A Thought on Parshas Vaeschanan

"...b'kol levavcha u'v'kol nafshecha u'v'kol m'od'echa..." "...with all your heart and all your soul and your possessions..." (6:5) We all know the words of Sh'ma Yisroel, which instruct us to love HaShem will all our heart, soul and possessions. There are familiar teachings as to the scope of this commandment, which our sages and commentaries have taught us. The concept of loving G-d is a lofty one, as well as a formal commandment. The emphasis on loving with our hearts, our souls and our possessions seems meaningful and needs clarification. The Bechor Shor writes that loving HaShem with all your heart means that one can have no ambivalence about this love. It is human to have competing thoughts and interests. We can like someone or something yet concurrently entertain our doubts about it or them. We can be "of two minds" about someone. The word "heart" in our verse is not written with one bais (lev). It is written with two (levav) which the Bechor Shor understands as representing the unified mind. Loving HaShem with "all your heart" means to direct your thoughts and feelings towards learning to love Him. Overcome your proclivity to doubt and ambivalence. Meanwhile, the concept of loving Him with the entire soul, says the Bechor Shor, means directing your desire towards that love. A person needs to want to love HaShem, and to enjoy the feeling he or she gets when they get in touch with that love. We are commanded to love Him, and to love loving Him. The third principle, loving Him with all your possessions, is interpreted in a novel manner by the Bechor Shor. How is a person meant to love Him with his or her possessions? It does not mean to love HaShem in a possessive way. It does not mean to be possessed with the idea of loving Him, although that concept seems related to the earlier principle of loving with all your soul, as explained earlier. The Bechor Shor suggests that this facet of the commandment means to"purchase love of HaShem" with our possessions: when we go out, when we acquire things, when we engage in prosperous and productive living, we are meant to utilize our acquisitions and our accomplishments in ways which promote love of HaShem. What this means is that all of our material and worldly pursuits need to include a quest for becoming closer to HaShem. We can fix cars, collect garbage, cook meals, heal bodies, do taxes or teach Torah. Whatever we do, according to the Bechor Shor, should and can bring us closer to love of HaShem if we look for Him in our experiences, if we seek Him in our successes, and yearn for Him when we fail. Loving G-d with all your possessions means to include the pursuit of the Divine in all of our pursuits. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Devarim

"...mol Suf..." "...near Suf..." (1:1) The Torah gives a short review of the places and events under Moshe Rabbeinu's leadership over forty years. Most of the commentaries see in these references a blend of place names with their associated events. Paran, Tofel, Di Zahav, Suf........some of those words are unfamiliar to us, and are interpreted as image metaphors for key locations in the desert travelogue where important incidents happened. Our verse mentions Suf, which could represent the Yam Suf - the putative Red Sea (or Reed Sea) or could refer to other places. The puzzling word, however, is "mol." Rashi views it as equivalent to the more common word "mul" which means adjacent to or near (as in 2:19 where mul is used.) Thus, mol Suf really means mul Suf, and refers to our early history after the departure from Egypt where our people hesitated, in fact, before fleeing straight into the Sea. A difficulty which I have with this interpretation, however, is one which I am sure that Rashi faced as well. Throughout the entire Torah and Ta'Na'Ch, there is only one time where the word mul is spelled mol. It seems as if the Torah would have written mul Suf had it intended the meaning which Rashi ascribes to the verse. According to Rashi, our own verse's use of this spelling would be the only other time where we find this form of the word. Noch a mol. So what does mol mean when it is spelled with the o sound and not the u sound? The Bechor Shor tackles this and writes that mol virtually always means to cut, as in bris mila. What does cutting have to do with Suf? He suggests that in Tehillim (136:13), the splitting of the Yam Suf is referred to as cutting - "l'gozer Yam Suf le'gezarim. (I note that in the gemara, we find "Rabbi Yehuda haGozer"- Rabbi Judah the Cutter, which refers to his having been an expert mohel, one who circumcises.) So with this insight, our verse must be understood as "when HaShem cut the sea into parts, as the Jewish people cut across it." Mol Suf is the same as that expression cited above fromTehillim, and means "the cutting or splitting of the Reed Sea." This is loyal to the general meaning of the word mol, and does not require, as Rashi does, that we understand mol as if it were mul. According to Rashi, the verse references our having stopped near the Sea. According to the Bechor Shor, the verse references the actual event of how we were able to traverse that frightening body of water which blocked our flight to freedom. This Shabbos is known as Shabbos Chazon. May the Nine Days close with signs of geula. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Pinchas

"...tmimim yi'yhu lachem..." "...unblemished shall they be for you..." (28:19) The Torah often writes that the sacrificial offerings must be temimim - pure and unblemished - as befits any gift or offering which one might bring in serving the Divine. It is easy for us to understand, at a human level, why a sacrifice would be deemed unfit were it to have physical imperfections. The question on the above verse, though, is the word lachem which means "for you." Generally, the Torah writes that these offerings must be temimim without then adding that they must be pure and unblemished "for us." The Bechor Shor offers a midrash-halachic approach this week. That is, he interprets the verse in a manner which draws a halachic meaning from the words. What are we talking about here? This verse refers explicitly to offerings which were brought on yom tov, on Pesach to be exact. All offerings anytime needed to be unblemished, yet the Torah writes here with regard to bringing yom tov sacrifices that they (too) must be unblemished, and must be unblemished "for us." What makes Pesach any different than all other occasions? The Bechor Shor observes that what makes a yom tov, or Shabbos, different than all of the other week days when offerings might be brought is that on our holy days we are forbidden to engage in actions which are considered non-essential work. In the event that an animal was not carefully checked and was slaughtered in order to make it a Temple sacrifice, and a blemish was then discovered, the work performed in preparing that animal would have been in vain and thus non-essential. The persons who had engaged in that work would be, by negligent accident, desecrating the holy day. Thus, the mandate of having the offerings on those days "temimim" is not only an objective requirement; it is a subjective requirement binding each person involved in the Temple process. For our own spiritual sake, we need to make sure the animals are temimim. What our verse intends, then, is that we understand that the offerings must be pure, not only because all Temple offerings must be unblemished, but on holy days, we ourselves need to ascertain that no needless work is done, which would happen in the event that an unfit animal were slaughtered, rendering the process meaningless, and bringing avoidable iniquity "to us." At a deeper level, a lesson to derive from this interpretation is that HaShem's rules, even when seeming clear and objective, take on a subjective and personal importance to each of us. We have much to gain within ourselves from focused and objectified observance. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Balak

"...hen am ka'lavi yakum...kara shochav ka'ari..." "...this nation will rise like a lion... it will rest like a lion..." (23:23; 24:9) The Heaven-sent visions of Bila'am forecast the ascendance of the Jewish nation in their glorious future. He speaks in inspired poetry, some of which is captured in the above verses. Therein, he portrays the Jews in their homeland with imagery depicting them as lions, as the "king of beasts." The lions in these two images are, variously, arising and poised, or poised in repose. There are a number of interpretations of these images. The Bechor Shor offers that the first image of the lion perched and poised is a reference to the era of the Temple. Our nation will be proud and steadfast in its committed service to HaShem. We will stand proud and not lie down nor rest from doing what is right. The second image, that of the lion at rest, captures another facet of that same era in time. The lion at rest remains intimidating; no one dares to disturb the lion when it is at ease. During the best times in our history, the nations of the world leave us alone, and appreciate us from afar. When we are doing what is just, and living righteous lives, the world around us lets us be. As Rav Elchonon Wasserman zt'l, the sainted father of my great rebbe Rav Simcha Wasserman zt'l observed, the separation between Jew and gentile is meant to be similar to the division between light and darkness, day and night: they are not the same entities. They are meant to remain separate. When we do what we are meant to do, there is a safe distance between us which promotes our continuing our avoda. When, however, we attempt to mimic and assimilate, there is a natural response built in to the cosmos - the nations will draw away from us, forcing us to feel isolated in a less favorable manner. This seems to be the concept of the Bechor Shor as well. When we are not afraid to be Jews and live as Jews should, the world does not interfere with our practices and our faith. We can remain at rest, not needing to defend ourselves, when we are faithful and fearless about our dedication to HaShem's Torah. When we lack the pride of the lion, however, there is indeed grounds for us to be fearful. This week is known to be the week of the murder of Rav Elchonon, many of his family, and his students in the Kovna ghetto during the Second World War. May HaShem avenge his and their lives, and may their great merits influence and help protect us. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Chukas

"...there is no food and water...and HaShem sent serpents..." (21:5-6) "...ain lechem v'ain mayim...va'y'shalach HaShem bo'am es ha'nechashim..." After the nation complained about their limited diet, surviving on manna day after day, the Torah introduces the episode of the serpents which entered the desert camp and killed many people. There are many interpretations on this passage, and even our Mishnaic sages have addressed the incident, culling lessons of faith and spirituality from it. The difficult part is the serpents, or snakes. What was the symbolic lesson which the people were to derive from expressing discontent and lack of appreciation for their miraculous sustenance, and the subsequent onsetof the snake attacks? The Bechor Shor offers a novel insight. Earlier in the Torah (Bereishis 3:15), we read of the punishment given to the primeval snake in Eden: "you'll eat dust all the days of your life". We can infer from there that everything a snake eats tastes of dust. It slithers in the dirt and cannot rise above the ground, so all that it devours is flavored with dust and dirt. In contrast, the Jews were given lechem min ha'Shomayim, manna sent from Above, which our tradition relates had the property to take on all tastes, all flavors, according to each person's imaginative desires. Nonetheless, we complained that it wasn't enough. We wanted real food, not spiritual food which excited the senses and nourished the body while prompting people to sense the Divine Presence with immediacy and realism. Such eating seemed arduous and burdensome. People griped about wanting plain food with no strings attached and no religious conditions. Those who complained missed the point, dismissed feelings of gratitude, overlooked the sense of a focused individualized bond with HaShem, and lost out on the gift and the potential for elevated consciousness of the Divine. What better and more fitting consequence then to encounter the polar opposite: another creature which, no matter what morsel it swallows, can only experience the consistent monotony of tasting dirt. We could savor all flavors while the snake tasted no food flavor, only the torpid taste of terrain. While the consequence was concrete, it was also spiritual, reminding the people that it is HaShem alone Who shapes our experiences. It is HaShem alone Who we can turn to when life is tough, yet also Who we should turn to when life is good. Good Shabbos. D Fox