yosef Hillel Bein THE KOLLEL FAMILY MAZEL TOV Dr. & Mrs. Dovid Guttman on the birth of a girl Mr. & Mrs. Jack Guttman on the birth of a granddaughter
COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD The Cedar-Green Community Kollel Friday Evening Parsha Classes will convene this week at 8:00.
*Beachwood……………….Contact Rabbi Katz 360-9153
(Please inform us if you wish to have a happy or solemn occasion or a community or personal event posted on the Community Bulletin Board - Thank you.) To sponsor an issue of Oneg Shabbos, please contact Leib Chaim Krainess, Director of
Kollel Development at (216) 559-0638 or gkrainess@adelphia.net. THIS WEEK'S ONEG SHABBOS IS SPONSORED BY
CEDAR-GREEN COMMUNITY KOLLEL: |
Shema Yisrael Torah Network
info@shemayisrael.co.il
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il
Jerusalem, Israel
732-370-3344